Sami Qammoh v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 35905

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16807/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:

Sami Qammoh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Sami Qammoh, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Representative

Heard by Teleconference: April 8, 2025

A. OVERVIEW

1On February 26, 2025, the 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 mental health condition 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 sets aside 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 a mental health condition that is 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 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 of the applicable class safely?

RESULT

Having considered the evidence< I find the appellant does suffer from a mental health condition but that it will not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s drivers license.

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. Subsection 47(1) 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 a mental health condition?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition based on medical reports received by the Registrar. I find that the medical evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

11The February 24, 2025 medical condition report submitted by Dr. Jeffery M. Singh, an emergency physician at Mississauga General Hospital, reports a psychiatric condition (schizophrenia/psychotic reaction).

12The March 24, 2025 letter and mental condition reports, submitted by Dr. George Liu, the appellant’s psychiatrist, both state the appellant suffers from manic depressive illness. I find this medical evidence particularly persuasive as Dr. Liu is the appellant’s psychiatrist who continues to provide treatment.

13The appellant testified he has been told by his psychiatrist he has a mental health condition and further testified he continues to take medication (Lithium) for this condition.

14The medical evidence presented supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition. There is no dispute between the parties on 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 of the applicable class 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, specifically section 14.6.1. 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 (the “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’s position is that a full 3 months of documented stability is required before relicensing can be considered and the appellant is several weeks short of that period.

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

22The appellant testified that, on February 24, 2025, he lost control of his car in a winter storm and went off the road. This was his first accident and he panicked and left the scene and ran a few blocks to his friend’s home. The police attended the home, and he was so distraught that they took him to the hospital where he was admitted, and a mental health diagnosis was made. No charges resulted from the accident.

23The appellant drew attention to his spotless driving record and testified he is a safe driver. He drew my attention to the fact he earns his living as an Uber/Lyft driver.

24The appellant testified that he did have a mental health condition, and has had a previous hospital admission. On that occasion, his friends had found him excited and talking too much and they took him to hospital. He was prescribed medication but was unable to take it, and no follow up was offered.

25The appellant testified his doctor supported his licence reinstatement and drew my attention to Dr. Liu’s March 24, 2025, letter which stated, “Currently no evidence of mood or psychotic symptoms. There is no evidence of residual symptoms of mania. He has returned to his normal baseline” and Dr. Lui went on to say, “It is very important for his well being to have his drivers license reinstated.”

26The appellant testified that:

• He has a psychiatrist who has followed up with him and who continues to prescribe medication.
• He is on medication that is monitored by his health care team, and he is compliant with taking his medications.
• He has strong family support from his cousin as well as his parents who have full knowledge of the challenges he is facing.
• He has changed his living situation and is now in an apartment living on his own without roommates, and this has increased his situational stability.
• He has a degree of insight into his condition, and he testifies he has no hesitation to call for help when needed.
• He has regained stability, has insight into his condition and his doctor has recommended reinstatement of his driving privileges. He feels he more than meets the CCMTA Standards for relicensing.

27I find the appellant testifies in an open and clear manner and is taking steps to manage his mental health condition. I am compelled by the physician’s written recommendation to reinstate the appellant’s licence. I am reassured by the appellant’s 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.

28The Registrar’s position that written documentation of three to six months of stability is required is based on an internal policy that does not bind either the appellant or the Tribunal. I note that every case must be judged on its own merits.

29After a review of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrar has not established that the appellant’s mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely. I find the Registrar has not met its burden.

E. ORDER

30For 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.