Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17551/MED
An appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.
Between:
Jason Laderoute
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Jason Laderoute, Appellant
For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent
Held by teleconference: October 1, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Jason Laderoute (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received an unsolicited Police Report stating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive a motor vehicle 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 Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.
3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend his licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.
4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He argues that he does not suffers from a mental health condition and therefore he does not have a condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
5Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.
ISSUES
6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
7To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:
i. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?
ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”
RESULT
9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
ANALYSIS
Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?
10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition.
11The Registrar’s position is supported by a Police Report dated July 7, 2025.
12The Police Report from Officer S supports the Registrar’s position that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition. The documentation reports:
i. the appellant’s driving ability is likely compromised due to mental health;
ii. the appellant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act, and
iii. the OPP had responded to a domestic dispute call to find the appellant acting unusual, and family members expressing concerns. The document reports that the appellant had lost significant weight, was unable to care for himself, and was therefore transported to the hospital.
13Following the receipt of the Police Report the Registrar suspended the appellant’s licence due to a mental health condition and requested further information including the completion of a Mental Health Assessment Form.
14The appellant subsequently submitted an Interdisciplinary Discharge Form which indicated the appellant had been admitted to hospital under psychiatrist Dr. S.
15The Registrar responded with a letter requesting again the completion of a Mental Health Assessment Form.
16The appellant testified that his wife and sister-in-law had been acting irrationally leading up to the incident that brought him to hospital. He testified that on the day prior to his apprehension by police, his wife became very upset after finding evidence of beer and “weed” in the garage, and his wife or sister-in-law phoned the police. The appellant testified his wife, and children were advised by the police to spend the night with her brother and sister-in-law. He further testified that the following day he went to his in-law’s house to pick up his family, but no one answered the door when he knocked, and when he phoned his wife, he described her behaviour again being irrational and the police were called a second time. The appellant testified he was then handcuffed by police when they arrived and taken to the hospital under the Mental Health Act.
17The appellant testified he was admitted to hospital on the Mental Health Unit and held against his will for 11 days. He testified he was under the care of Dr. S but not given a diagnosis. He testified he is not mentally ill and is in fact one of the most mentally fit people that he knows.
18Under cross-examination, the appellant testified that he had not experienced any mental health symptoms leading up to his hospitalization and the incident had only occurred due to the “fraudulent” 911 calls. He further testified was given medication during his admission, which he only agreed to take because he realised he would not be discharged if he didn’t take the medication. With further questioning, he testified he had been discharged with prescriptions for lithium, olanzapine, a multivitamin and thiamine, however he had not taken any of the medications since he was discharged as he did not have a mental health condition. He testified he has been healthy all his life and never been on medication, nor does he require medication now.
19The medical evidence in this case comprises a Police Report describing symptoms of a mental health condition and a discharge form from hospital following an 11-day admission for psychiatric care. While the appellant has testified that he does not have a mental health diagnosis, he testified he was prescribed lithium and olanzapine upon discharge from hospital. As a duly qualified practitioner in Ontario and pursuant to s.16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, I know that lithium is a mood stabilizing medication and olanzapine is an anti-psychotic medication, and both are used to treat mental health conditions. I find that it is illogical and contradictory for the appellant to be admitted to a hospital under the care of a psychiatrist for over a week, and to be prescribed these medications in the absence of a mental health condition, and the appellant has provided no alternative explanation.
20Based on the medical evidence and the appellant’s testimony, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.
Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
21I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
22The Registrar stated their position is supported by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [2025 Update] (the “CCMTA Standards”) and internal policies. The Registrar clarified that their internal policy is to suspend a driver’s licence due to a mental health condition and request further information when they receive information indicating a driver was apprehended under the Mental Health Act.
23The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards Chapter 14 which document that psychiatric disorders can result in either a persistent or episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving and highlights that a driver’s level of insight is a critical consideration when assessing the risk of an episodic impairment of functional ability due to a psychiatric disorder.
24The Registrar relies on Standard 14.6.1. This Standard indicates a driver is eligible for a licence if the condition is stable, the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute, the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired, and a treating physician supports a return to driving.
