Rachel Schroter v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 49164

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16996/MED

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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Rachel Schroter Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Rachel Schroter, Appellant For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Held by teleconference: May 21, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Rachel Schroter (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) to suspend her driver’s licence for medical reasons.

2The respondent sent the appellant a letter dated April 10, 2025, indicating that her driver’s licence was suspended after the receipt of an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (the “MCR”). In that letter, the Registrar took the position that the appellant is suffering from medical conditions, namely: seizure and hypoglycemia unawareness, that are likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

3A subsequent letter was sent by the respondent to the appellant dated May 15, 2025, indicating that the reported conditions of the appellant are severe hypoglycemia and mental health condition.

4A third letter was then sent by the respondent to the appellant dated May 20, 2025 indicating that the reported condition of the appellant is severe hypoglycemia. The previously stated conditions of seizure, hypoglycemia unawareness and mental health condition were no longer at issue. In the May 20^th^ letter, the respondent advised that it required that the appellant provide confirmation from a treating physician, specialist or a nurse practitioner that the appellant has not experienced any severe hypoglycemic reactions and that her condition has remained stable for a period of six months.

5The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1) of the Act to suspend a person’s driver’s licence. 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 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 Minister may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

6The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act.

7Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE

8The 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 motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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

a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely severe hypoglycemia?

b. If the appellant does suffer from the above condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of applicable class safely?

RESULT

9For the reasons set out below, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Registrar decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

a. The appellant does suffer from a medical condition, namely severe hypoglycemia.

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from the medical condition of severe hypoglycemia.

11In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from this medical condition, the respondent relies on the MCR in which ER doctor Dr. Krishnan noted that the appellant suffers from “hypoglycemia requiring intervention of third party or producing loss of consciousness”. The respondent also relies on a diabetes assessment dated May 10, 2025 in which Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Amy Thompson states that the appellant “had one episode of intentional hypoglycemia on April 7/25. She was aware and treated”.

12In her testimony, it became apparent that the appellant also acknowledged her condition of severe hypoglycemia.

13Given the above, we are satisfied that the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia.

b. The appellant’s condition of severe hypoglycemia is not likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of applicable class safely.

14It is clear from the medical documentation before us, as well as the appellant’s testimony, that she has the condition of Type 1 diabetes. The appellant was open and transparent concerning this diagnosis and has demonstrated appropriate knowledge of its physiology and treatment. She is under the care of a multidisciplinary treatment team as well as an endocrinologist. She undergoes regular bloodwork every six months. The appellant described monitoring her sugars daily with an insulin pump monitor that alerts her if her blood glucose (“BG”) is less than 5.2. She also checks her BG twice daily with a glucometer, before driving and as needed. She has received diabetes education and she has demonstrated understanding of safety precautions for driving while using insulin. She denied that her endocrinologist has been concerned about hypoglycemia or poor glycemic control. She denied any previous episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

15The evidence shows that while the appellant was hospitalized, she injected herself with an unknown amount of rapid-acting insulin. While that was treated immediately, that also triggered the episode of severe hypoglycemia leading to Dr. Krishnan’s MCR.

16We note that there is no other documentary evidence of any previous severe hypoglycemic episodes. We also note that the appellant testified that this was the only such occurrence and that her diabetes is otherwise well-controlled. Ms. Thompson indicated on the Diabetes Assessment form that the appellant has regained adequate glycemic control and writes, “glucometer consistent and stable.”

17It is clear that this episode in the hospital was not the result of the diabetes/physiology. Rather, it resulted from an isolated and unfortunate event. The appellant showed remorse for her actions and has taken steps to treat with what precipitated that event. The issue before us, however, is not that of what caused that event, but rather, that of severe hypoglycemia.

18The respondent relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Standards (“CCMTA Standards”), specifically Standard 7.6.4, which states that a non-commercial driver with severe hypoglycemia is eligible for a licence if she has no further episodes of severe hypoglycemia within the past six months. Accordingly, in their May 20, 2025 letter to the respondent, the respondent requires confirmation of the same.

19The Tribunal is entitled to take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them. The overriding consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and helpful, every case must be considered on its own facts.

20While the CCMTA Standards are reasonable, it is our view that the spirit of Standard 7.6.4 relates to individuals who experience spontaneous or unexpected severe hypoglycemia (for instance, owing to poorly controlled diabetes, labile blood sugar or improper treatment). Such is not the case in this appellant.

21We are satisfied that, while the appellant does suffer from the condition of severe hypoglycemia, there is no evidence that she has had any episodes caused by this condition other than the incident of April 7^th^, which NP Amy Thompson described as intentional. We are also satisfied that this incident is isolated, not the result of her diabetes diagnosis or treatment and that the appellant is taking appropriate steps to ensure that this does not occur again. We are subsequently convinced that this incident has no relationship with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

22Under section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar. We set aside the order of the Registrar to suspend the driver’s licence of the appellant as severe hypoglycemia is not likely to interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

23For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice Chair