CONTENTS
Wednesday 11 December 1991
Appointments review
Paul Ledgister
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Vice-Chair: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC)
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough NDP)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East NDP)
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York NDP)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP)
Clerk: Arnott, Douglas
Staff: Pond, David, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1006 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Resuming consideration of intended appointments.
PAUL STAFFORD LEDGISTER
The Chair: I am going to call the meeting to order, and we will juggle with the rotation. If the Liberal Party arrives prior to the half-hour, we will provide it with an opportunity outside of the normal rotation. Oh, Mr Grandmaître has arrived just in time.
The first and only witness this morning is Paul Ledgister. Welcome to the committee. This is a maximum half-hour review in respect to your appointment as a member of the Licence Suspension Appeal Board; you were selected for a review by the official opposition.
I am going to begin today's questioning with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I will make my questions very short and, hopefully, precise. What makes you the ideal candidate for this appointment?
Mr Ledgister: In terms of whether I am the ideal candidate, I suppose that is a decision of this committee, and I am hoping its decision will be favourable. But I would like to bring to this board my background as a small business person who can appreciate what it is like to run a business that is subject to being licensed by the government. Also, as a person who has been driving in this province for more than 20 years, I think I could make a valuable contribution from a layperson's perspective.
Mr Grandmaître: I have a very strange case. A constituent of mine had her licence revoked because she was 73 years old. Do you agree with that?
Mr Ledgister: I could not make a judgement on that particular case unless I were presented with the evidence. I do not know what the circumstances were or are in her case, so I could not make that decision at this point.
Mr Grandmaître: I have been trying to get an answer from the Ministry of Transportation; I have written a number of letters. I will take 30 seconds and expose you to the case.
This lady was involved in a very minor accident, no damages. It just happened that a police officer was close by, made the investigation and charged her with failing to signal. Three weeks after, she received a letter from the Ministry of Transportation saying, "Due to the fact that you're 73 years old and you've been involved in a minor accident, we're suspending your licence." Three or four days after, she received another letter saying she will have to be re-examined.
I phoned the ministry, I wrote the ministry, and apparently that is a policy. It is not a written policy, but it is a policy of the Ministry of Transportation. I find this very unfair, that because she was 73 years old -- and this lady was never involved in any accident -- she would have to rewrite her driving exams. What are your thoughts on this? I am not trying to pin you down. I will not use your comments on Bay Street or Yonge, I promise you.
Mr Ledgister: Again, I have only heard very briefly from you what the circumstances may be. I would need to look more closely at maybe the ministry's information, if I were to be put in the position of making a decision on that. But based on what you have said, it would be premature for me to have any opinion.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize I am putting you on the spot, and that is not my intention, believe me. But do you believe in such a policy, that because you are 73 or 75 you would be automatically suspended if you were involved in an accident?
Mr Ledgister: I do not know if such a policy exists. Again, I do not want to impart my personal opinion on such a matter because it is my understanding that I am only a nominee to this board at this point, so I do not think I have the prerogative to offer my personal opinion at this point.
Mr Grandmaître: I understand you are only a nominee, but everybody else in the province knows you have been appointed. Let's not kid ourselves. If you do not know, well, then, everybody else in this province knows. Would you agree with such a policy, if such a policy exists?
Mr Ledgister: If it is a question of any form of discrimination, I suppose one would have to look at how it applies to the Charter of Rights. Again, I am not sure of what the circumstances are, whether it violates the Charter of Rights in terms of age in this case.
Mr McLean: I had some questions in mind, but it was interesting to listen to Mr Grandmaître, because I have a letter I am delivering to the minister today about a very similar case, where people have had their licences taken from them and they have to go through a procedure to get it back. I am wondering why there is not an appeal before the licence is taken away in some cases, instead of having that individual go and appeal to get his licence back.
You are being appointed to a board that is very interesting to you. What do you want to change in the board policies, if anything?
Mr Ledgister: I am not fully aware of all of the board policies. As I said, I would like to bring to the board my perspective as an ordinary Canadian driver in Ontario and I would also like to bring to the board my contribution as a small business person. I understand there is something of a backlog of appeals, and I think in terms of applying fair and equitable justice that every effort should be made to speed up those processes.
Mr McLean: One last question. Were you asked to apply for this position?
Mr Ledgister: I submitted my application to the public appointments secretariat indicating my desire to serve in any public position possible, and I was asked if I would be interested in this, and I indicated my interest.
Mr Wiseman: The Minister of Transportation has indicated that road safety is going to be an important element in the changes that are going to be made with reference to the insurance industry. Have you any comments about how the appeals board might be able to involve itself in helping define what those changes should be in terms of road safety and licensing?
Mr Ledgister: I am not at this point, as I said earlier on, quite familiar with all the mandates of this board, so I do not know if it would be within the jurisdiction of this board to be involved in this where the ministry is concerned.
