Jamieson Powell v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 13571

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16644/MED

Appeal under section 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 driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Jamieson Powell

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Jamieson Powell, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram

Heard by Teleconference: February 18, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

1On December 9, 2024, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspended the appellant’s Class A licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), after receiving a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.

2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal sets aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

A. ISSUES:

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

4To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

b. If the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

B. LAW:

5Under the HTA the Registrar is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on the highway. In this case, the Registrar acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the HTA and s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA (the “Regulation”).

6Under s.14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

7A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the HTA.

8On appeal, the Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s ability to drive safely is significantly affected by a medical condition.

9Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

C. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition based on medical reports requested by the Registrar. The initial report was a routine commercial driver’s medical review submitted by Dr. Chad Tyler (the appellant’s family doctor). Subsequent mental health questionnaires completed by Dr. Tyler and the psychiatric reports submitted by Dr. Anadebe (the appellant’s psychiatrist) all confirm a diagnosis of a mental health condition.

11The driver’s medical examination submitted by Dr. Tyler August 28, 2024 notes a psychiatric condition that has been treated. Subsequent mental health questionnaires submitted by Dr. Tyler October 11, 20, 24 and December 16, 24 confirm the diagnosis of depression.

12The psychiatric report of February 7, 2025, submitted by Dr. Anadebe confirms the diagnosis of depression.

13The appellant testified he has a mental health condition and further testifies he continues treatment for this condition.

14The medical evidence presented supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition. The appellant’s testimony confirms this conclusion.

15On a balance of probabilities, I find the Registrar has established the appellant has a mental health condition.

b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

16The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has not met that burden.

17The Registrar drew attention to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) Medical Standards for Drivers (CCMTA Standards). The CCMTA Standards were developed by North American road safety experts and may be considered by both the Registrar and the Tribunal, though they are not binding.

18The Registrar pointed out the dangers that a mental health condition could cause while driving. The Registrar outlined the CCMTA Standards’ requirements for licence reinstatement of a person with a mental health condition. These would include the condition being stable and the patient having sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition worsens. It also includes having the functional abilities needed to drive and the support of a physician recommending a return to driving. The CCMTA Standards also suggest a functional driving test if there is a question of a cognitive impairment.

19The Registrar pointed out the Ministry of Transportation (MOT) has an internal policy that requires documentation of a period of three to six months stability of a mental health condition before reinstatement of a driver’s licence can be considered.

20The Registrar argues that the appellant is still several weeks short of the period of stability required.

21The appellant maintains he is a safe driver, has a safe driving record and argues that there is no reason his mental health condition will affect his driving safety.

22The appellant pointed out the only reason his driver’s licence was suspended in December 2024 was that the diagnosis of a mental health condition was noted on a routine medical and this triggered a review of his health. This review showed he had a mental health condition, a fact that was known by the MOT previously.

23The appellant testified that he did have a mental health condition but that it was controlled and has been for years.

24The appellant testified his psychiatrist supported his driver’s licence reinstatement and drew my attention to Dr. Anadebe’s February 7, 2025 note which states “there was never a time his driving was an issue. He has depression and anxiety, and he is stable and compliant with his medications.”

25The appellant testified his family doctor supported his licence reinstatement and drew my attention to the December 16, 2024 questionnaire where Dr. Tyler said “Jamieson is stable and aware of his symptoms. No concerns about driving”.

26The appellant testified.

1- He has a health care team and regularly sees his family doctor and psychiatrist.

2- He is on medication that is monitored by his health care team, and he is compliant with taking his medications.

3- He has strong family support from his wife as well as a friend group who have knowledge of the challenges he is facing and give him support.

4- He has insight into his condition, and he testifies his admission to hospital September 2024 was voluntary and requested by himself in order to change his medication dosages in a safe and controlled environment. He testifies he has no hesitation to seek help and support when it might be needed.

5- He has released his medical records to the MOT confirming his condition is stable, controlled and that his doctors support his return to driving and that he has insight into his condition. He has provided proof he is compliant with medications and treatment.

6- He has years of stability, has insight into his condition and his doctors have recommended reinstatement of his driving privilege and he feels he meets the CCMTA Standard for relicensing.

7- He feels he has had more than 6 months of stability and disputes the Registrar’s position that his voluntary admission to hospital for medication dosage adjustment was a period of instability.

27I find the appellant is taking appropriate steps to manage his mental health condition. I am very compelled by both physician’s written recommendation supporting the reinstatement of the appellant’s licence. I am reassured by the appellant’s insight and acceptance of his mental health condition as well as his medical and family support. I accept the appellant’s argument that he meets the CCMTA Standards for relicensing. I find it hard to support the position of the Registrar that written documentation of three to six months of stability is required, as this requirement is based on an internal policy that has had no public scrutiny. I believe every case should be judged on its own merits and in this case, I believe the appellant has had far more than six months of stability. After a review of the evidence and the appellant’s submissions, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

D. ORDER:

28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.