Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16792/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to downgrade a licence pursuant to Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

Between:

Mackenzie Redford

Appellant

And

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Peter Savage M. D.

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Mackenzie Redford, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Agent for Minister

HEARD: April 1, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Mackenzie Redford (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to downgrade their Class F licence under s.32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Minister received a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

2The 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.

3Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act states that the Minister may impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements, or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.

4The Minister takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and that this provides sufficient reason to downgrade their licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

5The appellant appeals the downgrade under s. 50(1) of the Act. They acknowledge that they suffer from a single seizure but deny that this single seizure is a condition which interferes with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e., a commercial vehicle, safely.

6Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.

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 vehicle of the applicable class, i.e., a commercial vehicle, safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e., a commercial vehicle, safely?

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

RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find the Minister has not satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class, i.e., a commercial motor vehicle, safely. I set aside the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy.

12The Minister’s position is supported by medical reports completed by

i. - Dr. Rahil Preetinder, the appellant’s family doctor, reported a single seizure in his unsolicited medical condition report, dated November 16, 2024.

ii. - Dr. Mijan Tripic, a neurologist, confirmed the diagnosis of epilepsy in his competed seizure and loss of consciousness questionnaire as well as his December 8, 2024, letter of support for the appellant

iii. - Dr. Eduard Bercovici, an epilepsy specialist, confirmed the diagnosis of epilepsy in his February 25, 2025, report and letter of support.

13The appellant’s testimony confirmed he had a single seizure in November 2024, and he had been diagnosed as having epilepsy by his specialists.

14There is no conflicting evidence to refute the diagnosis of epilepsy.

15I find that the Minister has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from epilepsy.

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

16I find that the Minister has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

17The Minister argues that seizures associated with epilepsy interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that they could result in the sudden loss of consciousness, leading to a loss of control while driving a heavy commercial vehicle. This could have disastrous results for the appellant and other users of the roadway.

18The Minister relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which confirm the dangers associated with epilepsy, both to the driver and other road users.

19Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister 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 is not bound by them.

20The CCMTA Standards 17.6.12 recommend that a commercial driver who has been diagnosed with epilepsy be considered eligible for a commercial licence if they have not had a seizure with or without medication for a period of five years.

21The Minister argues the appellant has testified his seizure occurred on November 16, 2024, far short of the 5 years of freedom from seizures recommended by the CCMTA Standards.

22The appellant argues that his epilepsy is controlled and does not impact his ability to drive safely. The appellant points out his lifetime driving record with no evidence of any accidents or violations.

23The appellant testified he has taken every step possible to reduce the chance of further seizure.

• He has improved his diet.
• He has begun regular exercising.
• He has stopped drinking coffee and does not drink alcohol
• He has reduced his work hours and taken more time off.
• He has reduced stress at home and work and has the support of his wife and family.
• He has medical training and insight into his condition and is committed to the long-term control of his condition.
• He works with a psychologist to deal with stress and has provided a letter from Dr. Lisa Sicoli, dated September 14 2024, which confirms he is working with her and that she supports his return to work as a paramedic.
• He has followed up with his neurologist and has ongoing regular appointments with neurologist and family doctor.
• He takes his antiseizure medication regularly, namely BreviaraD 50 mg. twice a day.

24The appellant introduced documentary evidence from two neurologists.

[25]

i. - Dr.Mijan Tripic, a neurologist, stating, “I fully support the reinstatement of his class F licence” and noted his seizures were controlled.

o Dr. Eduard Bercovici, a neurologist specializing in epilepsy, states “As this was a single nocturnal unprovoked seizure and he is on medication, I would support a reduced seizure free period in light of his request to apply for his F licence and to return to work as a paramedic”

26The appellant accepts the diagnosis of epilepsy made by his neurologist, however, points out the CCMTA Standards define epilepsy as two or more seizures. He reasons by that definition he does not have epilepsy according to the CCMTA Standards, and notes that section 17.2.5 of the CCMTA Standards a period of one year free of seizures for commercial drivers who suffer a single unprovoked seizure. He argues the terminology is confusing but points out even the CCMTA Standards possibly leave room for a reduced seizure free period. It was the appellant’s position that while the CCMTA Standards were helpful, they were also somewhat confusing, and he felt every case had to judged on it’s own merits.

27The appellant submitted several past LAT decisions where a commercial license was reinstated with less than a five-year seizure free period. His position was that in all these examples the appellant had a good medical team, had insight into his condition, was compliant with his medication, had made changes in his job and lifestyle, and had support of his family and employer. The appellant argued he has made all those changes.

28The Minister argues there is no room in the CCMTA Standards for a reduced seizure free period for commercial drivers with epilepsy. The Registrar emphasises the danger of a sudden loss of consciousness and control in a commercial driver and argues a 5 year seizure free period is necessary.

29I find the appellant has taken many steps (including life-style changes, reduced hours, increased exercise and fitness, abstinence from caffeine and alcohol and balanced work home-life ratio) to reduce the possibility of another seizure and I commend him for this. I am compelled by the letters of support written by the attending neurologists. They clearly state their medical approval for early relicensing and return to work as a paramedic. In particular, I found compelling the letter from Dr. Bercovici, an epilepsy specialist, who supported the appellant’s return to work as a paramedic.

30I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, and I agree with the appellant in that I find their application somewhat confusing in this case. I must judge this case on its own merits.

31The appellant has followed all medical advice and has insight into his condition. He has been seizure free for a year and 4 months and has been on antiseizure medication for a year. He is followed by a full medical team and follows their advice. He has made changes to his lifestyle and physical activity to improve his physical and mental health.

32I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

Conclusion

33I find that the Minister has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

34For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s commercial driver’s licence.

Peter Savage M. D.

Adjudicator