Channer Robertson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 58829

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16964/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 subsection 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Channer Robertson

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. David To

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Channer Robertson, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: June 2, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Channer Robertson (the "appellant") appeals the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' ("Registrar") decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"), following a physician's report indicating he may have a medical condition affecting his 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. Paragraph 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the "Regulation") provides 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 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 contends that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizures, 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. While he acknowledges that he has a medical condition of seizures, he denies that this condition significantly interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Under s. 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUE

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 of the applicable class safely.

RESULT

7Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not met the burden of proving that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

8I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition of seizures?

9The evidence presented confirms that the appellant has been diagnosed with seizures.

10The Registrar's position is supported by a medical report by Dr. Lam, an emergency physician. Dr. Lam wrote in their Medical Condition Report dated January 28, 2025 that the appellant had his first seizure, and that this seizure was witnessed by the appellant's coworkers.

11The appellant agrees that he had a seizure on January 28, 2025, and there is no dispute in this regard.

12I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from the medical condition of seizures.

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

13I find that the Registrar has not 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.

14The Registrar argues that the appellant's medical condition interferes with the appellant's ability to drive safely because of the potential for recurrence of seizures, which could cause a sudden impairment or loss of consciousness while driving.

15The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the "CCMTA Standards").

16Paragraph 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, like the Registrar, is not bound by them.

17CCMTA Standard 17.6.1 recommends that a driver who has been diagnosed with seizures provoked by a structural brain abnormality, be considered eligible for a licence under certain conditions.

18The Registrar argues that although the appellant had undergone a neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure, which was due to a brain abscess that was subsequently treated, less than six months have passed since the resolution of the provoking factor (brain abscess). The Registrar submits that this 6-month period of stability, as recommended by CCMTA Standard 17.6.1, is necessary for road safety.

19The appellant testified that his medical condition does not impact his ability to drive safely. The appellant submits that the 6-month period recommended in the CCMTA Standard 17.6.1 is a general guideline, but that the Tribunal should consider the facts on a case-by-case basis.

20Although not bound by the CCMTA Standards, the Tribunal may consider them when making its decision. These Standards are developed through a rigorous process based on the best available evidence, focusing on functional driving ability rather than solely on medical diagnoses. I agree with the appellant that based on the specific circumstances of this case, the appellant's 4-month seizure-free period as of the date of this hearing constitutes a sufficient period of medical stability.

21The appellant testified that prior to having a seizure on January 28, 2025, he had a gradual worsening headache that morning. After his visit to the emergency department, his headaches further worsened over the subsequent days, which led him to again seek medical attention. Subsequent imaging demonstrated a brain abscess. As a result, the appellant was seen by Dr. MacDougall, a neurosurgeon, and underwent an occipital craniotomy on February 6, 2025.

22According to Dr. MacDougall's reports, the appellant completed a 6-week course of antibiotics, and a subsequent CT scan showed that his brain was "healing very well" and that the brain abscess was "resolved, asymptomatic". Dr. MacDougall stated that the appellant did not require any follow-up or further imaging and cleared the appellant to return to his usual activities and work. Dr. MacDougall's reports, combined with the appellant's testimony that he no longer has any symptoms, specifically having no headaches, and that he has returned to regular activity such as playing football, support the appellant's position that he has recovered well from the brain abscess.

23Further, the appellant testified that he was assessed by an Infectious Diseases specialist physician, who explained to him that after workup was done with various blood tests, there was no other cause except for his dental infection that preceded the seizure and brain abscess. The appellant testified that he no longer has any dental issues after the infected tooth was removed. While no supporting medical documentation was submitted regarding his Infectious Diseases appointments or his dental issues, I found that the appellant was forthright and credible in his testimony.

24As a licensed physician in Ontario, and as authorized by s.16 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, I draw on generally recognized information within my specialized knowledge to take notice that even though the brain abscess had been surgically drained and treated with a course of intravenous antibiotics, there still is a risk of recurrent seizures. However, as a physician, I understand that certain factors affect the risk of a recurrent seizure.

25Factors that I considered which reduce the appellant's risk of having a recurrent seizure include this being his first seizure with no history of epilepsy and that he has no other medical conditions. As a physician, I also understand that the first several weeks postoperative after a craniotomy pose the highest risk of seizures, with reduced risk over time.

26I also considered whether CCMTA Standard 17.6.2 should be applied instead of Standard 17.6.1, because Standard 17.6.2 covers seizures provoked by causes with no structural brain abnormality, such as "toxic illness". The initial CT scan on January 28, 2025 showed "no intracranial space-occupying lesion", which in my understanding indicates that the abscess had not yet developed or was still in its early stages which could not be seen in the CT scan. Given that an infection qualifies as a toxic illness, and that the dental infection had spread to his brain which led to the seizure on January 28, 2025 without having an abscess visible on CT scan, I found the appellant's argument on the applicability of Standard 17.6.2 (which has no specific seizure-free period) to have some merit. However, considering the conclusion, I do not find it necessary to decide on which Standard is most applicable in this case.

27I do recognize that although there is a risk of a recurrent seizure which could cause sudden incapacitation, in this particular case this risk is sufficiently low at this point in time. As a result, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

CONCLUSION

28I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizures, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence