Timothy Poole v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 88865

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2024-09-13

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

Between:

Timothy Poole

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Timothy Poole, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram

Heard by Teleconference: September 10, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1On August 3, 2024, 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 likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class 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 sets aside 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 mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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

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

b. If the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class 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"). Under s. 14(1)(a) of the Regulation, 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 drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Subsection 47(1) of the HTA permits the Registrar to 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 has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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 mental health condition?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition based on medical reports received by the Registrar. These reports were requested in the routine screening of the appellant's request to be considered for a class D commercial license. The reports of Dr. Nick Parle and nurse practitioner Roberta Chlan both state the appellant suffers from depression and had a suicide attempt in the past

11The mental health condition reports submitted by Dr. Parle and nurse Chlan both state the appellant suffers from depression and has thoughts of self harm. Both practitioners confirm the appellant had a suicide attempt in 2019. Both practitioners confirm the appellant is on medication and therapy for his condition.

12The appellant testified he has a mental health condition and further testifies he continues treatment for this condition.

13The 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 mental health 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 not 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 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 pointed out the Ministry of Transportation (the "MOT") has an internal policy that requires documentation of a period of three to six months stability of a mental health condition before reinstatement of a drivers licence can be considered.

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

20The appellant pointed out the only reason his driver's licence was suspended in August 2024 was that he applied for a commercial licence and this triggered a review of his health. This review showed he had a mental health condition, a fact that was known by the MOT since a 2019 medical suspension and subsequent reinstatement.

21The appellant testified that he did have a mental health condition but that it has been controlled since his suicide attempt in 2019.

22The appellant testified his doctor supported his licence reinstatement and drew my attention to Dr. Parle's August 28, 2024 letter which stated, "He is currently being treated with multiple medications and he is now exhibiting only mild passive suicidal ideation…… I feel it is currently safe for him to drive and recommend his licence be reinstated".

23The appellant testified that:

1. He has a health care team and regularly sees his family doctor and psychiatrist.

2. He is in therapy with a team and has completed several sessions in cognitive behavioral therapy.

3. He is on medication that is monitored by his health care team, and he is compliant with taking his medications.

4. He has strong family support from his wife as well as his parents who have full knowledge of the challenges he is facing.

5. He has insight into his condition as has access to help through COAST ( crisis outreach and support team) his medical team and emergency departments when he feels his condition is deteriorating. He testifies he has no hesitation to use these services when needed.

6. He has released all his medical records from the last five years to the MOT and while they confirm a mental health diagnosis they state this condition is controlled and any suicidal ideation has been passive and he is compliant with all treatment

7. He has 5 years of stability, has insight into his condition and his doctor has recommended reinstatement of his driving privileges. He feels he more than meets the CCMTA standard for relicensing.

24I find the appellant testifies in an open and clear manner and is taking steps to manage his mental health condition. I am very compelled by the physician's written recommendation to reinstate the appellant's licence. I am reassured by the appellant's insight and acceptance of his mental health condition as well as his medical and family support. I accept the appellant's argument that he meets the CCMTA standards for relicensing. The Registrar's position that written documentation of three to six months of stability is required is based on an internal policy that does not bind either the appellant or the Tribunal. Every case must be judged on its own merits and in any case this appellant has had far more than three months of stability. After a review of the evidence and the parties' submissions, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's mental health condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

E. ORDER:

25For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence for medical reasons.