Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17603/MED

In the matter of 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:

Ed Foley

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. K. Minnings

L. Hodgson

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

E.Foley, self represented

For the Respondent:

M. Litrenta, Representative

HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE: October 9, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Ed Foley (the appellant) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the Registrar) to suspend his Class G licence. It is the Registrar’s position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, Parkinson’s disease, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant acknowledges his diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease but denies that it interferes with his ability to drive safely.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (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 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. Under s. 14(2)(b) of this regulation, the Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUES

4The issues are as follows:

i. Does the appellant have a medical condition, namely Parkinson’s disease?

ii. If yes, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

5The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

6Having considered the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the Registrar has established that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has a medical condition

7The Registrar relies on the Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated May 6, 2025, completed by the appellant’s family doctor and the Ministry Form: “Cerebrovascular Diseases, Traumatic Brain Injury, Tumour or Other Neurological Diseases” (Ministry Form), dated June 5, 2025, completed by a nurse practitioner at the University Health Network neurology clinic to establish that the appellant has Parkinson’s disease.

8The appellant does not dispute that he has Parkinson’s disease and indicated that he was first diagnosed over twenty years ago.

The medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with the ability to drive a motor vehicle safely

9We find the Registrar has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s condition will significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

10The Registrar relies on the following medical documents to support their position:

• the May 6, 2025, MCR written by the appellant’s family doctor, which notes worsening gait and coordination and recommends a functional driving assessment;

• the nurse practitioner’s progress note from an April 16, 2025 neurological exam indicating that the appellant had signs of foot dragging, limping and axial symptoms; and

• the June 5, 2025, Ministry Form, where the nurse practitioner indicated that the appellant has an unspecified physical impairment and agreed that he should complete a functional driving assessment.

11In correspondence dated June 5, 2025, the Registrar requested that the appellant complete a satisfactory driving assessment from an approved Functional Assessment Centre.

12The appellant testified that, while he has lived with Parkinson’s disease for many years, he does not believe it interferes with his ability to drive safely. The appellant explained that since 2018, he has received Deep Brain Stimulation treatment which involves the surgical implantation of electrodes. The appellant attends a clinic in Toronto four times a year to have the implantable pulse generators (IPG) – his “batteries” - replaced. The appellant reports that, prior to the surgery, he had stopped driving because of his motor symptoms. He described the surgery as “flipping a switch” and significantly improving his motor symptoms.

13The appellant notes that, prior to his family doctor completing the MCR in May, the physician did not conduct a comprehensive examination. The appellant was attending his doctor’s office to have sutures from the recent IPG implant removed and, at that time, only had a brief interaction with the physician. The appellant did acknowledge that he has been a patient of this physician for a decade. The appellant does not agree with the physician’s observation of worsening gait and coordination.

14The appellant testified that he has not completed a functional assessment because of its high cost and because he does not believe it is necessary.

15The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the CCMTA Standards). The CCMTA Standards note that “[t]here is a small but consistent body of research indicating that functional deficits associated with Parkinson’s disease or its treatment may impair driving performance.” The standard for licence eligibility for drivers with a neurological disorder such as Parkinson’s disease include:

• range of motion, strength and coordination are sufficient to

perform the functions necessary for driving

• where required, a road test or other functional assessment

indicates that the driver is able to compensate for any loss of

functional ability necessary for driving

16The Registrar points to the medical evidence documenting the appellant’s declining gait and coordination and the recommendation from two medical practitioners that the appellant take a functional assessment before he resumes driving. We have fully considered the appellant’s evidence that, in his view, his condition is stable and does not interfere with his ability to drive safely. There was, however, no medical evidence supporting a return to driving without the completion of a functional assessment.

17While not bound by them, we are persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards here. Under these standards, the appellant is required to complete a road test or functional assessment to confirm he has the requisite range of motion, strength, coordination and functions necessary for driving. The appellant has not completed this assessment and, based on the medical evidence from the appellant’s long-standing physician and his nurse practitioner, the Registrar has established that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

18The Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

19For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.