Dr. Kailey Minnings

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence after receiving a medical report indicating he had suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal noted the appellant had not yet completed his treatment program or demonstrated a sufficient period of abstinence.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months due to a reported performance failure.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the decision to extend the interlock condition was made under O. Reg. 287/08, not under section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act.

As the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals explicitly assigned to it by statute or regulation, and decisions under O. Reg. 287/08 are not appealable under section 50(1) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to suspend her driver's licence for failing to submit a satisfactory medical report.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the suspension was made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, which is not an appealable decision under s. 50 of the Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that Ontario Regulation 340/94 only prescribes decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(i) as appealable.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Minister of Transportation's order downgrading her commercial driver's licence for medical reasons following a seizure.

The appellant argued that new medical evidence, including a consult note and narrative letters from her physicians, warranted reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence and would not likely have affected the original decision, as the neurologist's opinion had already been considered.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a 'G' licence following a medical report indicating an episode of syncope and loss of consciousness.

The appellant argued the diagnosis was based on a mistranslation and that his dizziness was caused by dehydration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal preferred the medical evidence of the treating emergency physician and cardiologist, finding that the appellant suffered an atypical vasovagal syncope episode.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle and confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension issued under section 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he was unable to comply with a breath demand for medical reasons.

The appellant claimed that his use of alcohol-based mouthwash and over-the-counter cold medication caused a false fail reading.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant actually did provide breath samples and failed to produce credible medical evidence demonstrating an inability to comply.

The Tribunal accepted the police breath technician's evidence that the medications and mouthwash would not have affected the breath sample results two hours later.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar received a report from the appellant's treating endocrinologist indicating she had experienced episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia and that, despite her recent use of a continuous glucose monitor, there was insufficient medical evidence to prove her glycemic control had been re-established.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a reported medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had a history of alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence of abstinence and her family doctor's recommendation for reinstatement.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a medical condition.

The Registrar relied on medical reports from multiple psychiatrists indicating the appellant suffers from a delusional disorder that impairs her ability to drive safely.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition and requested the Tribunal's decision be sealed.

The Tribunal dismissed the sealing request, finding no serious risk to an important public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension, finding the preponderance of medical evidence established the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that significantly interferes with her ability to drive safely, noting her lack of insight and absence of treating physician support.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.

While the appellant acknowledged his diagnosis, he argued it did not interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting he had been abstinent for over three months, completed a treatment program, and had the support of his family physician.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to establish that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting he met the criteria for early re-licensing under the CCMTA Standards.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Relying on an unsolicited Medical Condition Report indicating a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, and applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving a medical report indicating the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

The appellant acknowledged the diagnosis but argued he was currently abstinent and his condition did not interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's 73 days of abstinence was insufficient to establish his alcohol use was under control, noting the lack of a favourable recommendation from a treating physician and the CCMTA standard recommending 12 months of abstinence.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically cognitive impairment.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from the appellant's physician indicating cognitive impairment due to dementia and major neurocognitive disorder concerns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his refusal to undergo further cognitive testing.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class 'G' licence following a single episode of syncope (loss of consciousness).

The Minister relied on the CCMTA medical standards, which require a 12-month waiting period for unexplained syncope.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant experienced syncope, it was postural and preceded by warning signs, rather than unexplained.

Noting the appellant's clean medical workup and support from his family doctor, the Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically syncope/loss of consciousness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the appellant suffered from an unexplained episode of atypical vasovagal syncope.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards, the Tribunal concluded that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle, particularly a school bus, as he had not been episode-free for the required 12-month period.

The appeal was dismissed and the downgrade confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical condition, namely bipolar disorder.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from bipolar disorder and that her condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her history of episodic mania and lack of sufficient insight to stop driving if her condition becomes acute.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar received reports from treating physicians diagnosing the appellant with severe alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder and that he had not met the criteria for licence reinstatement under the CCMTA Medical Standards, having abstained from alcohol for only six months without supportive medical recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence due to a reported cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that medical evidence, including multiple assessments and a failed functional driving assessment, established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment.

The Tribunal concluded that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his lack of insight and refusal to undergo another functional driving assessment.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade their Class D commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence following a single unprovoked seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, finding that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a Class D vehicle safely.

The Tribunal applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which require commercial drivers to be seizure-free for at least 12 months, noting the increased risk to the public associated with commercial vehicles.