Micheal Janssen v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 77411

Date: 2024-08-14

Appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Micheal Janssen

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Micheal Janssen, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Melisa Litrenta, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference: August 8, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1On June 18, 2021, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspended the appellant’s Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), after receiving a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.

2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal affirms the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

B. ISSUES:

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

4To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

C. LAW:

5Under the HTA the Registrar is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on the highway. In this case, the Registrar acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the HTA and s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA (the “Regulation”). The latter states that a person who holds 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 vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 47(1) of the HTA, the Registrar may suspend a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason.

6Under s.14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

7A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the HTA.

8On appeal, the Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s ability to drive safely is significantly affected by a medical condition.

9Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition based on the unsolicited medical condition report of Dr. Casandra Taylor. The Registrar confirms the condition was brought to the Ministry’s attention through an unsolicited medical report submitted June 15, 2021 by Dr. Casandra Taylor, the appellant’s family doctor.

11The unsolicited medical report, submitted June 15, 2021, states the appellant is suffering from schizophrenia and has a past history of psychotic episodes. The report states the appellant is unwilling to take recommended medication. The doctor refused to authorize an application for a commercial licence and when she realized the appellant was driving with a Class G licence she felt compelled to submit a medical condition report. The doctor further states that her patient’s attending psychiatrist agreed with the submission of the medical condition report.

12The appellant testified that he had a mental health condition and further testified he had an acquired brain injury that resulted from an assault in 2009 or 2010.

13The only medical evidence presented supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition. The appellant’s testimony confirms this conclusion.

14On a balance of probabilities, I find the Registrar has established the appellant has a medical condition.

b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

15The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has met that burden.

16The Registrar drew attention to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”). The CCMTA Standards were developed by North American road safety experts and may by considered by both the Registrar and the Tribunal, though they are not binding.

17The Registrar pointed out the dangers that a mental health condition could cause while driving. The Registrar outlined the CCMTA Standards’ requirements for licence reinstatement of a person with a psychiatric disorder, such as the appellant’s mental health condition. These would include the condition being stable and the patient having sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition worsens. It also includes having the functional abilities needed to drive and the support of a physician recommending a return to driving. The CCMTA Standards also suggest a functional driving test if there is a question of a cognitive impairment.

18The Registrar made the following submissions with respect to how the appellant’s condition affects his ability to drive safely:

1. the appellant’s condition is confirmed by a treating physician;
2. The appellant has failed to provide a completed mental health assessment questionnaire;
3. the appellant’s testimony confirms the appellant has a previous in-patient admission under the care of a psychiatrist resulting from episodes of psychosis;
4. the appellant refuses to consider medication as an option for his mental health condition;
5. the Registrar feels the appellant has a limited understanding of his condition;
6. The attending physician has not recommended a return to driving;
7. The Registrar maintains the appellant does not meet the requirements for re-licencing under the CCMTA Standards.

19The appellant maintains he is a safe driver, with a safe driving record, and argues that there is no reason his mental health would affect his driving safety.

20The appellant testified he had been driving for many years and had no history of accidents. He pointed to his driving record from the Ministry of Transportation.

21The appellant argued that he was now working with a new psychiatrist and was using a holistic approach to his mental health condition. He was following a strict diet with the use of exercise and meditation to control his condition.

22The appellant testified the new psychiatrist was aware of his plan to regain his driving licence and had asked to be made aware of the results of this hearing and had agreed with the appellant to work with him to regain his licence.

23The appellant testified he felt his acquired brain injury was a more significant issue than his mental health condition. He could understand the acquired brain injury being the reason for the suspension but saw no reason for suspension due to his mental health condition.

24The appellant testified he knew if things were not right with his mental health and he would go for help to his doctor or a hospital if things went wrong with his mental health.

25The appellant testified he would rather not have a driver’s licence than be forced to take medication, which in the past had serious side effects and made his mental health condition worse.

26The appellant addressed the failure to have the mental health questionnaire completed by saying he felt no need to complete the form and later testifying he did not receive the form and then questioning why an incomplete form had been sent to him. He did not seem understand the need to provide information to the Registrar.

27I find the appellant testified in an open and clear manner and is taking the steps he feels are best suited to management of his mental health condition. However, I find the evidence supports the Registrar’s submissions. The attending physician does not support a return to driving, the appellant refuses to consider medication, has had episodes of psychosis requiring treatment and there is an issue of acquired brain injury reported by the appellant that has not been investigated. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely. A review of the evidence and the appellant’s submissions establishes the mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

E. ORDER:

28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.