Garry Fisher, M.D.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension for failing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to blow into the approved screening device due to weakness from fasting, hot weather, and a history of sinus bradycardia.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence unpersuasive and noted the police officers observed no physical abnormalities or signs of weakness.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a suitable breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to blow into the breathalyzer due to chronic bronchitis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence weak and noted that the appellant did not exhibit respiratory distress at the scene, nor did he request his inhaler until an hour after his arrest.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant was unable to provide a breath sample for a medical reason and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant, a paramedic, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to suspend his commercial driver's licence following two episodes of loss of consciousness while driving.

The episodes were determined to be complex partial seizures caused by a benign meningioma, which was subsequently surgically resected.

The appellant's doctors supported his return to driving, noting a low risk of recurrence with medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the rigid application of the CCMTA guidelines requiring a five-year seizure-free period was not appropriate in this case, as the underlying cause had been surgically addressed and there was no ongoing physical disability.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, allowing the appellant to regain his commercial licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's ongoing alcohol consumption and failure to provide requested medical information supported the E.R. physician's assessment of alcohol dependence.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The Appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed for failing to provide a breath sample.

The Appellant argued she was unable to comply with the breath demand due to a panic attack, which constituted a medical reason under section 50.1(2)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal accepted medical evidence from the Appellant's family doctor and a psychiatrist confirming her history of generalized anxiety disorder and panic attacks.

Finding the Appellant credible and that her panic attack prevented her from providing a sample, the Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to his daily use of marijuana, which he smoked while suffering from polycystic kidney disease.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Medical Advisory Committee provided no evidence equating the appellant's marijuana use with an addiction that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the appellant's driving privileges fully reinstated.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a single seizure.

The Registrar suspended the licence based on medical reports suggesting the seizure was alcohol-related due to elevated liver enzymes.

The Tribunal found that the elevated liver enzymes were caused by steatohepatitis, not alcohol dependence, and noted the Applicant had abstained from alcohol for five months with no further seizures.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following an ischemic stroke.

After a period of rehabilitation, the applicant underwent a comprehensive driver assessment but failed the cognitive portion, leading to a recommendation of driving cessation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to alleged cognitive deficits.

The suspension was based on medical reports suggesting dementia and a subsequent driving evaluation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence inconsistent, noting the Applicant scored near perfect on an MMSE test.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported alcohol-related seizure and alcohol dependence.

Medical evidence revealed the initial diagnosis was flawed and the seizures were actually caused by a cerebral spinal fluid infection (meningitis), not alcohol withdrawal.

The Tribunal found the Applicant does not have alcohol dependence and is fully recovered.

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