Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16960/MED
Case Name: Susan Holt v. Minister of Transportation
Heard in writing:
For the Appellant: Susan Holt, Appellant
For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative
OVERVIEW
1On June 30, 2025, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s (“Tribunal”) decision following a hearing on May 13, 2025. In a decision dated June 9, 2025 (“Decision”), the Tribunal confirmed the Minister of Transportation’s order downgrading the appellant’s commercial driver’s licence for medical reasons.
2The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
3The appellant relies on the criteria set out in subsection c) and has provided additional evidence for consideration. I note that, in her submissions, the appellant refers to subsection d) of the former Rules. However, that section has since been relisted as subsection c), which is the applicable subsection under consideration here.
4Specifically, the appellant requests reconsideration of this Decision based on her allegations that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, this evidence could not have been obtained previously, and it would likely have affected the result of the Decision.
5The respondent’s position is that the appellant’s submissions fail to demonstrate overriding errors or fundamental evidentiary concerns, and it requests the Tribunal dismiss the reconsideration request.
RESULT
6I find that the appellant has not established a ground for reconsideration. The appellant’s request is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
The new evidence submitted by the appellant could have reasonably been obtained previously and would not likely have affected the result
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor—in this case, the appellant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2. Since the appellant is relying on subsection c), she must satisfy the three elements of this criterion, namely, that the evidence was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
8As explained in the Decision, I found that the respondent had discharged its onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. I found that the appellant suffered a seizure in December of 2024, and, while it may have been provoked by an infection, it occurred in the context of an underlying epilepsy disorder. In my view, the period of time that had passed since the appellant’s last seizure was not sufficient to ensure the condition is controlled and that the increased antiseizure medication is adequate to prevent further seizures. In the interest of public and road safety, particularly given the increased risk to the public because of the size and weight of a commercial vehicle, and the number of passengers that may be onboard, I found that the requirement of a longer seizure-free period of stability is reasonable.
9The appellant has provided four additional pieces of evidence for consideration:
- a March 18, 2025 consult note from neurologist Dr. Nily Osman;
- a narrative letter from Dr. Osman, dated June 28, 2025;
- a narrative letter from Dr. Aileen Gray, family physician, dated June 25, 2025; and
- a narrative letter from Mary (Bobbi Jo) Buchanan of Martin’s Bus Lines, dated June 25, 2025.
10The appellant submits that she tried several times to obtain a copy of Dr. Osman’s March 18, 2025 consult note prior to the hearing, but did not hear back from the physician’s office. The appellant submits that her family doctor, Dr. Gray, also requested the consult note on her behalf.
11In the June 25, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Gray submitted by the appellant, the doctor confirms that Dr. Osman’s consult note was not received before the May 13, 2025 hearing. I note, however, that the consult note submitted by the appellant has a faxed time stamp of April 9, 2025 at 11:07 am, from the fax number corresponding to Dr. Osman’s office. It does not, however, indicate the recipient. The narrative letter from Dr. Gray does not contain any additional information or new evidence to consider.
12The consult note indicates that the December 23, 2024 seizure was a “breakthrough” seizure, and that pneumonia with coughing and sleep deprivation likely contributed. It further states that the appellant has had a diagnosis of Partial Complex Seizure Disorder since 2020; and that her anti-seizure medication was increased following the “breakthrough seizure”. The note also states that, following the breakthrough seizure, the appellant was recommended, by a neurologist, to add an additional anti-seizure medication. However, the appellant had not yet filled that prescription, as she was uncertain about its necessity. Finally, Dr. Osman indicates that, given the appellant is compliant with her medication regimen and undergoing regular drug level monitoring, she is considered safe to resume driving. She writes that a Ministry of Transportation form will be completed and submitted on her behalf.
13Even if the March 18, 2025 consult note was unavailable or could not be obtained previously by the appellant as she asserts, it does not contain new or different information that would likely have affected the outcome of the hearing. Dr. Osman’s medical opinion was indeed considered at the hearing, as the physician had completed a Seizures and Loss of Consciousness (“SLOC”) form, dated April 1, 2025, containing relevant information from the March 18, 2025 assessment. The physician’s opinion that the seizure was provoked in the context of an infection, and that the physician is supportive of a return to driving, was relayed on the SLOC form. This opinion was considered in paragraphs 23, 24, 29, 30, 31 and 34 of the Decision.
14The appellant also submits a June 28, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Osman. In the letter, Dr. Osman explicitly endorses the appellant’s return to commercial driving; states that the seizure was provoked by pneumonia; and discusses a plan that, should the appellant experience symptoms of infection again, that she will refrain from driving and seek medical attention. The letter appears to have been written in response to the Decision.
15Although the appellant may disagree with the Decision, reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to re-argue their position, which is what I find to be the case here with Dr. Osman’s narrative letter. Further, given that it could have been reasonably assumed that this information would have been important at the hearing, and that the appellant met with Dr. Osman (who provided medical documentation in the form of the SLOC form), I am not satisfied that this evidence was new or undiscoverable at the time of the hearing.
16Finally, the appellant submits a letter from Ms. Buchanan of Martin’s Bus Lines, dated June 25, 2025. The letter sets out the appellant’s employment history as a school bus driver and explains her typical work schedule. The letter also states, “Susan has spoke to me about the plan and I assure you that Susan and I will follow.” However, there is no mention of what this plan entails, and there is no mention of her medical condition of seizure. The letter does not contain any information regarding the appellant’s medical condition or her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely. Further, I find that there was no explanation as to why this letter was only completed and submitted after the Tribunal rendered its decision, and there is no indication that the letter could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
17In her reply submissions, the appellant explains that she could not previously obtain the evidence she seeks to submit now due to difficulties reaching her doctor, and submits that the opinions of the neurologist would have affected the result. I disagree that the new evidence was unobtainable. The consult note could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and, in any event, would not likely have altered the outcome of the decision. The neurologist’s subsequent narrative letter consists of commentary and argument concerning the merits of the original Decision, rather than presenting new evidence that was unavailable during the hearing.
18The Tribunal finds that the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration as required by Rule 18.2. Reconsideration is only warranted in specific and limited cases where the Tribunal has either made a procedural, legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a decision has been rendered. It is not available in situations where the evidence was available and could have been obtained in time for the hearing. Further, it is not an appeal or hearing de novo where the positions addressed at first instance can be re-argued.
19The grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(c) have not been met, and the appellant has not shown the Decision warrants reconsideration.
Other arguments from the appellant
20In addition to requesting reconsideration on the grounds set out in Rule 18.2(c), the appellant also makes additional arguments on her ability to drive safely and submits details of safety measures she plans to follow. However, these additional arguments are outside the scope of this reconsideration request as they do not meet any of the specific and limited grounds for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
21For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.
Dr. Kailey Minnings Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 16, 2025