Citation: De Schiffert v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 ONLAT 15972

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15972/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:

Janice De Schiffert

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Dimitri Louvish Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Janice De Schiffert, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: July 3, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Janice De Schiffert (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or “respondent”) to suspend her driver’s licence for medical reasons, specifically a substance 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 her driver’s licence.

3Although initially several medical conditions were identified, at the hearing the Registrar confirmed that the medical condition at issue was substance use disorder based upon the appellant’s alcohol use.

4Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we set aside the decision of the Registrar.

ISSUES

5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

6To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

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

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

RESULT

7We find the appellant does not suffer from a substance use disorder. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The Law

8The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason.

9Section 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.”

10One 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.

11Section 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.

12Section 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.

13The 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.

14Pursuant 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 a substance use disorder?

15The evidence does not satisfy us that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder.

16The appellant testified that she was struggling with her substance use, namely alcohol use, and entered an addictions treatment program in 2015, and was part of Alcohol Anonymous for a period of time. A letter from Westover Treatment Centre, dated October 2, 2025, confirms that she completed residential treatment. She testified that she attended her addictions physician/specialist, Dr. Delmar Donald, regularly and for five years, and she provided urine samples twice a week as part of her undertaking to the College of Nurses of Ontario. She testified that the undertaking was for three years and ended in early 2023, and it required her to undertake many things so that she could work unrestricted. She stopped her monthly visits to Dr. Donald when the undertaking was complete. She testified that she continues to work unrestricted as a nurse, and is employed part-time with the County of Middlesex at a long term care facility where she has worked for the past eight years. She testified that she works full-time hours.

17The appellant testified that she has been driving her motor vehicle with an interlock device since about March 2020, and she wanted to have it removed. In this regard, she attended her family physician, Dr. Omer Chaudhary, and he completed the substance use assessment, dated January 8, 2024, and listed severe substance use disorder identifying alcohol as the substance that applied. He noted that she had been “questioned by ER in the past (2016).” A toxicology report was attached and Dr. Chaudhary notes that the opiate that showed in the report was not prescribed by him. Dr. Chaudhary submitted a further substance use assessment of same date, noting alcohol and illicit substances and/or non-prescription pharmaceuticals. He noted that the appellant had not abstained from alcohol use but she had complete a treatment program over 12 months ago. He noted that she had normal MCV levels but elevated GGT. This led to the suspension of her driver’s licence on or about January 15, 2024.

18Subsequently, Dr. Chaudhary clarified by letter dated May 30, 2024, that the appellant was using Tylenol #1 over the counter during her lab investigation on January 8, 2024. He stated that the elevated GGT and opioids found on her toxicology screen (codeine, norcodeine and morphine) could be the elevated from Tylenol #1. We found this letter to be persuasive.

19We also found persuasive a letter dated May 13, 2024 from Dr. Donald, who advised that he was the appellant’s addictions physician from 2017 until February 2023, when she was released from her undertaking by the College of Nurses of Ontario. He advised that she had an interlock device installed on her vehicle about 3 years ago, and that she daily drives to work and it is likely that she is still avoiding alcohol. He further reports that he is quite sure that she did not drink alcohol during the five years he cared for her, and her submitted samples were negative. He noted that the appellant was not regularly visiting Dr. Chaudhary, but was instead, visiting him for addictions treatment.

20The appellant testified that Dr. Chaudhary did not have a clear idea of her progress as she had not been regularly attending his office. She testified that Dr. Chaudhary had limited knowledge of her addiction progress. She acknowledged that, in the past, she did have a severe substance use disorder but not now, and not for several years. She testified that she does not drink alcohol and her last alcoholic drink was in December 2017. She testified that she uses Tylenol 1 with codeine for her sciatica pain flare ups which could account for her elevated levels. She is currently under the care of Dr. Donald and had appointments in March, May and June of 2024.

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 substance use disorder. We weighed the medical evidence presented and found particularly persuasive the letter from the appellant’s addiction’s physician, Dr. Donald, and we note that the appellant testified that the last alcoholic beverage she drank was in December 2017. We accept and find her testimony persuasive.

22Ultimately, in making our determination, we found the testimony of the appellant and the information from her addictions physician to be compelling.

23We note that it is the Registrar’s burden to present evidence of a substance use disorder, and we find that it has not met its burden.

24Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not suffer from a substance use disorder.

ORDER

25For 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.