Mr Wiseman: The Highway Traffic Act requires that all drivers over the age of 80 must take yearly road tests, written, vision and exams. The Canada Safety Council has indicated that as early as 55 reflexes and vision start to deteriorate. I think this is part of the problem the other two members are encountering with the appeals process. Do you have any thoughts on that kind of issue and whether it makes sense from the point of view of public safety to continue to be this concerned?
Mr Ledgister: I understand that medical reasons are one of the criteria used by the Ministry of Transportation in determining whether licences should be suspended, and these are subject to examination by a doctor. I also understand that there is a committee that would report to the board in cases where somebody because of medical reasons might have his or her licence suspended. Again, I would have to see the case and deal with it based on the evidence that is presented.
Mr Wiseman: We are a big province and drivers lose their licences all over the province. Do you think the appeals board should travel and hold hearings around the province?
Mr Ledgister: Yes, that is one of my concerns which I raised only last week when I spoke to a member of the minister's staff. I understand all the hearings are held here in Toronto, and I asked about people from northern Ontario, for example, who would have to travel quite a distance with a cost for them to come here to Toronto to appear before the board. I suggested that it might be a good idea for the board to be much more accessible in trying to move out to meet these people.
Mr Wiseman: I am going to switch gears here, unless my colleagues have a question. You are the former president of the Social Planning Council of Peel?
Mr Ledgister: Right.
Mr Wiseman: Will you make presentations to other standing committees on behalf of that organization?
Mr Ledgister: Not really. The executive director of that body is the person who from time to time would make presentations on behalf of that council. When I was the president, my primary function was to make presentations before the United Way in terms of funding for that agency.
Mr Wiseman: You have extensive involvement in your own community on a variety of issues, then, from the social planning council?
Mr Ledgister: Right.
Mr Wiseman: I have no more questions.
The Chair: You have four and a half minutes, Mr Elston.
1020
Mr Elston: I was interested in your view of the appeal board. As a member for instance, I will have somebody coming to me saying he has just had his licence removed because although his doctor said he was able to carry on, some person in the Ministry of Transportation has made a decision otherwise. Is it your view that a personal physician's opinion should carry more weight than somebody who has never interviewed or examined an individual whose licence is suspended for medical reasons?
Mr Ledgister: It is my understanding that if a person's licence is suspended, he or she would have the right to appear before this board.
Mr Elston: That was not the question. Do you believe someone who is a physician who has personally examined an individual and said "You should be able to drive" has more weight than a person who has not examined the individual?
Mr Ledgister: I do not think that I could make that decision right now unless I see all the evidence pertaining to that particular case.
Mr Elston: Do you think it would be fair for someone who has never examined an individual to say "You can't drive" when someone who has personally examined the individual has said "You ought to be able to drive?"
Mr Ledgister: I would have to know what the medical conditions are for the person who made that decision to have come up with that position.
Mr Elston: Would you believe, sitting on the appeal, that a report from a personal physician who has done the examination would have the same weight as someone who sits in an office in Toronto looking at a file, who has never seen the individual? Would they be the same weight or different weight, in your opinion? You are supposed to have an evenhanded view of this.
Mr Ledgister: I would tend to give a little more credence to the medical authority. I believe the board also has access to medical opinions.
Mr Elston: Would you be in a position where you would throw out the briefing notes which usually come with these appeal files? There is probably a compilation of ministry materials as they see the case where people say, "I can't appear in person," because at the moment you do not sit in Timmins, for instance. Would you be in a position to examine personally all the records as opposed to just a look at the briefing files for these appeal situations?
Mr Ledgister: It would be my endeavour to get all the facts about every case before I make a decision. In all fairness to the individual, I think they have that right. I would require that I be presented with all the material.
Mr Elston: Would this extend to the situation where someone had filled in the forms? I do not know whether you have seen the forms. I have. You have just been confronted with losing your licence; you fill in your name at the top and say, "I want to appeal, I can't appear in person, but here is the reason I'm doing it." The form is quite brief. There is a medical submission, presumably from the physician, who says, "He should be able to drive." Yet the Ministry of Transportation usually has the last word because it sets the docket for you, at least through what is about to become your organization it would do that. Would you see it as part of your role to ensure perhaps the appearance of some people in a case where you had a difficulty, even though the person did not ask for personal appearance?
Mr Ledgister: As I have indicated before, the right of the individual would be paramount, in my opinion. Therefore every effort would be made for that person to have equal access or a fair presentation before the board.
Mr Elston: One of the concerns generally with appeal tribunals, particularly when they are attached to the bureaucracy -- although this one is arm's-length; I understand you are not going to be a part of the ministry -- is the sense of the population in general that the last kick at this is through the ministry as opposed to through the hearing, because your briefing notes come down as to when and how and the dates and that sort of thing.
