Francis van Wynsberghe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 28461

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16758/MED

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:

Francis van Wynsberghe

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Francis van Wynsberghe, Appellant

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative of Registrar

Heard by Zoom Teleconference: March 26, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspended the appellant’s Class G 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 substance use disorder (alcohol) likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class 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.

B. ISSUES:

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder conditions that are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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

a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol withdrawal seizure and/or substance use disorder conditions?

b. If the appellant suffers from one or both of these conditions, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely?

C. 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”). Under s. 14(1)(a) of the Regulation, 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 drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Section 47(1)(g) of the HTA permits the Registrar to suspend a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason.

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 has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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.

D. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder and/or alcohol withdrawal seizure conditions?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder (alcohol) based on an unsolicited medical report received by the Registrar. The alcohol withdrawal seizures also alleged were brought to the Registrar’s attention in a follow up medical report and verified by a substance abuse questionnaire and a neurological disease questionnaire.

11The substance use disorder was first reported March 23, 2011 by Dr. Cluett, the appellant’s family doctor. Subsequent questionnaires completed by Dr. Cluett in September 2024 drew the Registrar’s attention to alcohol withdrawal seizures in 2014 and 2019.

12The diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder were confirmed by Dr. Cluett, in letters on October 18, 2024, December 5, 2024, and February 11, 2025.

13The appellant testified that he had a history of substance use disorder and had suffered alcohol withdrawal seizures in 2014 and 2019.

14The medical evidence presented supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from alcohol withdrawal seizures and has a substance use disorder. The appellant’s testimony confirms this conclusion.

15On a balance of probabilities, I find the Registrar has established the appellant has the medical conditions alleged.

b. If the appellant suffers from one or both of the medical conditions, are they likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

16The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical conditions are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has met that burden.

17The Registrar drew attention to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (CCMTA Standards). The CCMTA Standards were developed by North American road safety experts and, pursuant to s. 14(2)(a) of the Regulation, may be considered by both the Registrar and the Tribunal, though they are not binding.

18In relying on the CCMTA Standards, the Registrar pointed out the dangers that an alcohol withdrawal seizure and a substance use disorder could cause a person while driving. The Registrar outlined the CCMTA Standards’ requirements for licence reinstatement of a person with these conditions (section 15.6.3 and 17.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards, included in exhibit #2). The key points from these sections are that to be eligible for reinstatement the driver meets the criteria of remission and has completed an alcohol treatment program with a favourable report from the treating professional, as well as medical evidence that the episode of seizure was related to alcohol withdrawal and not epilepsy.

19The Registrar pointed out the Ministry of Transportation (the “MOT”) has an internal policy that requires documentation of a minimum period of six months’ abstinence from alcohol notwithstanding the completion of an alcohol treatment program.

20The Registrar’s position is that:

• The appellant testifies he has had 3 months of abstinence, which doesn’t meet the CCMTA Standards.
• While the appellant testifies that he has been in several alcohol treatment programs, he has not provided any documentation.
• The appellant’s driving record shows past convictions for impaired driving. His last alcohol-related conviction was in 2022, with a 3-day suspension for blowing .05% while driving on private property.
• The appellant’s driving record states that the appellant’s driving privilege was suspended for life on January 23, 2013.
• The Registrar accepts the documentation from the appellant’s family doctor indicating the seizures in 2014 and 2019 were because of alcohol withdrawal, This makes the only ground of the current suspension, substance use disorder.
• The Registrar accepts the family doctor’s reports which indicate the appellant has made excellent progress in his substance use disorder. The Registrar however, submits that more time is needed to be sure the appellant will not return to drinking alcohol and drink and drive again.

21The appellant’s position is that he is an experienced and safe driver.

22The appellant testifies.

• He has made significant progress since his 2022 conviction, has reduced his drinking to 2-3 alcohol drinks per week in the last two years, and since December 14, 2024 has not had any alcohol.
• He has support at home from his wife and family.
• He is a regular attender at AA and has a supportive sponsor.
• He has gone to alcohol counselling on several occasions. These episodes of counselling and inpatient treatment have been initiated by himself and are not court ordered. He has insight into his alcohol problem and has sought help when needed. He has received treatment in Calgary, Vancouver Island, London Ontario and Toronto. He will be able to get documentation to prove these admissions.
• As a millwright he drives trucks and heavy equipment on the jobsite (on private property) as these vehicles need to be moved to allow him to do his job. He has had no complaints about his driving at the work site.
• Dr. Cluett, his family doctor for many years has written to certify the excellent progress he has made in control his substance use disorder. Dr. Cluett’s three letters document the appellant’s improvement and he states he supports the setting aside of the driving suspension.
• He has changed a lot of his work and social life to avoid situations that put him in environments where alcohol is being served.
• He suffers from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) This started while doing contract work in Nigeria and Central and South Africa. His experiences there left him traumatised and he turned to drinking. He testifies time has passed and he has had therapy, and he is now able to control the PSTD without alcohol.

23The appellant testifies there are errors in his driving record. The appellant testifies the July 11, 2022 alcohol charge has been removed by the court as he was not the driver of the vehicle. He testifies there are other errors in his driver’s record and states he will take steps to have the record corrected.

24The appellant does not deny the life-time suspension on his driving record. He plans to appeal this and have that suspension reduced or lifted. The appellant’s plan is to use the lifting of the medical suspension as a step towards the lifting of the lifetime ban on driving.

25The appellant’s position is that he essentially meets the CCMTA Standards in that he has completed therapy, has the support of his family doctor and is only a few months short of the recommended 6 months of abstinence. The appellant feels each case should be assessed on its own merits and in his case, cites that he has made significant changes over the last 14 years, and he has no intention to ever return to drinking alcohol.

26The issue of alcohol withdrawal seizure has been withdrawn by the Registrar.

27The issues the Registrar cites as preventing removal of the medical suspension are the period of abstinence from alcohol and the lack of documentation of therapy. The Registrar strongly agues for a minimum period of six months to ensure compliance and to protect public safety. The appellant argues that enough time has passed, and his family doctor recommends lifting the medical suspension.

28I find the appellant has insight into his condition and has taken steps to manage it. I am very compelled by the family doctor’s letters of support however, I accept the Registrar’s position that there is no documentation of the treatment the appellant testifies he has received. There is no doubt the time of abstinence falls short of the minimum period of 6 months requested by the Registrar as the appellant testifies his last alcohol drink was December 14, 2024. I note the number of alcohol infractions on the driving record and accept the Registrar’s position of the seriousness of these infractions. I agree with the Registrar’s position that more time and documentation is needed before lifting this medical suspension.

29After a review of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find, on a balance of probabilities, at this time, that the appellant’s substance use disorder condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

E. ORDER:

30For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.