David D. McKie v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 72669

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15947/MED

In a 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:

David D. McKie

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: David D. McKie For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

Heard by Teleconference: June 27, 2024

OVERVIEW

1David D. McKie (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (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 respondent 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 respondent 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 which is likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle 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 respondent takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, 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 the medical condition alleged and deny that they suffer 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.

ISSUE

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant’s reported medical condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?

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

The respondent bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of these questions is ‘yes.’

RESULT

8Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the respondent 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 safely. Therefore, we set aside the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

9By letter dated May 13, 2024, the respondent advised the appellant that his licence was being suspended for having a reported condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. This was further confirmed in another letter dated June 12, 2024, which was in response to additional information submitted by the appellant for consideration. At that time, the respondent advised the appellant that they still had not received the information they previously requested which requires the review of their Medical Review Team.

10The respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence came after receiving an unsolicited medical condition report (“MCR”) from Dr. S. Roszell dated May 8, 2024. On or about that day, the appellant attended a Detox facility referred to as Chatham-Kent Health Alliance for withdrawal management. He decided to check himself into the facility after falling down the stairs on May 6, 2024, which was the result of being in an intoxicated state.

11The appellant was committed to re-entering a period of sobriety which he had successfully demonstrated in the past. He acknowledged that he needed medical support to accomplish this, hence his decision to attend detox that day. Unfortunately, it was there that he suffered a seizure due to abrupt withdrawal. It was also at that time that the Ministry of Transportation was made aware of this medical condition and required him to provide additional information to demonstrate and support his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

12It is the appellant’s contention that he suffered the seizure as a result of trying to abstain from alcohol and better intervention and care may have prevented this from happening. The seizure occurred in a controlled environment but still disqualified the appellant from continuing on in his abstinence treatment.

13The appellant testified that his recent relapse was the result of some friends coming to visit him for his birthday in March 2024. Those celebrations led to his alcohol use and subsequent downward spiral. From March to May, he settled into a previous pattern of daily alcohol use.

14The evidence in front of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) indicates that the appellant’s licence was suspended effective May 23, 2024. In order to have the suspension lifted, the respondent requires confirmation that the appellant has remained seizure free and abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year. This period may be reduced to six months if a healthcare practitioner confirms that they have successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of their driving privilege.

Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?

15The onus is on the respondent to prove to the Tribunal on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. While we find that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition, we find that he experienced that medical event as a result of the treatment he was seeking to address his alcohol use. We did not receive any evidence to suggest that the appellant suffers from chronic seizures or is on any daily anti-seizure medication outside of what is received during detox.

16We received documentary evidence which supports the appellant’s testimony that he has been successful at abstaining from alcohol in the past. It is apparent that the appellant took proactive steps towards addressing his relapse and demonstrated significant insight into his past challenges with alcohol and how to overcome them. We find that while that medical condition may exist, it is being controlled and managed with professional medical intervention/monitoring, as well as the appellant’s ability to navigate his personal health needs by availing himself of the assistance he needs.

17The appellant demonstrated insight into his recent relapse and understands the triggers that led to his alcohol abuse. Prior to his use, he appears to have maintained sobriety for a couple of months. A past Substance Use Assessment form further provides positive comments related to his progress towards sobriety.

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

18We find that the appellant’s medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

19The appellant testified that his driver’s licence is important to him because he works as a cab driver and uses his vehicle for volunteer work. We did not receive any evidence to indicate that he has ever driven while intoxicated.

20We are in receipt of a letter from Dr. S. Davies, the appellant’s family doctor, who outlines the appellant’s medical history and the results of ongoing monitoring. All provide us with the reassurance that his medical condition is being properly monitored and treated. It also provides us with confidence that his other medical issues related to diabetes are being properly managed. This is also supported by a letter from J. Leduc, a diabetes educator from Woodstock Hospital, who provides care to the appellant.

21We did not receive any compelling evidence from the respondent that would indicate that the appellant’s medical condition will significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. On the contrary, the appellant has demonstrated appropriate safeguards, including a breathalyzer which he purchased proactively, to ensure he is not driving while intoxicated.

22His alcohol use has been described as intermittent and he is most vulnerable when triggers present themselves. We find that the appellant is aware of those triggers and is motivated to avoiding them.

23In our assessment, we find that the appellant going back to rehab will not make a material difference. We also find that he is able to operate a motor vehicle safely based on his history of managing this addiction and obtaining treatment.

24While the respondent has proven the answer to be “yes” to the first issue on whether a medical condition exists, we find on a balance of probabilities that they have not met the same burden that the appellant cannot safely operate a vehicle due to that medical condition.

25To further support our finding, we are persuaded that the appellant is motivated and determined not to drink.

26We have taken into consideration section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation which allows the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) Medical for Drivers when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding. In this matter, the respondent is relying on the CCMTA standard relating to substance use disorder. Despite the fact that Chapter 15.6.3 of the standard describes drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs as eligible for a licence if they meet certain criteria:

• Meets the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months
• Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program
• The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
• Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

27While the CCMTA Standards are reasonable and we can take them into account, we are not bound by them. We have determined this case on its own merits, which may include consideration of the CCMTA Standards and the appellant’s own circumstances.

28For the above reasons, we agree with the appellant’s position that his medical condition is not likely to interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Conclusion

29We find that the respondent has failed to discharge the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical 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, we set aside the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.