25The Registrar stated that their decision to suspend the appellant’s licence and request further medical information was reasonable and in keeping with road user safety and requests confirmation of their suspension.
26Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar 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 are not bound by them.
27The appellant argued that his licence should be reinstated as he did not have a medical condition, is fit to drive, and the 911 calls had been “fraudulent”. He testified that he had driven upon discharge from hospital for five days before he realised his licence was suspended. He testified he is now back working in the trades but requires his licence and described the hardships associated with getting to and from work.
28The appellant testified he did not have a family doctor but had attempted to complete the requested Mental Health Assessment form by attending a walk-in clinic. At the walk-in-clinic Dr. M would not complete the requested form but sent a letter to Dr. S asking him to complete the form. The appellant submitted this letter from Dr. M as evidence. The appellant also submitted electronic communication between himself and Dr. S’s office assistant confirming that Dr. S had received his requested form a few weeks earlier, but he had not heard from Dr. S.
29Under cross-examination the appellant testified he is on a waiting list to be part of Dr. M’s practice but that may take some time, and he has no physician regularly following his mental health. The appellant was asked if he had considered whether another mental health incident may recur if he did not take his medication, and he indicated he did not need the medication and was not concerned about a recurrence.
30Under cross-examination the appellant was asked regarding what services he was referred to following discharge from hospital. He testified that he received a call from the hospital three or four days after discharge and was instructed to attend a follow up appointment with Dr. S. The appellant testified he refused to attend the appointment as he did not believe he had a mental health concern. However, he now regrets not attending that appointment given his licence is suspended and he requires Dr. S to provide further medical information.
31I appreciate the appellant’s position that he does not have a medical condition that will impact his ability to drive, but I weighed that against the evidence that he was recently treated in hospital for 11 days and by his own testimony has not followed any of the discharge instructions, included taking the appropriate medications to avoid a relapse and following up with his treating psychiatrist.
32I acknowledge that psychotic episodes due to psychiatric illness may be the most urgent psychiatric situation regarding fitness to drive and an acute psychotic episode is incompatible with safe driving. The appellant denies having a medical condition with symptoms of psychosis, but I also acknowledge that he testified has been treated with an anti-psychotic medication during his hospital admission and advised to continue the medication upon discharge.
33Insight is an important consideration when considering safety to drive. Insight means that a driver is aware of their medical condition, understands how the condition may impair their functional ability to drive and has the judgment and willingness to comply with a suggested treatment regimen. I am not persuaded that the appellant has the level of insight and understanding about his mental health that is consistent with driver safety. The appellant’s insight appeared poor when he testified that his apprehension by police was due to irrational behaviour by his spouse, he has no mental health diagnosis after an 11-day involuntary hospital admission, he has no need to take prescribed medications or follow up with the scheduled psychiatric appointment, and he is not concerned about a risk of relapse despite not complying with his psychiatrist’s treatment plan. Insight into having a psychiatric disease means that that you understand that the disease may fluctuate over time and therefore are monitoring for those periods where the disease state may be incompatible with driving is necessary, and the appellant did not demonstrate an understanding of this in his testimony.
34Although this Tribunal is not bound by the CCMTA Standards, they can be considered when making the decision for the reason that these Standards are the result of a lengthy and intensive process to provide medical standards based on the best evidence available and with a focus on functional ability to drive rather than exclusively on medical diagnoses.
35Given that the appellant is non-compliant with his anti-psychotic medication and symptoms of psychosis are incompatible with safe driving, and that the appellant has not followed up with his discharge instructions to see Dr. S to monitor for symptoms, this increases the risk that a relapse may occur and go unnoticed. As such, I accept and apply the CCMTA guidance to this case. With no documented stability, no medical evidence to confirm the appellant has the insight and understanding into his illness to stop driving should his symptoms become acute, and no supportive statement from a physician for reinstating the appellant’s driver’s licence, I find this insufficient to set aside the suspension.
36As such, for the reasons cited, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
Conclusion
37I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, and that condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
38For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
Released: October 7, 2025
__________________________
Isla McPherson MD
Adjudicator