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 pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act

Between:

Kerry-Ann Pratt

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member

Genevieve Painchaud, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Kerry-Ann Pratt, Self-Represented

John Healy, Appellant’s Spouse

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: May 9, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

Overview

1On March 25, 2025, the respondent suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The respondent takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizures from alcohol withdrawal, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate her licence.

2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we confirm the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

ISSUES

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

4To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

1. Does the appellant suffer from seizures from alcohol withdrawal?

2. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely?

lAW

5Under the Act, the respondent is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on highways. In this case, the respondent acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act and s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the Act.

6Subsection 14(1)(a) of the Regulation states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class. Under 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.

7Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.

8A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the Act.

9On appeal, the Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s ability to drive safely is likely to be significantly interfered with by a medical condition.

10Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

11In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizures from alcohol withdrawal, the respondent relies on a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated March 19, 2025.

12The appellant does not dispute that she had a seizure but argues that it was an isolated incident due to having the flu and her blood platelets being low.

13The appellant submits that on March 18, 2025, she felt very ill after a few days of having the flu, vomiting, and being severely dehydrated which resulted in a seizure. She went to the hospital by ambulance and was given medication and/or vitamins. She submits that none of the tests performed over the approximately two to three days she was admitted show any alcohol in her blood but pointed to her hemoglobin and platelets being very low. Also, she was severely dehydrated.

14A hospitalist submitted an MCR in compliance with s. 203(1) or s. 203(2) of the Act which require medical practitioners to report persons with certain prescribed medical conditions or permit them to report persons who appear to have medical conditions which may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle to the respondent. In the MCR, the hospitalist indicated that the appellant suffered recurrent seizures due to alcohol/drug withdrawal and that she may have an underlying seizure disorder.

15On March 25, 2025, the respondent suspended the appellant’s licence pending receipt of a substance use assessment form which it asked the appellant to have completed by her treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner. Also, if her healthcare practitioner confirms a diagnosis of severe alcohol use disorder and/or that she experienced an alcohol withdrawal/related seizure, the respondent required confirmation that she has remained seizure-free and abstinent from alcohol for a period of six months to one year, to be reviewed by the Driver Medical Review Office.

16At the case conference held April 24, 2025, the appellant said she planned on submitting further medical evidence at the hearing. She then submitted blood test, CT scan and ECG results as well as will-say statements from herself and her husband for the hearing. Before the hearing began, we asked the appellant if she had any medical reports to submit or the substance use assessment form, but she stated that she had nothing else to submit and wanted to proceed with the hearing.

17The appellant submits that she only had one seizure. She only consumes approximately three drinks socially on weekends and she does not smoke because it is “disgusting”. He husband adds that her seizure had nothing to do with alcohol and that the assumption of alcohol use is unwarranted. He argues that the seizure was related to her electrolytes, potassium, magnesium, and platelets being low.

18The respondent submits that the only medical evidence presented is the report from the hospitalist confirming the seizures due to alcohol use disorder and requests that we confirm the licence suspension.

19Based on the evidence presented, we are satisfied that the appellant’s seizures were not caused by the flu and low platelets.

20Section 16 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, permits the Tribunal to take notice of any generally recognized scientific or technical facts, information or opinions within its scientific or specialized knowledge.

21A member of the panel is a licensed physician in Ontario. The Tribunal takes notice of the generally recognized scientific fact within the physician panelist’s specialized knowledge that normal results of ECG and CT scan, low platelets and lack of alcohol in the blood on the day of the seizure, do not rule out a diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal seizure and/or a primary seizure disorder.

22As well, it is a generally recognized fact within the physician panelist’s specialized knowledge that the hospitalist who filled the MCR would have examined the appellant and have done testing to rule out other possible causes of the seizures, and we find on a balance of probabilities that this would have occurred. We believe that the hospitalist was best situated to identify recurrent seizures due to alcohol/drug withdrawal and that the appellant may have an underlying seizure disorder. Therefore, we find that the evidence demonstrates that the appellant likely suffered from seizures due to alcohol withdrawal disorder and/or a primary seizure disorder.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely?

23The respondent has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s seizures from alcohol withdrawal is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We find that the respondent has satisfied this burden on a balance of probabilities.

24The appellant agues that she only suffered from one seizure due to being ill with the flu. She argues that she only has a few drinks socially on weekends and that alcohol was not a factor in her having a seizure.

25The respondent asserts that the appellant’s medical condition significantly interferes with her ability to drive safely and relies on the medical evidence having shown that she suffered from recurrent seizures due to alcohol/drug withdrawal and that she may have an underlying seizure disorder.

26We find that the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that the appellant has not abstained from alcohol use.

27Further, we note that that the standard for driving a commercial vehicle takes into account that these drivers spend more hours driving, often under adverse conditions, are often unable to select their hours of work, and should they suffer a collision the consequences are much more likely to be serious.

28The respondent relies on Chapter 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards for the proposition that alcohol impairs a driver’s judgement, reflexes, control, and behaviour, and negatively impacts several necessary functions needed for safe driving. The CCMTA Standards recommend that drivers who suffer from substance use disorder may be eligible for licensing if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained from the substance for 12 months. Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program. The respondent argues that these conditions for reinstatement are appropriate in the appellant’s case.

29Also, the respondent points to Chapter 17.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards as a hospitalist confirmed that the cause of the appellant’s seizure was alcohol withdrawal. This Standard would require that in order to have her driver’s licence reinstated, the appellant have undergone addiction treatment and have received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor, and that all the criteria for licence reinstatement are met in accordance with the Substance Use Disorder Standard referenced above.

30These CCMTA Standards are in place as seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, and the driver cannot compensate.

31While we recognize that the CCMTA Standards are not binding upon us, we find that their application is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The appellant has not acknowledged her seizures due to alcohol withdrawal nor has she abstained from alcohol use. The CCMTA Standards speak to the negative impact her condition is likely to have on her ability to drive safely. We find that the appellant’s condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely should her licence be reinstated.

32We find that the respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s seizure from alcohol withdrawal is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

33For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.