Citation: Fontaine v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 ONLAT 15887

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15887/MED

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

Between:

David Fontaine

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Dimitri Louvish

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

David Fontaine, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: June 12, 2024

OVERVIEW

1David Fontaine (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or “respondent”) to suspend his driver’s licence for medical reasons, specifically an alcohol use disorder, under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his driver’s licence.

3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we set aside the decision of the Registrar.

ISSUES

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely an alcohol use disorder?

ii. If the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

6We find the appellant does not suffer from an alcohol use disorder. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason.

8Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the Act requires 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 his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.”

9One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s.47(1)(g) of the Act is if the driver suffers from a medical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.

10Section 203(1) of the Act requires medical professionals to report prescribed medical conditions to the Registrar, while s. 203(2) gives medical professionals the discretion to report medical conditions that they believe might make it dangerous for a person to drive.

11Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. While the CCMTA Standards may also be considered by this Tribunal, they are not binding on either the Registrar or the Tribunal.

12The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver’s licence has been made out.

13Pursuant 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.

Does the appellant suffer from an alcohol use disorder?

14The evidence does not satisfy us that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder.

15The Registrar relies upon the unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”), dated April 19, 2024, completed by emergency room physician, Dr. James Fairbaim. The MCR states that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder, specifically alcohol. Dr. Fairbaim states that the appellant is “using alcohol in AM to treat significant withdrawal.” No further details are provided.

16The only other medical evidence provided to the Tribunal was the Substance Use Assessment form completed by the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Travis Sutherland, dated May 31, 2024. Dr. Sutherland makes no diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. In response to the question seeking the diagnosis that applies to the appellant, Dr. Sutherland checked none of the above. The possible options were: mild substance use disorder, moderate substance use disorder, severe substance use disorder, or none of the above. Dr. Sutherland states that the answers to the questions provided by the appellant do not constitute alcohol use disorder. Dr. Sutherland notes that he is aware the appellant was reported for alcohol use.

17The appellant testified Dr. Sutherland has been his family doctor for the past two and a half years. He testified that he did not direct his doctor to answer the questions in the Substance Use Assessment form in any particular manner. He merely answered the questions asked of him. He testified that he visits Dr. Sutherland on a yearly basis for his annual checkup and blood work.

18The appellant testified that he only met with the emergency room doctor for a few minutes, and the alcohol use disorder diagnosis is inaccurate. The appellant testified that he does not struggle with alcohol consumption. The appellant testified that, in the last month and a half, he has drunk alcohol on two occasions. He testified that he usually drinks alcohol about three or four times a month at most, and it would be beers. This has been his usual pattern for about the past 15 years after his daughter was born.

19The appellant testified that the night prior to his visit to the emergency room, he had been drinking alcohol at a friend’s place. He testified that his friend had received some unsettling news and had invited him over for company. He testified that he began drinking on Friday around 11 p.m., and that he drank significant amounts of alcohol with his friend until about 5 a.m. on Saturday, at which point he dosed off at his friend’s place. When he woke up, he drank a few more beers. He noticed that he had unaccounted for bruising and numbness on his right arm and this concerned him. He attended the emergency room around 12 p.m. on Saturday to have his arm looked at, and he acknowledges that he was not sober. He denies that he drank alcohol in the morning to treat withdrawal symptoms.

20The appellant testified that being intoxicated is not a regular thing for him and is a rarity. The last time that he was up until the morning drinking was last year at a cottage. He testified that he does not usually drink in the morning unless he is at brunch having a Caesar or something similar. He testified that he does not have any issues with alcohol and has never attended any treatment program for alcohol use disorder. He has never missed work as a result of alcohol use. He testified that it is not his lifestyle to drink.

21In light of the appellant’s forthcoming testimony and a review of the entirety of the medical evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the appellant has a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder. We weighed the medical evidence presented and found the Substance Use Assessment completed by the appellant’s own family physician to be more persuasive then the MCR. Dr. Sutherland makes no diagnosis of any substance use disorder and does not indicate any follow up.

22We note that there is no dispute between the parties as to the sobriety of the appellant during his visit to the emergency room. He acknowledges that he was drinking through the morning, however, he testified that this is a rarity. He testified that being intoxicated is not a regular habit and it is not his lifestyle. We accept his testimony in this regard.

23Ultimately, in making our determination, we found the testimony of the appellant and the information from his family physician to be compelling.

24We note that it is the Registrar’s burden to present evidence of an alcohol use disorder, and we find that it has not met its burden.

25Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not suffer from an alcohol use disorder.

ORDER

26For the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, we find the Registrar has failed to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.