Fahim v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 58825

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17026/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:

David Fahim

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Kailey Minnings

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: David Fahim, self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: May 28, 2025

OVERVIEW

1David Fahim (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his 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 police officer that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive 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.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend his licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He acknowledges that he suffers from a mental health condition but denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Pursuant 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.

ISSUES

6The 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 motor vehicle safely.

7To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

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

8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

9Having 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On June 18, 2024, a police officer with the Toronto Police Service filed a Police Report and sent a copy to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. On the report, the officer indicates that the driver came to their attention due to “officer observation, self-declared medical impairment-mental illness, and homicidal tendencies”. The report further indicates that driving ability is likely compromised due to erratic behaviour and mental health. A description of the incident is included:

Police had occasion to pull the driver over due to a warrant for arrest. Driver fought with police and within his vehicle were 2 improvised Molotov cocktails which he advised to Police that he was going to use. He advised he was driving around looking for someone to attack with the Molotov cocktails. Explosive disposal unit attended and cleared the devices as non-incendiary however the accused still believed at the time of offence, that his Molotov cocktails would have worked on persons or property.

11The Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated June 19, 2024 indicating that his licence was suspended. The Registrar requested that the appellant submit a letter from his physician describing details of the June 18, 2024 incident and a description of any residual deficits or disqualifying medical concerns, if any. A Mental Health Disorder form (“MHD”) and a Medical Report form, to be completed by his physician, were also requested.

12On May 21, 2025, family physician Dr. Kristy Armstrong completed the MHD and sent it to the Registrar.

13On May 23, 2025, the Registrar sent a letter to the appellant indicating that his licence remains suspended. In the letter, the alleged medical condition is specified as Mental Health Condition. The letter indicates that in order to be considered for licence reinstatement, the appellant is required to submit confirmation from his treating healthcare practitioner of a minimum three-month period of mental and emotional stability; adherence with the recommended treatment regimen and/or confirmation of insight into his condition; and an improvement in judgement.

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

14The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition.

15The Registrar’s position is supported by medical information contained within the May 21, 2025 MHD form completed by Dr. Kristy Armstrong. The MHD form indicates:

i. That the appellant has a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder and depression/dysthymia.

ii. That his most recent illness episode occurred less than 3 months ago.

iii. That the status of his condition is stable with ongoing moderate symptoms, specifically, depressive symptoms, aggressive, hostile or violent behaviour, impulsive or reckless behaviour, and emotional control.

iv. That he has difficulty with judgement.

v. That he has had no hospital admissions for mental health in the past 12 months.

vi. That he has been prescribed medication as treatment and he does not report adherence to the medication.

vii. When asked whether the appellant requires an independent functional assessment, Dr Armstrong writes, “maybe, but my advice was for him to see psychiatry first.”

viii. Under comments, Dr. Armstrong writes, “This individual is very guarded during appointments and not very forthcoming with information. May be having delusions/hallucinations but difficult to assess... He currently reports taking the prescribed medication but in the past has often reported not taking. Referral to mental health and justice program is pending.”

16The appellant testified that he has schizophrenia, which was diagnosed as a young adult.

17I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, specifically, schizophrenia.

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

18I 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.

19The Registrar submits that the appellant’s mental health condition interferes with his ability to drive safely in that the appellant has ongoing symptoms, poor adherence to medication, and lacks insight and judgement into his condition and refers to the MHD form to support this position. The Registrar also points to the police report and submits that the erratic behaviour and homicidal tendencies described are incompatible with safe driving.

20Section 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 are not bound by them.

21The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standard 14.6.1, which states that a driver with a psychiatric disorder is eligible for a licence if the condition is stable, he has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute, his functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired, a treating physician supports a return to driving and the conditions for maintaining a licence are met. One of these conditions is that the driver remain under regular medical supervision and comply with the prescribed psychotropic medication regime or other recommended treatment.

22The appellant’s position is that his medical condition does not make it unsafe to drive. He explained that the events on June 18, 2024 were related to an incident he was facing whereby someone had stolen his belongings out of his vehicle, and that this incident is not typical of his behaviour.

23He testified that he requires his driver’s licence to be reinstated in order to train and work as a mechanic.

24Under cross-examination, the appellant testified that he has been prescribed olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication, to be taken nightly. However, he instead takes it “on and off” depending on whether he is experiencing mental health symptoms.

25He testified that he monitors his mental health symptoms on his own and that he is not currently under the care of a psychiatrist, although he has been referred to one by his family doctor. He testified that Dr. Armstrong has been his family doctor for 6-7 years and that he sees her sporadically.

26The appellant was forthright that he has schizophrenia, which he says was diagnosed as a young adult. He stated that he has been admitted to hospital for mental health reasons in the past but could not recall the number of admissions or the date of the last admission.

27Although not bound by the CCMTA Standards, the Tribunal may consider them when making its decision. I find the CCMTA Standards reasonable here. These Standards are the result of a lengthy and intensive process to provide medical standards based on the best evidence available and with a focus on functional ability to drive rather than exclusively on medical diagnoses.

28My review of the evidence shows that none of the conditions recommended for licensing outlined in the CCMTA Standard 14.6.1 have been met. The May 21, 2025 MHD report from the appellant’s physician of 6-7 years indicates that there are ongoing symptoms, including deficits in insight and judgement, and that a functional driving assessment may be required. The MHD form and the appellant’s own testimony indicate non-adherence to the recommended treatment regimen. Finally, there is no evidence that a physician supports his return to driving.

29I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

30I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

31For 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.