Sonia Kiruluta v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 49037

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15839/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Sonia Kiruluta

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Erica Weinberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Sonia Kiruluta, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative Sharon Nelson, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: May 21, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Sonia Kiruluta (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or the “respondent”) to suspend their Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive safely.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason. Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”) states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister of Transportation may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle of the appropriate class safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. They acknowledge that they suffered a seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal but deny the seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal significantly interferes with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

7To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal?

ii. If so, is it likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely?

8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely and I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the medical reports and letters submitted by emergency room physician, Dr. Chen, and the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Rizk.

12In the August 13, 2023 unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”), Dr. Chen checked off that the appellant suffered sudden incapacitation due to seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal. Dr. Chen also wrote that the appellant seized for two minutes and it was a tonic clonic seizure after abusing many drugs.

13In the November 20, 2023 completed Substance Use Assessment form (“SUA form”), Dr. Rizk checked off that the appellant experienced one episode of seizure in the past 12 months, that being on August 13, 2023, and the seizure was due to alcohol and drug withdrawal.

14In letters authored by Dr. Rizk on December 21, 2023, February 7, 2024 and March 13, 2024, Dr. Rizk again confirmed that the appellant suffered a seizure on August 13, 2023 due to alcohol and drug withdrawal.

15The appellant testified that they attended a cottage weekend with friends starting on August 11, 2023 and that they consumed alcohol, cannabis and illicit drugs on and off from the evening of August 11, 2023 through the evening of August 12, 2023. The appellant recalls packing up to leave the cottage on the afternoon of August 13, 2023 and heading down the outside steps of the cottage to put things in their friend’s car for the trip home.

16The appellant does not recall the episode during which they lost consciousness, fell, hit their head on the steps and sustained a cut to their head. The appellant also does not recall some of the events enroute to the hospital via ambulance nor some of the events during their visit to the emergency room at the hospital.

17The appellant testified that they accept Dr. Rizk’s explanation that on August 13, 2023, they suffered a seizure and that the seizure was due to alcohol and drug withdrawal.

18Based on the above, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely?

19I find that the Registrar has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s condition of seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

20The Registrar’s representatives argue that sudden incapacitation due to seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal can significantly interfere with a driver’s ability to drive safely and presents a safety risk to other road users. They also argue that that a driver can neither compensate from the affects of illicit drugs such as those used by the appellant nor compensate for a seizure, such as the one the appellant suffered on August 13, 2023. They further argue, as stated in the Registrar’s letter of March 18, 2024, that in order to consider reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence the Registrar requires: confirmation that the appellant has remained seizure free and abstinent from drugs for a period of one year; and that this period may be reduced to six months if the appellant’s healthcare practitioner confirms they have successfully completed a drug treatment program and is supportive of their driving privilege.

21Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on the Tribunal.

22The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, in particular Chapters 17.6.3 (Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures) and 15.6.3 (Substance Use Disorder) plus internal policies at the Ministry of Transportation.

23Furthermore, the Registrar’s representatives stated that: the Registrar does not accept Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) as an alcohol or drug treatment program; the Registrar does not differentiate between a one-time event versus an event which occurs multiple times; they take a ‘black and white’ approach; and the appellant must meet all the requirements of the appropriate CCMTA Standards.

24The appellant argues that their seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal does not significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

25The appellant testified that: they have had no further seizures since August 13, 2023; they have been abstinent from alcohol and drugs since August 2023, which is now nine months; their seizure was a one-time occurrence; in August 2023, they consumed alcohol and drugs in a ‘safe place’ where no driving was involved on their part; they were neither the driver to the cottage nor were they the planned driver for the return home; at the suggestion of Dr. Rizk they attended weekly AA meetings; Dr. Rizk does not believe they require addiction treatment at this time; and Dr. Rizk supports their driving privilege.

26Furthermore, the appellant testified that they have never driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I take note of the fact that the appellant’s Extended Driver Record Search for Criminal Code Convictions shows no evidence of any alcohol-related or drug-related infractions.

27While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

28Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, I find them reasonable.

29I agree with the respondent that seizures, such as the type of seizure the appellant suffered, cause a sudden impairment of cognitive, motor or sensory functions, or a loss of consciousness. As these seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, a driver cannot compensate.

30However, I prefer the evidence and submissions of the appellant over that of the respondent, and find on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal is not likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the appellant has gained sufficient insight and understanding into their seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal. Insight is an important consideration when determining safety to drive. The appellant’s testimony was consistent with the information in Dr. Rizk’s completed SUA form and their three letters submitted to the Registrar. I accept Dr. Rizk’s opinion that: the appellant suffers from mild substance use disorder; they feel the appellant does not require addiction treatment at this time; and they strongly support the appellant’s driving privilege. In addition, I take note that Dr. Chen in their August 13, 2023 MCR wrote, “I think this may have been a one-off episode – crazy girls’ weekend out …”. The appellant testified they have no plans for such a girls’ weekend in 2024 and that they previous consumed alcohol and cannabis ‘responsibly’, i.e., 4-5 glasses of wine per week with company or on weekends and the occasional use of cannabis. Furthermore, I accept the appellant’s testimony that their previous consumption of alcohol or cannabis has never affected their employment and that they have never driven under the influence of alcohol or cannabis.

31Based on the above, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

32I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol and drug withdrawal, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

33For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.