Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17946MED

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:

Jonathan Gingerich

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Jeffrey Campbell, Vice Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jonathan Gingerich, Self Represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: December 4, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jonathan Gingerich (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class AZ 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 medical 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 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, 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 and we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10The Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated August 22, 2025 indicating that he was required to file an up-to-date assessment from his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner in the form of a Mental Health Assessment (“MHA”) and Driver Medical Report.

11The appellant’s psychiatrist, Dr. McAuley, completed the MHA on October 28, 2025.

12On October 29, 2025, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his driving privilege was suspended.

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

13The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely bipolar disorder.

14The Registrar’s position is supported by the MHA form and a November 5, 2025 narrative letter, both from psychiatrist Dr. McAuley. On both documents, Dr. McAuley indicates that the appellant has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. The MHA form states that the appellant has had 2 or more hospital admissions over the past 12 months. The Registrar also relies on a hospital admission note from psychiatrist, Dr. Reddington dated August 22, 2025 and a hospital discharge note from Dr. McAuley dated August 25, 2025. These notes indicate that the appellant was admitted to hospital for depressive symptoms.

15The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from bipolar disorder.

16We 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?

17We 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.

18The Registrar argues that an episodic mental health condition such as bipolar disorder can interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that it can interfere with the functional abilities required for driving.

19The 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.

20The respondent’s representative explained that the Registrar also relies on internal policies, which stipulate that a 6-month period of stability is required for those who have had 2 or more hospital admissions over the past 12 months.

21Section 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.

22The appellant argues that his bipolar disorder does not impact his ability to drive safely. He testified that his symptoms are episodic in nature and that he strictly does not drive when he is experiencing a relapse. The appellant explained that he is successfully self-employed in a business where he hauls and sells firewood. He drives a pick-up truck with a trailer.

23He testified that he has had bipolar disorder since 2013. At that time, he began seeing his psychiatrist Dr. McAuley. He explained that when his condition relapses, he seeks medical attention from Dr. McAuley and that with adjustments in his medications, his symptoms resolve fully. Currently, he is taking aripiprazole, bupropion, lithium and Vitamin B to treat his condition. He testified that he is adherent to his medications and that he has started using an alarm on his phone to remind him to take his medication. He stated that he sees his psychiatrist every 3-6 months and as needed.

24The appellant testified that he was last admitted to hospital for mental health reasons in August 2025. He went to the hospital at the recommendation of his family due to depressive symptoms. He was dealing with significant losses in his life, including the anniversary of a death of a family member. He missed taking some of his medication and experienced a relapse. Once in hospital, his psychiatrist adjusted his medication and symptoms resolved.

25The appellant testified that prior to August 2025, his last admission to hospital for mental health reasons was in 2020. He denied having been admitted to hospital 2 or more times in the past year as Dr. McAuley indicated on the MHA form. He testified that he believes this could have been a clerical error by Dr. McAuley.

26The appellant points to the November 5, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. McAuley which states that his symptoms have resolved very quickly and completely. The doctor writes, “I would ask that we reconsider the decision in that I have not been concerned about his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely in over a decade. I am willing to follow up with him monthly and continue our arrangement in which he contacts me immediately if there is any sign of symptoms.”

27The appellant’s friend, Patricia Kreikamp, appeared as a witness. Ms Kreikamp indicated that she has known the appellant for many years and that he does not go near any vehicle when experiencing a relapse. She corroborated the appellant’s testimony that aside from his August 2025 hospital admission, he has not had any other hospital admissions since 2020.

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

29We note that the CCMTA Standard set out in 14.6.1 indicates that drivers are eligible for a licence if their condition is stable; the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute; the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired; and if a treating physician supports a return to driving for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder.

30Taken in total, the evidence before us supports that the standard set out in the CCMTA has been met. We note that the CCMTA standard does not specify any specific length of time of stability, and that the 6-month period of stability required by the Registrar is not part of the CCMTA standard but rather is based on their own internal policies.

31According to the October 28, 2025 MHA form completed by Dr. McAuley, the appellant’s condition is stable with symptoms resolved and he is adherent to the treatment regimen. The November 5, 2025 letter from Dr. McAuley clearly indicates the psychiatrist is supportive of a return to driving. We place significant weight on this letter of endorsement, because the psychiatrist has been treating the appellant’s bipolar disorder closely since 2013 and he would have an intimate understanding of the appellant’s disorder and any potential associated risk.

32The MHA form indicates that the appellant has insight into his condition. We accept the testimony from the appellant, the appellant’s close friend, and the narrative from the appellant’s psychiatrist that he is aware of his condition and symptoms and does not drive when experiencing a relapse.

33We 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

34We 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 mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

35For 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.

Released: December 18, 2025

__________________________

Dr. Kailey Minnings

Adjudicator

__________________________

Jeffrey Campbell

Vice-Chair