Newton Douglas v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 25884

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16740/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:

Newton Douglas

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Newton Douglas, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

Heard by Teleconference: March 18, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

1On December 6, 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 peripheral neuropathy, 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 confirms 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 peripheral neuropathy, 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 peripheral neuropathy?

b. If the appellant suffers from peripheral neuropathy, 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 peripheral neuropathy?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from peripheral neuropathy based on an unsolicited medical report received from the appellant’s family doctor.

11The unsolicited medical report submitted by Dr. Grier, dated December 5, 2024, describes significant peripheral neuropathy. Dr. Grier’s report goes on to state that there had been episodes when the appellant confused the gas and brake pedals and further describes the appellant’s lack of balance and coordination.

12The appellant strongly disagrees with the diagnosis and states the doctor did nothing more than tickle his foot.

13The appellant testifies he can easily feel different types of flooring materials and denies having difficulty with balance.

14The appellant states no treatment was given for this alleged diagnosis.

15The appellant has plans to ask for another medical opinion.

16While I have heard the appellant’s testimony, I find that the only persuasive medical evidence presented at this hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from peripheral neuropathy.

17On a balance of probabilities, I find the Registrar has established the appellant has peripheral neuropathy.

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

18The 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 met that burden.

19The Registrar relies on 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.

20The Registrar submits that, based on the CCMTA Standards, there are dangers that peripheral neuropathy could cause while driving.

21In relation to the appellant’s case, the Registrar relies on Section 11.6.2 of the CCMTA standards that, prior to relicensing, a driver must maintain or regain muscle strength and coordination adequate to perform the functions necessary for driving.

22The Registrar submits that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) had requested a completed questionnaire about the appellant’s motor function ability. This questionnaire had not been completed nor had any further medical information on the appellant’s condition been received. The Registrar argues that until further documentation is received, relicensing cannot be considered.

23The appellant maintains he is a safe driver, has a safe driving record. The appellant believes the medical report of Dr. Grier his family doctor is in error. He denies ever confusing the brake and the gas pedals, and has no idea where the doctor got that information.

24The appellant testified that he drives in the private underground parking lot of his apartment and feels he drives very well.

25The appellant disagrees with the reported lack of balance and testifies he walks all over his apartment building including climbing many flights of stairs. All this is done with no assistive device and on his own power.

26I find the appellant strongly disagrees with the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy and feels there is no risk to himself or the public if his driving privilege is reinstated.

27The Registrar’s need for further information makes sense. I agree with the CCMTA standard 11.6.2 and it is applicable in this case. We know peripheral neuritis can affect muscle strength and coordination and muscle strength and coordination is needed for safe driving. The only medical information presented stated there was a significant degree of peripheral neuropathy resulting in loss of coordination and balance. The appellant argues he does not have the condition and has no issues with coordination or balance but there is no evidence to verify his position. The appellant testifies he is going to ask for another opinion, but at this point, the Tribunal was only presented with the family doctor’s opinion which is persuasive. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is 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 affirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.