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:

Jibril Ahmed

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Peter Savage M.D,

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant For the Respondent

No one appearing Sharon Nelson, Representative

HEARD: June 27, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Jibril Ahmed (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) 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 and an OPP Officer that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their safety to drive.

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 safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive 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 deny that they suffer from from a medical condition which interferes with their ability to drive 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 safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

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

PRELIMINARY MATTER

9The appellant did not attend the hearing in spite of having received notification in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The hearing waited 30 minutes and the Case Management Officer phoned and emailed the appellant during that time, but was not able to contact the appellant. The rules state that if a party who has been given notice of a hearing does not attend within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, (3.7.1 Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023) the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing or make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent’s position was to proceed with the hearing, and we had no submission from the appellant. I ruled to proceed with the hearing, because the respondent was prepared to proceed and the appellant had been given notice RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has 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 safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIs

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

12The Registrar’s position is supported by the mental health questionnaire submitted by Dr. Nicholas Boucher and a police report submitted by OPP officer Chanpeet Sidhu.

13Dr. Boucher, a psychiatrist, reports the appellant suffers from bipolar disorder in the mental health questionnaire of May 28, 2024.

14In his OPP report of February 4, 2024 Officer Sidhu reports members of the public observed the appellant to be driving erratically. The appellant was taken into custody under the Mental Health Act and was taken to a medical facility, where he was held for psychiatric assessment via a Form 1.

15While the appellant did not attend the hearing, he stated in his notice of appeal that he had little or no recollection of the events that occurred at the time of his apprehension.

16I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

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

17I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

18The Registrar argues that a mental health condition can interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that sudden loss of awareness and confusion can have catastrophic effects to the appellant or to other users of the road if they were to occur while the appellant was driving a motor vehicle.

19The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). The Registrar relies on section 14.6.1 of the CCMTA Standards.

20Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them.

21The CCMTA Standards recommend that a driver who has been diagnosed with a mental health condition be considered eligible for a licence if:

– the condition is stable;

– the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute;

• the treating physician recommends reinstatement of the licence; and

– there is not impairment of functional driving ability.

22The Registrar also draws attention to the internal policy of the Ministry of Transportation that requires a month of stability in mental health condition before relicensing can be considered.

23The Registrar points out that Dr. Boucher’s note states that the appellant has had two hospitalizations in the last year for his mental health condition. Dr Bouchard notes the appellant seems stable at the moment, but Dr. Boucher also notes the appellant has an active substance use disorder.

24The Registrar note there is no endorsement recommending reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence from the appellant’s physician.

25The Register submits that the appellant’s mental health condition affected his driving on February 4, 2024 resulting in complaints from the public and the appellant’s subsequent apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

26The Registrar argues although there has been a period of stability it is not long enough as a period of at least six months is needed before relicensing can be considered.

27I find that it is reasonable to apply the CCMTA Standard 14.6.1 in this case, and that the conditions for licensing described in it are not met. I agree with the Registrar a longer period of stability should be required before relicensing is considered.

28I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities given the evidence before me that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

29I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

30For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Released: July 4, 2024

______________________

Peter Savage

Adjudicator