My questions are only designed to ensure for me that the individual is of paramount importance, because your role now means job or no job, home or no home in many cases for people. It is not, I hope, a sense that there has to be any support for the bureaucracy in this role. I think I have found that in you.
Mr Ledgister: As I said in my opening remarks, I want to bring that perspective as a driver and a business person.
Mr Frankford: I preface my remarks by saying I am a physician. Would you agree there is some conflict for personal physicians who have a professional advocacy relationship with the individual but are also being asked to write a brief which can very much affect that individual's livelihood or rights to drive.
Mr Ledgister: I did not get your question.
Mr Frankford: As a family doctor, I might be asked to provide a report which would affect someone's ability to drive and maybe their livelihood. Is there not some potential conflict between on the one hand your professional role as that person's advocate and your societal role protecting society against dangerous drivers?
Mr Ledgister: I would expect that whether or not you are the physician of the individual whatever you present to the board in terms of the ability of that person to operate a vehicle would be trustworthy. I would look at that carefully and I would also compare that with the position of the ministry's medical authority before I make a decision.
Mr Frankford: It would seem to me that the medical authority and what you as a board member might need in the way of guidelines is very critical. If I can give a concrete example, with heart conditions -- there must be many conditions where it is really quite open to dispute whether those are things which should stop people driving. Who is to decide what the actual risk is? I do not think it is a clear-cut matter of whether it is safe or unsafe; I think it is a matter of assessing overall risks.
Mr Ledgister: I would have to look at the case before me, look at the information the applicant's doctor presents in terms of his ability to operate a motor vehicle properly and safely and see what the ministry's position is and its interpretation as to whether this person should be allowed to continue to drive.
Mr Frankford: Do you think there is sufficient onus at present on the licence-holder to state whether he has a medical history and to be fully open about that? Do we leave too much at present on the physician?
Mr Ledgister: I suppose the final decision that would have to be taken would normally be arrived at from the opinion given by someone other than the individual who is making the appeal. Clearly, if somebody's licence is suspended, he is not going to say it should be if he is appealing before the board. So obviously we would need an outside opinion, which in this case would be their physician, and that of the physician of the board or the minister.
Mr Frankford: I suppose the analogy is with something like life insurance, where you, the applicant, fill out a form. You can put in lots of questions saying, "Have you ever had any advice," or had a heart condition or whatever. I think it is possible to put a considerable amount of the onus on the applicant.
Mr Ledgister: The applicant certainly would have to satisfy myself and I hope the other members of the board that he is capable of operating a motor vehicle safely.
Mr McLean: I just want to follow that up. What you are saying is that the physician's report will not take precedence over anything the appeal board wants to do. You are indicating that the appeal board will have the final say, even if a physician's report indicates the driver should have his licence reinstated. You are saying no.
Mr Ledgister: I do not think I said that, and it was not my intention to imply that. As I have maintained throughout this interview, I would make my decision based on the information presented to me. I was asked earlier on whether I would give more weight to the physician or that of the ministry. As I said, I would have to look at them both, listen to the person who is appealing and then arrive at a decision.
Mr McLean: But there can be a hardship on that individual who has had his licence taken away. He does not know why; the ministry has just done it. He has a letter from his doctor saying he should have his licence back, that it should never have been taken away in the first place. Who is going to reimburse that individual for, if he is a truck driver, not being able to drive his vehicle? Is it fair that they can do this?
Mr Ledgister: The question of fairness is not, I think, within my jurisdiction. We see incidents in the judicial system where there is a question of fairness and whether there should be compensation for wrongful conviction, etc. I do not know if it is within the mandate of this board to determine whether somebody, if his licence was suspended unfairly, should be reimbursed. I could not answer that.
Mr McLean: I wish you well on your appointment.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ledgister. That concludes the questioning. We appreciate your appearance. The clerk will advise you. We may even be passing a motion with respect to your appointment this morning, if you want to remain in the room for a few moments. Thanks again for your appearance.
The next matter on the agenda is the determination of whether the committee wants to concur this morning with the appointment of Mr Ledgister or, with the request of one member, we can delay dealing with that motion until next week.
Mr Wiseman moves that the committee concur with the appointment of Mr Ledgister.
Mr McLean: Were we not going to do it next week?
The Chair: It is up to any member to request. If one member requests a deferral, we are required to defer it a week. Are you suggesting that you want it deferred?
Mr McLean: No.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Although it does not appear on the agenda, we have to indicate acceptance of the subcommittee report. It is attached to your agenda. I do not necessarily need a motion. Does anyone have any questions with respect to the subcommittee report laying out the schedule for next week? We concur? Okay.
The committee adjourned at 1034.