Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17563/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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Nicholas O’Connell

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Bernard Trottier, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Nicholas O’Connell

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: October 8, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Nicholas O’Connell (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 a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive 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.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol-provoked seizure, 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 denies that he suffers from a mental health condition which interferes 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, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol-provoked seizure?

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, we find that the Registrar has not 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. We set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On June 13, 2025, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his driver’s licence was suspended due to alcohol use disorder. This was following the receipt of an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) which indicated that the appellant had Substance Use Disorder (alcohol). The MCR was completed and signed by a treating physician on June 13, 2025. In response, the Registrar requested that the appellant submit a Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form completed by a physician.

11The appellant submitted the SUA form, completed by his family physician, Dr. Llewellyn Pearce, and dated September 12, 2025. Dr. Pearce indicates that the appellant has a moderate alcohol use disorder and that he had an alcohol-induced seizure 3 to 6 months prior to completion of the SUA.

12In response, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated September 26, 2025 indicating that his licence was now suspended for alcohol/drug-provoked seizure. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the appellant’s licence was suspended for alcohol-provoked seizure, and not for alcohol use disorder, and that was the only medical condition in question for the hearing.

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol provoked seizure?

13The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol-provoked seizure.

14The Registrar’s position is supported by the SUA form, completed by Dr. Pearce, which indicates that the appellant had suffered an alcohol/drug-provoked seizure.

15The appellant testified that he is unsure whether he had a seizure. He stated that that on June 7, 2025, he was in Montreal for work and experienced an episode of loss of consciousness while touring a warehouse that was witnessed by his work colleagues. He stated that he began to feel unwell, and subsequently lost consciousness. His colleagues helped him to a chair where he “woke up”. The appellant submits that the previous night, he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol.

16Following this episode, he proceeded to the Emergency Room of a Montreal hospital where he underwent investigations. He believes he was initially diagnosed with dehydration. On discharge from the Emergency Department, he called his family to bring him back to Ottawa. Once he returned home, he testified that he was “not himself” and he decided to visit The Ottawa Hospital where he was admitted for four days.

17He testified that while admitted to The Ottawa Hospital, he was told by his treating physicians that the episode that he experienced on June 7, 2025 may have been a seizure. He underwent further investigations including an EEG.

18As the only medical opinion before us, we place significant weight on Dr. Pearce’s assessment that the appellant had a seizure. There is no medical evidence before us to suggest an alternate explanation for the loss of consciousness. The opinion of Dr. Pearce and the appellant’s testimony support that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant experienced an alcohol-related seizure on June 7, 2025.

19We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol-provoked seizure.

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

20We find that the Registrar has not 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.

21The Registrar argues that alcohol-provoked seizure can and will interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that a seizure can cause sudden incapacitation which cannot be compensated for.

22The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), standard 17.6.2, which states that non-commercial drivers with provoked seizure without structural brain abnormality are eligible for a licence if they have undergone neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure, and epilepsy is not diagnosed; the provoking factor has stabilized, resolved or been corrected; and the treating physician indicates that further seizures are unlikely. As per their September 26, 2025 letter to the appellant, the Registrar requires confirmation that the appellant has remained seizure-free for a period of six months, before licence reinstatement can be considered. The Registrar’s representative explained that this six-month requirement is based on internal policies.

23Section 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.

24The appellant argues that his seizure due to alcohol does not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

25He testified that he has remained abstinent from alcohol since the June 2025 hospital admission, and he does not plan on ever drinking alcohol again. Aside from this episode in June, he has never experienced a seizure or seizure-like episode in the past and has not experienced any since then.

26The appellant testified that while he was in The Ottawa Hospital, he believes that he was treated for alcohol withdrawal. On discharge, he was prescribed a medication to help with alcohol cravings and was referred to an addictions program at The Ottawa Hospital. He attended an initial intake assessment at the addictions program, and they determined that the treatment program was not needed, as his alcohol use was not severe enough. He also states that, given he has remained abstinent from alcohol, he has since discontinued the anti-craving medication with the support of Dr. Pearce.

27We note that the SUA form, completed by Dr. Pearce, corroborates the appellant’s testimony. The appellant testified that he has been a patient of Dr. Pearce for 8-9 years. The SUA form indicates that the appellant has a moderate substance use disorder, specifically with alcohol, and that he has abstained for a period of less than 6 months; that he has had one seizure within the past 12 months; that the seizure was provoked by alcohol (alcohol induced); and that the provoking factor has been stabilized, resolved or corrected. The doctor indicates that completion of a supervised treatment program is “not applicable”.

28While the CCMTA Standards are well reasoned, and we took them into consideration, every case must be decided on its own merits.

29The only medical evidence that we have before us consists of the opinions of two physicians: the first, a hospital treating physician, indicates a substance use disorder on the MCR. The second, Dr. Pearce, indicates a moderate substance use disorder, in remission, and an alcohol-provoked seizure. We placed significant weight on Dr. Pearce’s opinion that the seizure in June of 2025 was provoked by alcohol, and that the provoking factor has now resolved/corrected. We felt it was likely that Dr. Pearce, the appellant’s family physician of several years, had access to medical records from the June 2025 ER visit and the hospital stay, and a solid understanding of the appellant’s overall health and condition to inform his answers on the SUA. Dr. Pearce’s answers on the SUA form support the appellant’s testimony that he has abstained from alcohol and has not required any specialized addictions treatment program or any further medical treatment for alcohol use disorder.

30We agree with the Registrar that seizures, such as the type of seizure the appellant suffered, can cause a sudden impairment of cognitive, motor or sensory functions, or a loss of consciousness. As seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, a driver cannot compensate. However, we did not find any compelling evidence that this risk is ongoing, given the appellant’s abstinence from alcohol. We note that the Registrar’s requirement for a six-month period of stability is not based on the CCMTA Standards, but rather on internal policies. At the time of the hearing, four months had passed since the episode in question without recurrence, which we find is a reassuring period of time to demonstrate stability.

31Based on the above, we are not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

32We find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol-provoked seizure, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

33For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.