Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15849/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to downgrade a licence pursuant to Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

Between:

Amir Siddiqui

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Peter Savage M. D.

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Amir Siddiqui, Appellant Vartan Manoukian, Representative of Appellant

For the Respondent:

Sharon Nelson, Agent for Minister

HEARD: June 11, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Amir Siddiqui (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to downgrade their Class A licence under s.32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Minister received a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason. Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”) states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister of Transportation may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act states that the Minister may 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.

4The Minister takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and that this provides sufficient reason to downgrade their licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

5The appellant appeals the downgrade under s. 50(1) of the Act. They acknowledge that they suffer from epilepsy but deny that they suffer from a medical condition which interferes with their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e. a commercial vehicle, safely.

6Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.

ISSUES

7The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e. a commercial vehicle, safely.

8To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e. a commercial vehicle, safely?

9The Minister bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Minister has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e. a commercial motor vehicle, safely and I confirm the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy.

12The Minister’s position is supported by medical reports completed by Dr. Michelle Onlock and Dr. Daryoush Gharagh.

13Dr. Onlock, an emergency room physician, reported a single seizure in her completion of an unsolicited medical condition report completed April 26, 2023.

14In the seizure and loss of consciousness questionnaire Dr. Gharaghi a neurologist confirmed the April 2023 seizure and reported a previous seizure that occurred decades ago in 2002. Dr. Gharghi confirmed the diagnosis of epilepsy. In subsequent notes on July 27, 2023, December 7, 2023, March 20, 2024 and May 4, 2024 Dr. Gharaghi confirmed the diagnosis of epilepsy.

15The appellant confirmed that he had epilepsy and that he had seizures in both 2002 and 2023 in his testimony.

16There is no conflicting evidence to refute this diagnosis of epilepsy.

17I find that the Minister has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from epilepsy.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely?

18I find that the Minister has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

19The Minister argues that seizures associated with epilepsy interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that they could result in the sudden loss of consciousness, leading to a loss of control while driving a heavy commercial vehicle. This could have disastrous results for the appellant and other users of the roadway.

20The Minister relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which confirms the dangers associated with epilepsy, both to the driver and other road users.

21Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them.

22The CCMTA Standards 17.6.12 recommend that a commercial driver who has been diagnosed with epilepsy be considered eligible for a commercial licence if they have not had a seizure with or without medication for a period of five years.

23The Minister points out the appellant has testified he has had two seizures, the last one in 2023, while still on the same anti-seizure medication that he was taking in 2002 when he had his first seizure.

24The appellant argues that epilepsy does not impact their ability to drive safely. The appellant points out their lifetime driving record with no evidence of any accidents or violations.

25The appellant argues he has taken every step possible to reduce the chance of further seizure.

• He has lost weight.

• He has improved his diet.

• He has begun regular exercising.

• He has reduced his work hours and taken more time off.

• He has reduced stress at home and work.

• He has followed up with his neurologist and has ongoing appointments with neurologist and family doctor.

• He takes his antiseizure medications regularly.

26The appellant’s counsel introduced documentary evidence from the appellant’s daughter, employer and neurologist all verifying the changes the appellant has made since his 2023 seizure.

27The appellant testified he has a unique reason for his appeal of the loss of commercial licence. He testified he had not driven a commercial vehicle since September 2021 when he was promoted to an office job administrating and scheduling buses. He testified that the reason he needed the commercial licence was that his company demanded all employees have a commercial licence. The appellant testified he thought it was a requirement of his company’s insurer.

28I do find the appellant has taken many steps to reduce the possibility of another seizure and I commend him for this. I am also sympathetic to the unique situation requiring the possession of a commercial license without the need to use it. My understanding is there is no such limited commercial licence and if the licence is reinstated it is a full licence with full permission to drive with no restriction and no mechanism to ensure the driver will not drive a commercial vehicle. That is, a licence of the applicable class for driving commercial motor vehicles cannot be granted on the understanding that the holder of the licence will not engage in the very act authorized by the licence. I do not have a means to reinstate a limited licence: it must be all or nothing.

29While I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, I find them reasonable and very relevant to the appellant’s case. The CCMTA Standards state that commercial drivers should be considered eligible only when seizure-free, with or without medication, for five years. In this case the appellant has had two seizures within the 21-year period between 2002 and 2023, and has stayed on the same medication. The 2023 seizure came without warning. It has only been one year and two months since his last seizure. That is not enough time to be sure another seizure will not occur while driving commercially. There is increased risk to the public due to the size and weight of a commercial vehicle and the frequency with which they are driven. I find that a longer period of stability is reasonable and prudent before the appellant should have his commercial licence reinstated.

30I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

Conclusion

31I find that the Minister has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

32For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence.