Winn v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 10794

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16446/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)(b) of the Act.

Between:

Darryl Winn

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

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

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Darryl Winn Jami Sanftleben, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

Heard: December 20, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Darryl Winn (the "appellant") appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "respondent") to suspend their driver's licence under s. 47(1)(b) 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 ("MTO") 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 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 respondent is seeking confirmation from the appellant's treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner, that he has abstained from alcohol for a period of one year. This period may be reduced to six months if his healthcare practitioner confirms that he has successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of his driving privilege.

5The 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.

6Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUE

7The 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.

8To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged, namely alcohol use disorder?

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

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the respondent has 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 we confirm the respondent's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

10By letter dated November 28, 2024, the respondent advised the appellant that his licence was being suspended for having alcohol use disorder. This letter confirmed their earlier decision to suspend his driver's licence on October 2, 2024. The respondent has corresponded with the appellant each time he submitted new information for consideration to reinstate his licence. To date, he has been unsuccessful in convincing them to do so.

11The respondent reached their decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence after receiving a Medical Condition Report ("MCR") dated November 22, 2024, and a Substance Use Assessment form dated November 13, 2024. Both confirm a history of alcohol use and the appellant's self-reported abstinence.

12The respondent states that the appellant first came to the MTO's attention in August 2024, after receiving an unsolicited report from a medical practitioner. It indicated conditions of untreated obstructive sleep apnea and alcohol use disorder. The appellant's obstructive sleep apnea was successfully treated and is no longer a concern for the respondent. However, the respondent takes the position that his alcohol use disorder remains active and unresolved.

13At the hearing, the appellant explained that he has fallen a number of times due to prior blunt force trauma to the head. He recalled an incident where he slipped on the sidewalk outside his house which was covered with powdery snow at the time. He states that he hit his head very badly and awoke after being unconscious. He went inside his home and upstairs to bed. After several days, he called an ambulance and was taken to the hospital where it was determined he had a brain bleed. The appellant states that, since that time, he has suffered from headaches which he would treat using Tylenol.

14The appellant's Notice of Appeal describes, in writing, another incident on January 22, 2024, where he fell in his bathroom leading to another brain bleed and a severe concussion. He states that he was prescribed opioids but did not feel well while taking them. He describes periods of feeling extremely foggy for long stretches and feeling unbalanced. He subsequently stopped taking the opioids and sought alcohol as a coping mechanism for the pain.

15The appellant has been admitted to the hospital at least 3 times in the past year, each time reporting that he was "self-prescribing alcohol." At the hearing, the appellant testified that he would be abstinent for 4-5 days on or around the time that he would be admitted to the hospital. However, it appears he has struggled with maintaining sobriety for longer periods of time.

16The appellant reports that he is currently abstinent from alcohol and states the last time he drank was before his last hospital visit in August of 2024. He reports no relapses since that time and credits his current counselling and martial arts training in assisting him with his recovery.

17The respondent questions the appellant's sobriety which is self-reported. They also state that he has not received support from his doctor regarding his driving privilege. The respondent also takes the position that the appellant is at high risk of relapse and that his multiple hospital admissions were for alcohol withdrawal. There was also testimony from the appellant that he was prescribed Naproxen by his doctor for pain management but did not feel well while taking it. As a result, and like the opioids, he once again stopped taking it on his own volition.

18The lack of compliance with his medication, his risk of relapse, and no indication of support from his physician for his driving privilege, culminates in the respondent asking the Tribunal to confirm their decision.

Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?

19We find that the appellant does suffer from the medical condition alleged. This was confirmed in multiple reports from separate healthcare practitioners. The first one being Dr. D. Kapeluto, the attending doctor from Couchiching Family Health Team. The second was Dr. K. Olorunsola, a physician, who completed the two Substance Use Assessment forms.

20The appellant also admitted to having a history of substance use although, at times, appeared to minimize his addiction. At present, he claims to have remained abstinent since his last hospital visit in August of 2024. While he does show some insight since that time, the lack of support and independent confirmation from his family doctor on his abstinence, along with his not complying with prescribed medication is concerning to the Tribunal.

21This, along with a history of difficulty in self-regulation, does not instill confidence in the Tribunal that relapse will not happen again and/or that sufficient time has gone by to demonstrate his positive rehabilitation. For this reason, he continues to suffer from the alleged medical condition. We find that the respondent has established 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?

22We find that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

23We received evidence confirming that the appellant was hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal. He admitted to consuming alcohol on and off for the past year and utilizing it as a coping mechanism for pain.

24Dr. Olorunsola provided a separate clinical note confirming the appellant's history of alcohol use disorder and his multiple hospitalizations for withdrawal symptoms. While Dr. Olorunsola does note that the appellant's recent liver function tests were within normal limits, he remained silent in his support for the appellant's driving privilege.

25The appellant is credited for attending counselling and provided a positive report on his progress from Brodie Agar, Addictions Counselling from The Annex, St. Thomas, Ontario. Mr. Agar confirms that the appellant has been attending counselling on a weekly basis and it has been scaled back to twice per month given his progress.

26To date, the appellant has not provided further information supporting his readiness to drive and for his driver's licence to be reinstated since his last hospitalization. The appellant spoke about his alcohol use and decision to self-medicate with alcohol in the past and regrets his decisions. He is commended for attempting to take steps to address his alcohol use, however, the panel is not convinced that the appellant has had a substantial period of sobriety to demonstrate his readiness for his licence to be reinstated. The Tribunal must take into consideration the public's interest and safety.

27It is the respondent's position that the appellant's medical condition is acute and will interfere with his ability to drive a car safely. His history of substance abuse is concerning, especially since relapsing in between hospital visits.

28Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister to consider the CCMTA Standards for Drivers ("CCMTA Standards") 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. Chapter 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards describes drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs as eligible for a licence if they meet the following 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; and
• Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

29In this case, we agree that it is reasonable and prudent to apply the CCMTA Standards in view of the information regarding the appellant's addiction. Based on the evidence we received, the appellant does not meet the CCMTA Standards for re-licensing, as his substance use disorder has not been adequately resolved. There is no evidence from any health care provider supporting his ability to drive safely.

30For these reasons, we agree with the respondent's position that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Conclusion

31We find that the respondent has discharged the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, and that it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

32For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the respondent's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence under section 47(1)(b) of the Act.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Adjudicator

Raymond C. Ramdayal, Adjudicator