Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16577/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:
Gregory Pitt
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATORS:
Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member
Genevieve Painchaud, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Gregory Pitt, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Stephen Grootenboer, Representative
HEARD: January 16, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Gregory Pitt (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. He acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder but denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his 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, we will address the following questions:
i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?
ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with his 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, we find that the Registrar 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 Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
ANALYSIS
Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?
10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.
11The Registrar’s position is supported by an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated November 4, 2024 and completed by emergency room physician Dr. Kyle Booth. The MCR indicates a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder.
12On November 13, 2024, the respondent sent the appellant a letter indicating that his licence was suspended and requesting that the appellant send in a Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form completed by his physician.
13The respondent presented a completed SUA form dated December 17, 2024 and signed by Dr. Joshua Yuen. In this form, Dr. Yuen indicates a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder (alcohol), with abstinence of less than 6 months, and writes “severe EtOH use disorder. Motivated to make changes. Taking necessary steps for sobriety. Will be attending voluntary admission program for EtOH use.”
14The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder. He testified that he did struggle with alcohol consumption. He testified that for approximately 3 days leading up to his November 4, 2024 emergency room visit, he had been consuming between 26-40 ounces of vodka per day, and that he turns to vodka when he goes through a hard time. He stated that this amount was increased from his usual intake of 6-8 tall cans of beer, which he would usually consume approximately 3-5 days per week and cited a recent separation and move as factors contributing to the increase. He testified that he was aware that he would need medically supervised withdrawal and sought out a detox centre, but there were no beds available. He therefore decided to go to the emergency room and was brought there by his wife. The appellant testified that he was treated for alcohol withdrawal in the emergency room with diazepam. He added that he did not believe the doctor thought of removing his driver’s licence but that he only did so after his wife said she was worried about it.
15The appellant testified that while he has struggled with alcohol use disorder, currently he has been abstinent from alcohol for 73 days. His goal is to remain abstinent. He testified that his family doctor had prescribed naltrexone, an anti-craving medication but he is no longer taking it. He is scheduled to attend a rehabilitation program beginning January 22, 2025.
16We 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
17We find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
18The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely, in that there is a high risk for withdrawal, including seizure, in addition to the acute effects of alcohol on judgement, vision, reflexes, reaction time, and behaviour control.
19The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), specifically chapter 15.6.3 which states that drivers with substance use disorder, including alcohol, are eligible for a licence if:
i. they meet criteria for remission and/or have abstained from the substance for 12 months;
ii. earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.
iii. the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
iv. a road test or other functional assessment showing that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired may be required.
20Section 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.
21The appellant argues that alcohol use disorder does not impact his ability to drive safely, as he is currently abstinent from alcohol and he intends to remain abstinent for the rest of his life. He explained that he requires his licence to get to and from work, exercise facilities, family functions and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, which he attended sporadically prior to his licence suspension and would like to resume. Being able to drive to these activities, he states, would help support his recovery.
22Ms. Deborah Pitt, the appellant’s spouse, testified on the appellant’s behalf. She testified that she fully supports the appellant in getting his licence back, and that he has put in a lot of work in achieving his current period of sobriety. She further explained that his licence is necessary for him to maintain his daily routines.
23We found the appellant’s witness’s testimony clear and supportive of the appellant. We acknowledge that both the appellant and his witness testified that having his licence reinstated would help the appellant return to his routine activities and help him maintain his sobriety. However, the issue in this appeal is whether his alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
24As stated, the Registrar relies on the SUA form and the CCMTA Standards and Chapter 15.6.3 to support their position. The Tribunal is entitled to take the Standards into consideration but is not bound by them. The overriding consideration in this appeal is whether the Registrar has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and helpful, every case must be considered on its own facts.
25We note that Dr. Yuen, the appellant’s family physician, has diagnosed a severe alcohol use disorder. The appellant testified that he is not currently seeing any healthcare provider regularly or receiving treatment for his alcohol use disorder.
26While we acknowledge that the appellant’s spouse supports a return to driving, there is no information before us that any treating health care provider supports the reinstatement of appellant’s driving privilege - Dr. Yuen writes only that the appellant is motivated to make changes and is taking necessary steps for sobriety.
27We further note that the appellant’s “Extended Driver Record Search for Criminal Code Convictions”, submitted by the Registrar, shows several infractions, including one alcohol-related administrative suspension in 2015.
28While we commend the appellant for the tremendous effort and work in his early recovery, we find that 73 days is too short of a time necessary to establish that the appellant’s use of alcohol is under control. A longer period of time to show stability is needed. We note that a period of 12 months of abstinence is recommended by CCMTA chapter 15.6.3 and is required by the respondent. However, we note that 15.6.3 also permits that an earlier re-licencing may be considered upon a favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician, and completion of an approved rehabilitation program, however, there is no such recommendation and the appellant has not yet completed a rehabilitation program.
29We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
Conclusion
30We find that the Registrar has 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
31For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
Released: January 30, 2025
__________________________
Dr. Kailey Minnings
Member
__________________________
Geneviève Painchaud
Vice-Chair