Ranjit Fernando v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 142400

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17682/MED

An appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the HTA.

Between:

Ranjit Fernando

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Peter Savage, M.D., Member Dagmara Szczudlo, Member

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Ranjit Fernando, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

HEARD: November 24, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Ranjit Fernando (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The Registrar received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated February 8, 2025, stating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive safely.

2The respondent sent the appellant a letter dated February 11, 2025, indicating that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended because of a medical condition, namely a cognitive impairment.

3The 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.

4The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment, 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.

5The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He denies that he suffers from a cognitive impairment and denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his ability to drive safely.

6Pursuant 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

7The 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.

8To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant have a cognitive impairment?

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

9The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

10Having considered the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we 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 their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

11The Registrar relies upon an unsolicited MCR dated February 8, 2025, completed by an internal medicine specialist at Hamilton General Hospital, Dr. Derek Hunt. The MCR states that the appellant suffers from a memory impairment. No recommendations nor further details were provided in Dr. Hunt’s MCR. In response, the Registrar requested that the appellant submit a Cognitive Disorder form completed by a physician.

12The appellant submitted the Cognitive Disorder form, completed by his family physician, Dr. Hussam Taha and dated March 14, 2025. Dr. Taha indicates that the appellant scored 19/30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (“MoCA”) test and was diagnosed with a mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia. Dr. Taha also submitted a MCR dated March 14, 2025, in which he reports that his patient has Dementia/Alzheimer’s.

13In response, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated March 20, 2025, indicating that his licence continues to be suspended as a result of cognitive impairment. The letter states that if the appellant wishes to have their licence reinstated, he must complete a satisfactory functional driving assessment to determine if he can safely operate a vehicle.

Does the appellant suffer from a cognitive impairment?

14The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a mild cognitive impairment.

15The Registrar’s position is supported Dr. Hunt’s unsolicited MCR, and the cognitive disorder form and accompanying MCR by Dr. Taha. In the latter two documents, Dr. Taha indicates that the appellant has a mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia.

16The appellant denies that he suffers from a mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia and testified that Dr. Hunt did not examine him while he was a patient at Hamilton General Hospital where he was admitted due to influenza. Continuing his testimony, the appellant stated that his family physician Dr. Taha, is just following Dr. Hunt’s lead and attributes his low MoCA score to not being able to hear instructions from the person administering the test because their voice was muffled by a medical mask.

17The appellant testified that he is active and requires his driver’s licence to get to his part-time job as taking public transportation will increase his commute unnecessarily. He adds that he is mentally fit and does not have any cognitive impairments and cites the fact that his wife leaves him alone while she volunteers, something that would not happen if he had cognitive deficits.

18The medical evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition, namely a mild cognitive impairment. The original MCR from Dr. Hunt is confirmed by a subsequent Cognitive Disorder form and additional MCR from the appellant’s treating physician Dr. Taha.

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

19We find that the Registrar has 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.

20The Registrar argues that the functional driving assessment completed by the appellant on May 8, 2025 at CBI Health Driver Assessment & Rehabilitation Centre, indicates a lack of driving skills which are not suitable for rehabilitation. The respondent also argues that the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [2025 Update] (the “CCMTA Standards”) are clear that a functional driving test is appropriate based on the appellant’s medical condition, and requests that the Tribunal confirms the decision of the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

21The Registrar relies on Standard 6 (Determining Driver Fitness in Canada) of the CCMTA Standards. This standard states that “the presence of a mild cognitive deficit itself is not an absolute contraindication to driving” and recommends a functional driving assessment as “the most appropriate means of assessing the effects of the cognitive limitations upon driving unless severe dementia has been demonstrated.”

22Section 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.

23The appellant testified that he did not make errors while performing the functional driving assessment and found fault with both the driving instructor and the occupational therapist who administered the assessment. The appellant also argued that the way the assessment was scheduled, with the initial screening scheduled for 9 a.m. and the driving component scheduled for 3 p.m., amounted to senior abuse and did not consider the prolonged wait and its impact on an elderly person.

24The appellant relies on strong knowledge and faith in himself that he is fit to drive, and others are mistaken. Although the appellant testified that he scored well on a recent MoCA conducted by a geriatric specialist on November 18, 2025, he presents no medical documentation to support this testimony. The Tribunal did not receive any additional documents from the appellant as of the date of the hearing.

25We agree with the Registrar, that the appellant’s medical condition has significantly interfered with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and find the results of the functional driving assessment persuasive in this regard. For example, the appellant again scored 19/30 on the MoCA administered by Janice Young, occupational therapist who noted errors in visuospatial/executive, language, abstraction, and delayed recall in her clinical findings. This result is consistent with the MoCA score recorded by Dr. Taha in March 2025. Furthermore, during the on-road assessment, both the driving instructor and the occupational therapist who were present noted that the appellant demonstrated inconsistent awareness/delayed observation and made driving errors that amplify the risk of collision. The report also notes that driving instructor brake intervention was required to prevent a near collision and that the appellant attributed some of the errors to being in an unfamiliar car. We find that the results from the functional driving assessment establish that the appellant is not fit to drive and is not suitable for rehabilitation.

26We also find that the appellant lacks insight into his medical condition and how it impacts his ability to drive safely, and attributes the loss of his licence to a series of incompetent actions by healthcare providers and driving assessors.

27After a review of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, we find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrar has established that the appellant’s cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

ORDER

28For 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 for medical reasons.