K. on trial for Parkinson's
 
    "Someone had to have denounced K., for without having done
anything wrong ..." he was informed one fine morning that a decision
had been made to suspend his driver's licence.
 
    K. had been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease five years earlier,
and indeed, the letter made reference to K.'s "neurological
condition" and, to K.'s surprise, to some medical examination report.
K. had just turned sixty, still worked full-time as a professor and
the chair of his department, had even won this year's top teaching
award in his university, and had otherwise every reason to think that
he had the symptoms of his disease well under control.   The letter
sent by SAAQ, the government agency which administers the Highway
Safety Code in K.'s province, also indicated that it might "review
its decision in light of new facts." Since K. had no knowledge of
what "facts" might be in the medical report, he sent a fax to SAAQ
requesting a copy.  When after more than a week SAAQ had not
responded, K. telephoned them.  The official to whom K. spoke was
evasive, maintained that he did not have K.'s file and began
questioning K. about the nature and the duration of his "neurological
condition." When K. indicated that he did not wish to pursue a
discussion of his neurological condition, if indeed such a condition
existed, the official became abusive, raised his voice accusing K. of
denying what he had previously admitted and calling him a liar until
K. hung up.
    K. realized that, on his own, he was no match for SAAQ. He first
telephoned his neurologist, a prominent and highly respected
specialist on Parkinson's Disease, who assured K. that he had no
recollection nor any record of a medical report written on K.'s
behalf and, moreover, that K.'s condition should not prevent him
from driving a car.  K. then formally requested in writing that SAAQ
review its decision and hired a lawyer.  The lawyer immediately
requested a copy of K.'s file, in particular of the medical
examination report.  Almost three weeks passed until SAAQ finally
wrote that "in accordance with the Act respecting access to documents
held by public bodies and the protection of personal information"
they could not provide him with a copy of the document on which the
decision to suspend K.'s driver's license was based.  After hours of
negotiations by telephone between K's and SAAQ's lawyers, and another
formal request, SAAQ relented by providing K. with a two-line excerpt
from the medical report, supplemented by a list of K.'s medications:
 
   "He has been suffering from Parkinson's disease since 1989.  He
    has involuntary movements of the upper limbs and the trunk -
    difficulty walking . ...
    Rx sinemet CR 200mg tid, parlodel 50mg: 7h, 12h, 4h;
    prolopa 50 tid; eldepryl, co die."
 
One notes that the text lists symptoms which do not normally occur
together and that the dosage for parlodel would have killed K. a long
time ago.  An excerpt from another document confirmed that there had
indeed been a denunciation:
 
   "K [...] (DOB 1935-08-08) of [...] Street in [...], we are very
    worried that with his physical condition (Parkinson's) he is
    still driving.  We are afraid that one day he will lose control
    of his car and kill some-one."
 
    K. had always been a careful driver, had never caused, or even
been involved in, an accident and still felt that as long as he
responded well to the drugs which control his symptoms and continued
to be careful he could drive a car.  K.'s neurologist evidently
agreed and confirmed this for SAAQ in writing.  Another month passed
without a decision by SAAQ.  Finally, they contacted K. and asked him
to take a road test.  So K. made an appointment with the local SAAQ
office and two days later proved to a friendly examining officer that
he could respect a stop sign, back into a parking spot and adhere to
the speed limit.  More importantly, the examiner informed K. that he
had no problem with K. driving a car.  It took SAAQ another two weeks
to make it official: K. was "on the road again."
 
    While, different from what happens to the K. in Kafka's novel,
this story seemingly has a successful outcome, it was not a happy
experience by any means. First and foremost, the bureaucratic
machinery of SAAQ proved to be almost as impenetrable and arbitrary
as that of the courts in the novel. Secondly, though K. will likely
never find out who denounced him, there evidently was, and probably
still is, a group of "concerned citizens", who, perhaps maliciously,
perhaps in good faith but without regard for K.'s civil rights,
collaborated with SAAQ.  One of them was K.'s family physician, who
suddenly dropped him as a patient while K. was making inquiries, and
who turned out to be the author of the medical examination report.
 
    For the K. in Kafka's novel little is resolved in the end, and
also for our K., after three months of relying on family and friends
to drive him to and from work, spending well over a $1,000 in legal
fees and, perhaps worst of all, suspecting every other neighbour or
colleague to be the instigator of his "trial" there are still too
many loose ends.  With the shroud of secrecy surrounding the
bureaucratic machinery of SAAQ it is difficult to assess the chances
of any legal action: K. might be throwing good money after bad.  Many
questions remain to be answered.  The bureaucratic nightmare of the
trial authorities has its own "logic" but K. hopes that in the end
"it can not resist a human being who wants to live."