Howden v. Ontario (Transportation)

Howden v. Ontario (Transportation) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-05-21 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 422 Docket numbers C49433 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Gillese, Eileen E.; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Howden v. Ontario (Transportation), 2009 ONCA 422 DATE: 20090521 DOCKET: C49433 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Weiler, Gillese and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN George Freeman Howden Appellant and The Registrar of Motor Vehicles and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation for Ontario Respondent George F. Howden, in person Scott A.E. Hattie, for the respondent Heard and released orally: May 6, 2009 On appeal from the judgment of Justice D. Aston of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 26, 2008. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals from the decision of Aston J. in which he confirmed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal in which it dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the decision of the Registrar. The Registrar’s decision, the subject of which is obviously of considerable concern to the appellant, downgraded the appellant’s driving licence from Class B to Class G. What this means in practical terms is that the appellant is no longer entitled to drive a school bus. Under his new classification, the appellant is entitled to drive passenger cars and small trucks. [2] The Registrar’s decision was based on information provided by the appellant’s physician, in accordance with the requirements of s. 203 of the Highway Traffic Act, that the appellant had been diagnosed with congestive heart failure and should not drive a commercial vehicle. [3] The appellant challenges the interpretation of the decision-makers below of s. 17(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 that provides as follows: 17. (1) Qualifications required by an applicant for a holder of a Class A, B, C, D, E or F driver’s licence are that the applicant or holder, (d) has no established medical history of heart disease including arrhythmia or of respiratory dysfunction likely to interfere with the safe driving of a motor vehicle of the applicable class; … [4] In his factum and submissions, the appellant advances two arguments. First, he says that the record does not disclose that the decision-makers below considered all of the evidence about his medical condition. Second, he challenges the manner in which the legislation is being applied. [5] With respect to the appellant’s first point, we find no error in Aston J.’s finding that the “Tribunal accorded the appellant a full opportunity to present evidence and considered the evidence he tendered”. We note that reasons need not contain reference to all the evidence as long as they clearly indicate the basis of the decision. [6] With respect to the second argument, we agree with Aston J. that the Tribunal did not fetter its discretion in the way in which it treated the CCMTA National Safety Code. The decision was made in accordance with nationally recognized standards set by medical experts. These standards include the CMA’s Guidelines and CCMTA Standards that are accepted and applied throughout Canada . [7] In view of the disposition of this appeal, we need not deal with the motion for fresh evidence. [8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “G.J. Epstein J.A.”