Harrison Beattie v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 49201

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16808/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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Harrison Beattie

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Kailey Minnings

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No one appearing

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: May 14, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Harrison Beattie (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend their Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received a report from a treating healthcare provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their safety to drive.

ISSUES

2The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

3To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:

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

b. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

4Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

5The hearing began on May 14, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The appellant, who is self-represented, did not appear and remained absent from the proceedings for the next 40 minutes. During this time, the Tribunal phoned the appellant twice, left a voicemail, and sent him an email with the hearing details. At 10:09 a.m., I proceeded with the hearing in the appellant’s absence.

6Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”), states that, where notice of an electronic (e.g. by telephone or videoconference) hearing has been given to a party in a proceeding and the party does not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. Further, Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) states that if a party, who has been given notice of a hearing in accordance with the SPPA, does not attend their hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party and/or make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

7The hearing was originally scheduled to take place on April 3, 2025. On that date, the appellant appeared at the hearing and orally requested a 6-week adjournment, which was granted. The parties discussed timing and agreed that a telephone hearing would take place on one of May 14, 2025 or May 15, 2025.

8An adjournment order was issued and sent to the appellant on April 11, 2025 advising of the above dates, and that a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing would be issued. A Notice of Rescheduled Hearing advising the parties that the hearing is rescheduled to May 14, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. was sent to the appellant on April 14, 2025. A hearing reminder was emailed to all parties on May 9, 2025.

9Shortly after the hearing began at 9:30 a.m., the Tribunal called the appellant, left a voicemail reminding him of the hearing, and emailed him.

10At 9:52 a.m., the appellant sent an email to the Tribunal and to the other party which indicated that he was covering for other staff at work and had an unscheduled client meeting. He expressed apologies for his missed attendance and for not advising of his absence in advance.

11I note that there was no indication in his email that he would be joining the hearing and no request for adjournment. Upon receipt of his email, the Tribunal called the appellant again to inquire if he was planning to join the hearing; however, the appellant did not answer the call.

12In my view, these facts indicate that the appellant received due notice of the hearing but failed to attend. I therefore relied on the discretion afforded by s. 7(3) of the SPPA and Rule 3.7.1 of the Rules, and proceeded with the hearing at 10:09 a.m. in the appellant’s absence.

ANALYSIS

Overview

13The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(b) and 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.

14A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the Act. On 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. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely seizure?

15I find that the Registrar has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure.

16The Registrar’s representative relies on an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated December 16, 2024, and completed by neurologist Dr. Gayathiri Balasubramaniam. On the MCR, Dr. Balasubramaniam checked off that the appellant has a disorder that has a moderate or high risk of sudden incapacitation, or that has resulted in sudden incapacitation and that has a moderate or high risk of recurrence, due to seizure, specifically, epilepsy. There is a handwritten date beside the epilepsy check box of Dec. 15, 2024.

17On December 27, 2024, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his licence was suspended under s. 47(1) of the Act, and requested that he send in a completed Seizures and Loss of Consciousness form. There is no evidence before me that this was completed.

18In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant writes that in his view, his licence was suspended for a potential seizure, but he indicates that he was told in hospital that there was no diagnosis or proof that he had a seizure. He mentions an incident but does not describe the date or context, or describe the incident at all aside from that it was unwitnessed. He also writes that he is being followed by a neurologist and that he has not been diagnosed with epilepsy. He writes that he is doing well, has not had any further episodes, that he avoids all potential triggers, and that he is “compliant with medication”. He does not mention which medication.

19The appellant did not attend at the hearing and thus did not testify as to his medical condition. He did not provide the Tribunal with any other medical documentation to support his statements in his Notice of Appeal.

20I find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the MCR from neurologist Dr. Balasubramaniam is compelling evidence that the appellant suffers from seizure due to epilepsy. I accordingly find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden of establishing that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure.

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

21I find that the Registrar has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

22The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standard for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), specifically Chapter 17.6.6, and submits that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal. Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar 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

23The Registrar’s representative submitted that seizures can and will interfere with the safe operation of a vehicle, in that seizures can cause sudden impairment of the cognitive, motor or sensory functions necessary for driving, or a loss of consciousness. A driver cannot compensate for the episodic impairment that a seizure may cause, should one occur while driving.

24Chapter 17.6.6 of the CCMTA Standards recommends that a non-commercial driver who has been diagnosed with epilepsy may be considered eligible for a licence if it has been 6 months since the seizure occurred with or without medication. It also asserts that the waiting period may be reduced to no less than 3 months on a neurologist’s recommendation, if rationale is provided.

25I find that the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and persuasive. The appellant has not provided evidence or submissions as to why the CCMTA Standards should not be followed in this case. There is no favourable recommendation from a neurologist before me. In fact, the only medical opinion available to me is that of the neurologist who submitted the MCR indicating that the appellant has had a seizure due to epilepsy. I accept the respondent’s submission that seizures can interfere with the safe operation of a vehicle due to the risk of sudden incapacitation.

26I am accordingly satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

ORDER:

27For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.