Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal File Number: 13082/MED
Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to change the class of a driver’s licence under subparagraph 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act
Between:
Braeden May
Appellant
and
Minister of Transportation
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Laura Hodgson, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: No-one Appearing
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference: February 23, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview:
1The 31-year-old appellant appealed from the decision of the respondent Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to downgrade his licence from a Class D to a Class G licence. The appellant appears to have suffered from three separate seizures since December 2019. Each seizure was reported to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) pursuant to s. 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”).
2The appellant did not appear for his hearing. The appeal proceeded in his absence.
ISSUE
3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically seizures, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a Class D motor vehicle.
RESULT
4We find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically seizure disorder. This medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class D motor vehicle safely. Accordingly, we confirm the Minister’s decision.
FACTS
5On December 4, 2020, the appellant’s physician reported a seizure to the Registrar. The appellant’s licence was suspended on December 9, 2019. On January 29, 2020, a hospitalist reported an epilepsy-related seizure. The appellant’s neurologist filed a report dated May 22, 2020 indicating that the appellant suffered primary epilepsy/seizure disorder and that a reduced waiting period for non-commercial licence reinstatement was supported. On May 27, 2020, the Registrar notified the appellant that his licence was reinstated but downgraded from a Class D to a Class G licence. The decision to downgrade the appellant’s licence was made under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the HTA.
6On June 14, 2020, an emergency room physician notified the Registrar of another cerebral seizure. The appellant’s licence was suspended on July 1, 2020. In a letter dated October 29, 2020, the appellant’s neurologist indicated that his clinical diagnosis is ‘primary generalized epilepsy, genetic etiology’. The neurologist indicated that the appellant’s symptoms had improved with treatment and recommended reinstatement of his “G” licence. On November 12, 2020, the Registrar notified the appellant that his “G” class licence has been reinstated.
LAW
7The Minister has the authority to change the class of a driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the HTA, which states:
The Minister may require an applicant for a driver’s licence or an endorsement or a person who holds a driver’s licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements, and the Minister may,…
(b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,
(i) impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements…
8The Minister’s decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i) is to be made in accordance with the examinations that the Minister may require and other prescribed requirements.
9One of the prescribed requirements is set out in Ontario Regulation 340/94, a regulation made under the HTA. Section 14(1)(a) of the Regulation states:
An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
(a) suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely;
10In determining whether a person meets that requirement, the Minister may require the person to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. That evidence may include any reports of examinations that the person is required to submit pursuant to s. 15 of the Regulation.
11Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may consider the CCMTA Standards. They may be persuasive, but they are not binding requirements.
12The Minister has the burden of establishing the ground for changing the class of a driver’s licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.
B. ANALYSIS:
13We find that, based on reports filed, the appellant has suffered three seizures since December 2019. As noted above, a letter from the appellant’s neurologist dated October 29, 2020, presents a diagnosis of primary epilepsy.
14We find that given the appellant’s diagnosis of epilepsy, the number of seizures and relatively short period of stability, allowing him to drive a commercial vehicle involves significant risk to others and to himself. The CCMTA Standards (17.3 and 17.4) note that individuals with epilepsy have an increased risk for adverse driving outcomes. Seizures can cause a sudden impairment of cognitive, motor or sensory functions, or a loss of consciousness while driving.
15The Registrar submits that the appellant should not be permitted to drive a commercial vehicle until he submits a report that he has remained seizure-free for five years with anti-seizure medication or one year without anti-seizure medication. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA Standards with respect to epilepsy – commercial drivers (chapter 17) and specifically Guidelines 17.6.12 and 17.6.5.
16As noted, the Tribunal is not obliged to apply the CCMTA standards. They are, however, persuasive and we see no reason to depart from them in the circumstances of this case.
17We find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class D motor vehicle safely. We agree that a further waiting period is necessary before the appellant’s Class D licence can be reinstated.
ORDER:
18For the reasons set out above, we confirm the Minister’s decision dated May 27, 2020.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member
Laura Hodgson, Member
Released: March 11, 2021