Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17576/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:

Sokly Sa

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Sokly Sa, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: October 28, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Sokly Sa (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 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 acknowledges that he suffers from a mental health condition, but 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, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical 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 mental health condition, namely schizoaffective disorder.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) form which was completed by psychiatrist Dr. Kwaku Poku and dated September 6, 2023. The MCR indicates that the appellant has a psychiatric condition, specifically, schizoaffective disorder. The psychiatrist writes, “schizoaffective disorder. Not med compliant. Drove while delusional.”

12The Registrar also relies on a July 24, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Rod Lough, a psychiatrist at St. Joseph’s Health Care London. The letter only indicates that the appellant was under the care of Dr. Lough in hospital from July 2, 2025 until July 15, 2025, and provides no further particulars.

13The appellant acknowledges that he has schizoaffective disorder. However, the appellant’s position is that he does not currently have any symptoms of this condition.

14The MCR is persuasive that the appellant has a mental health condition, specifically, schizoaffective disorder, because it is completed by a treating psychiatrist. The appellant does not dispute that he has the condition.

15I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

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

16I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

17The Registrar submits that a mental health condition such as schizoaffective disorder can and will interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely and poses a risk for road safety, in that delusions and/or hallucinations can affect reaction time and the functional ability to operate a vehicle.

18The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) and internal policies at the Ministry of Transportation. Chapter 14 of the CCMTA Standards describes important considerations when making a driver fitness evaluation in persons living with mental health conditions. Specifically, s. 14.6.1 states under “Standard” that drivers are eligible for a licence if:

i. the condition is stable;

ii. the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute;

iii. the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired;

iv. a treating physician supports a return to driving, for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder; and

v. the conditions for maintaining a licence are met.

19The Registrar’s representative explained before reinstatement of the appellant’s licence could be considered, the Registrar requires additional information, specifically a Mental Health Assessment (“MHA”) form, to be completed by a treating physician, specialist, or nurse practitioner.

20Section 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.

21The appellant submits that his schizoaffective disorder is in remission and that he does not currently have symptoms. He further submits that he has not had any driving incidents related to schizoaffective disorder and that he is compliant with his treatment.

22The appellant testified that he was last admitted to hospital for mental health reasons from July 2 to July 15, 2025. When asked if he was experiencing psychosis at that time, he stated that he was starting to have thoughts and concerns of safety and he decided to go to the hospital. Prior to that, he was admitted to hospital once in 2024 and in 2023 for schizoaffective disorder. It was during the 2023 admission that Dr. Poku, a psychiatrist, completed the MCR. The appellant testified that he knew Dr. Poku for several years, having been treated by him as an inpatient on a previous occasion.

23He testified that although both his family doctor and his psychiatrist recently retired, he has since found a new family doctor and a new psychiatrist to take over his care. Despite that, he testified that none of his previous or current doctors were willing to complete the MHA form or provide any confirmation of his mental health stability.

24I appreciate the appellant’s testimony that his condition is stable, that he is adherent to his treatment regimen, that he is followed by a psychiatrist and a family doctor. However, I am concerned that the only medical opinion that I have before me is of a psychiatrist, Dr. Poku, who reports that the appellant was not compliant to medications and that he drove while delusional. Dr. Lough, another inpatient psychiatrist, provided a letter that simply confirms that the appellant was under his care in hospital from July 2, 2025 until July 15, 2025. It does not indicate whether the appellant’s condition is stable or whether he is supportive of a return to driving. I place more weight on the psychiatrist’s opinion that the appellant has schizoaffective disorder, a history of non-compliance and driving while delusional, than on the appellant’s own self-assessment.

25While the CCMTA is well-reasoned, and I took the Standards into consideration, every case must be decided on its own merits.

26I note that the CCMTA Standard set out in 14.6.1 indicates that, among other criteria, drivers are eligible for a licence if their condition is stable and if a treating physician supports a return to driving for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder. I find neither of these criteria have been satisfactorily met.

27I am concerned that none of the appellant’s physicians have provided a recent opinion on the status of his mental health condition or confirmation that his condition is stable. I note that there is no endorsement from a treating physician for a return to driving.

28I find that confirmation of a period of stability and a favourable recommendation from a treating physician, as the CCMTA Standards set out, are reasonable and prudent requirements for licensure. These requirements ensure road safety given the potential risks associated with driving with an episodic mental health condition.

29Based on the above, 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

30I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

31For 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.