Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15453/MED

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:

Selvin Beteta

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Peter Savage

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Selvin Beteta

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram

HEARD: January 3, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Selvin Beteta (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 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 alcohol use disorder, 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 acknowledge that they suffer from alcohol use disorder but 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.

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 alcohol use disorder?

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.”

RESULT

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar 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 and I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

10The Registrar received a requested follow-up substance use questionnaire from the appellant’s family doctor in May 2023. The report indicated alcohol abuse disorder. The appellant agrees he suffered from this disorder at the time but maintains he has taken extensive steps to control this disorder and has the insight, tools, support and a clinical team to deal with this disorder. The Registrar maintains a full 6 months’ abstinence is needed and at this time there is only 4 and a half months.

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

11The medical evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

12The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports completed by the appellant’s family doctor and the appellant’s addiction specialist.

13The appellant himself testifies he suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder.

14I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

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

15I find that the Registrar has not 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.

16The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

17The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which states that alcohol is a depressant drug that has both sedative and disinhibitory effects. It also impairs drivers’ judgement, reflex control, and behaviour towards others.

18Section 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 are not bound by them.

19The CCMTA Standards recommend that a driver who has been diagnosed with substance use disorder (alcohol) be considered eligible for a licence if they meet the requirements for remission and/or have abstained from the substance for a period of 12 months. Earlier relicensing may be considered on a favourable recommendation from and addiction physician and completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

20The appellant argues that alcohol use disorder does not impact their ability to drive safely, as the condition is completely under control.

21The appellant argues he is a safe driver and has a safe driving record. He testifies he has been a binge drinker in the past, drinking alcohol alone in his basement and never drinking alcohol and driving. He testifies he has finally come to the realization he can never drink again and has insight into his problem and he has taken every step possible to permanently monitor and stabilize this condition.

22The appellant completed a 42 day in-patient program in Homewood Hospital in Guelph, Ontario. As part of the program he is enrolled in the CADECEUS group. This is a group of professionals with alcohol issues that meet weekly in person or virtually to support each other with their alcohol issues.

23The appellant attends his local AA on a weekly basis and takes an active role.

24The appellant has a supportive wife and family that are actively supporting him in his plan to totally stop drinking alcohol.

25He has a supportive family doctor and addiction physician who he sees regularly and is having regular urine screening done and reported to his physicians. He has follow up plans with both doctors. While there is no direct documentation the appellant testifies both doctors are supportive of the restoration of his driving privileges.

26In his work as a Registered Nurse in the operating room he will be signing a contract that will stipulate regular forensic drug testing as his workplace is aware of his condition.

27The appellant shows insight into his condition and sees the harm it has done to his family and professional life as well as the risks it might cause in driving. He testifies he did not accept the diagnosis until his 42-day admission to Homewood and thus he was not committed to abstinence. With his insight and help of his medical team and family he is now able to deal with this condition.

28The appellant argues the 4 or 6 more weeks will not make any difference in his condition as he is committed to complete abstinence and he has a built in support system that will report any failure.

29I find that the Registrar has not 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. I find the appellant has met the CCMTA standard for relicensing and has insight into his condition and has taken every possible step to control his condition. I also find the appellant has a supportive family and medical team who will continue to support as well as monitor his control of his condition.

30I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

31I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

32For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.