Van Parys v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 97872

Citation: Van Parys v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 ONLAT 16140

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16140 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:

Garner Van Parys Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

PANEL: Dr. Dimitri Louvish Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Jami Sanftleben, Appellant For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: September 5, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Garner Van Parys (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his driver’s licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol use disorder and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The Registrar states that the two alleged medical conditions are linked and are of concern.

2The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend his driver’s licence.

3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we set aside the decision of the Registrar.

ISSUES

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

ii. If the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

6We find the appellant does suffer from an alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal but that it will not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. One 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 addiction likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.

8Section 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.”

9Section 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.

10Section 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. The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.

11The 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.

12Pursuant 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 alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

13The evidence satisfies us that the appellant suffers from both an alcohol use disorder and a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. There is no dispute between the parties in this regard and both agree that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder and had a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

14We note that the medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal including the Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated April 4, 2024, completed by the appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Darren Gilmour. In the MCR, Dr. Gilmour notes that the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The MCR states that on March 31, 2024 the appellant had a witnessed seizure, was admitted to a hospital for alcohol withdrawal, and that he had no seizures after March 31, 2024.

15The substance use assessment completed by nurse practitioner Stephanie LeBlanc on May 10, 2024 states the appellant has a severe substance use disorder, namely alcohol, and has abstained for less than 6 months. Further, that the appellant will be completing a supervised treatment program at Greenstone Muskoka Centre for Recovery (“Greenstone”).

16The substance use assessment dated July 19, 2024 completed by Dr. Gilmour states that the appellant is diagnosed with severe substance use disorder (alcohol), and has now completed the supervised treatment program and is doing well. Dr. Gilmour states that the appellant is completely abstinent since his admission and is still taking counselling.

17In more recent correspondence, dated August 28, 2024, Dr. Gilmour states that he cared for the appellant while he was an inpatient at Haliburton Hospital in early April 2024 following an alcohol withdrawal seizure. Dr. Gilmour further states that the appellant was treated for several days of withdrawal symptoms and eventually discharged home on Acamprosate 666 mg three times per day in stable condition.

18The appellant testified that his drinking of alcohol increased last year given the stress associated with his pending divorce, selling his home and winding up his marriage. He acknowledged that he was drinking to cope with the stress of his divorce, and that he was spending a lot of time alone and his drinking increased. He testified that he stopped drinking a few days prior to the seizure, and that he lost consciousness and had a seizure from the withdrawal. He testified that he spent three days in the hospital recovering.

19Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

Is the appellant’s alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

20The Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical conditions, namely, alcohol use disorder and/or seizure due to alcohol withdrawal are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. We find that the Registrar has not met its burden.

21The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15.6.3, which provide that drivers suffering from substance use disorder (alcohol and illicit drugs) may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained from alcohol/drugs for a period of twelve months. The CCMTA Standards also state that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognised by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

22The Registrar further relies upon chapter 17.6.3 which provide that drivers suffering from alcohol withdrawal seizures may be eligible for a licence if the treating physician has confirmed that the cause of the seizure was alcohol withdrawal, they have undergone addiction treatment and have received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor, and the criteria for licence reinstatement are met in accordance with chapter 15.6.3.

23The Tribunal is entitled to take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them.

24While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

25When considering the evidence, the Tribunal found persuasive the testimony of the appellant. He testified that, during his hospitalization, he decided that he needed to address his alcohol concerns and attend treatment. On April 10, 2024, he attended Greenstone for 42-day residential addiction treatment that he paid for out of pocket. He successfully completed the treatment program. He testified that he received intensive addictions treatment and learnt how to recover and abstain from alcohol. He learnt the science of addiction and brain and physical health.

26The appellant testified that he has not drank any alcohol since about three or four days prior to the seizure on March 31, 2024. He has completely abstained. He is taking medication to assist him in controlling his cravings for alcohol which he started taking prior to his discharge from the hospital. He continues to take the medication as prescribed and his plan is to continue to take the medication until next year. He testified that he has learnt how to cope with any cravings for alcohol. He testified that he is around alcohol in social gatherings and is comfortable abstaining. He testified that he is in a healthy place both mentally and physically since he has been abstaining, and that it is important for him to maintain his sobriety for himself and his children.

27The appellant testified that he continues to attend virtual outpatient sessions with Greenstone weekly and has access to additional meetings as well. He is also in touch with other graduates of the Greenstone program and is part of a community that assists each other with their sobriety. He wants to be a sober coach in the future. He testified that he has also been in touch with the RAM clinic near his home to take additional weekly counselling once his virtual outpatient sessions with Greenstone are complete. He testified that he continues to be under the care of Dr. Gilmour and has made his recovery a priority.

28We also find compelling the most recent correspondence, dated August 28, 2024, from Dr. Gilmour who notes that the appellant successfully completed a rehabilitative program at Greenstone. Dr. Gilmour states that the appellant continues to remain abstinent and is taking part in activities that assist him with his ongoing abstinence. Dr. Gilmour states that in his professional opinion the appellant is clinically stable with his previously diagnosed alcohol use disorder having been successfully treated. Dr. Gilmour expresses confidence in the appellant’s good working knowledge of his condition.

29There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the appellant has suffered any further seizures.

30We accept the appellant’s testimony that he has been free of alcohol since a few days prior to his seizure on March 31, 2024. We accept that he attended intensive residential treatment for his addiction and is committed to his sobriety. We accept that he continues to take his anti-craving medication and is attending counselling for the foreseeable future. Based upon the counseling received and scheduled, and Dr. Gilmour’s opinion that the appellant is clinically stable and his previously diagnosed alcohol use disorder has been successfully treated, we are satisfied that his medical conditions are not likely to significant interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle.

31We find that the appellant is highly motivated to regain his licence for personal and professional purposes and has worked hard to maintain his sobriety. He appears committed to abstinence and has the ongoing support of Dr. Gilmour, Greenstone and his support group.

32While the CCMTA Standards provide assistance, every case must be decided on its own merits. In our view, the appellant’s driving record discloses no alcohol-related infractions, and he continues to attend ongoing addictions counseling and take medication.

33Given the above, we find the Registrar has not established that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

ORDER

34For the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, we find the appellant does suffer from an alcohol use disorder and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, but that they will not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.