David Carty v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 58830

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16979/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:

David Carty Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. David To

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: David Carty, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: June 4, 2025

OVERVIEW

1David Carty (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class A driver’s 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 physician that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive safely.

2Under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act, the Registrar may 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”) 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 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 asserts that the appellant suffers from a 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 this condition interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Pursuant to 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 mental health 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 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 Class A motor vehicle safely.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

8The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, namely adjustment disorder.

9The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports completed by the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Dennis Forrester. Dr. Forrester’s medical reports, dated January 21, 2025 and March 18, 2025, describe the appellant as having “occasional depression” and “adjustment disorder with depressed mood,” which is stable but episodic. He also notes mild depression and anxiety related to life circumstances.

10Similarly, the appellant was assessed by a geriatric psychiatrist, Dr. Ju Eun Lee, who wrote in their clinical notes on October 10, 2024 that the appellant has “mild anxiety and low mood”.

11The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from a mental health condition, and there is no dispute in this regard. He testified that he experiences low mood approximately one or two days each week, and while this has been ongoing for years, it has increased in frequency but not in severity in the past year.

12As 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 symptoms of mild anxiety, mild depression, and low mood are often inter-related, as they are in this case.

13As a physician, I understand that “adjustment disorder with depressed mood” based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria relates to symptoms, primarily low mood, in reaction to stressors. Criteria specific to adjustment disorder include notable distress out of proportion in relation to the stressor or impairment in an essential area of life functioning, and that this stress-related disturbance does not align with the criteria for any other mental disorder. Based on the appellant’s testimony and his family physician’s report, he likely is suffering from adjustment disorder, which is a mental health condition.

14I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

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

15I 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 Class A motor vehicle safely.

16The Registrar argues that the appellant’s mental health condition interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

17The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). According to the CCMTA Standards, depressive disorders may cause cognitive symptoms – such as poor concentration, memory, and reaction time – that can impair driving ability.

18Paragraph 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. While the Tribunal may also consider these standards, neither the Registrar nor the Tribunal is bound by them.

19CCMTA Standard 14.6.1 outlines criteria for determining licence eligibility for individuals with psychiatric disorders (including mental health disorders). These include stability of the condition, sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute, unimpaired functional abilities, and support from a treating physician to return to driving.

20The Registrar acknowledges that the appellant meets most of the criteria under CCMTA Standard 14.6.1 but maintains that a functional driving assessment is necessary before considering licence reinstatement.

21The appellant argues that a functional driving assessment is unnecessary in his case. He reports experiencing low mood one or two days per week, which does not interfere with his daily activities, but sometimes makes it difficult to concentrate on reading a book. He testified that he feels well on the remaining days. He denies hallucinations, instability, reckless behaviour or suicidal ideation, which is supported by Dr. Forrester’s March 18, 2025 report and by Dr. Lee’s October 10, 2024 assessment.

22I am persuaded by the appellant’s testimony and the medical evidence that his mental health condition would not significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class A vehicle safely. His symptoms are mild and episodic, and Dr. Lee’s cognitive assessment supports this conclusion.

23Although 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.

24CCMTA Standard 14.6.1 provides further guidance in addition to the criteria described above. It recommends functional assessment only when impairments are persistent. In this case, the appellant’s symptoms are episodic.

25Chapter 5.2 of the CCMTA Standards explains that functional assessments are not appropriate for episodic impairments, as these are not consistently measurable. Therefore, such an assessment would not provide meaningful insight into the appellant’s driving ability.

26Although Dr. Forrester recommended a functional assessment in three of his 2025 reports, he also described the appellant’s symptoms as episodic. Given this, such an assessment is unlikely to yield useful information about the impact of brief low-mood episodes on driving.

27The appellant reported occasional disorientation while driving, though it did not affect his driving ability or result in accidents. He also noted occasional forgetfulness, particularly with names and less commonly used words. However, cognitive testing on October 10, 2024 by Dr. Lee showed reassuring results: a MoCA score of 27/30 (normal), a Trails A time of 38 seconds (below the 48-second threshold), and a Trails B time of 1 minute 40 seconds (below the 3-minute cutoff). He also plans regular follow-ups with Dr. Lee this year to repeat cognitive testing.

28There is no evidence linking the appellant’s forgetfulness and disorientation to his low mood. As a physician, I recognize that mild depression can affect memory and concentration.

29The appellant demonstrates appropriate insight and judgment regarding his condition – an important consideration for drivers. He recognizes the onset of low mood, understands it is temporary, and engages in activities that improve his mood. He is open to seeking medical advice and treatment if symptoms worsen.

30In addition, the appellant’s insight into his driving is demonstrated by his understanding of his limitations. He testified that he agrees with his family physician, explaining it is “probably best that I retire” from commercial driving. The appellant testified that he regularly drove tractor-trailers on highways and has worked for the same employer for 21 years under regular monitoring. He acknowledged that commercial truck driving is a high-pressure environment with significant responsibilities and indicated that he planned to retire after 40 years in the field. He added that he continues to feel confident in operating a tractor-trailer for work and driving his sedan in his neighbourhood.

31Accordingly, 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 a Class A vehicle safely.

CONCLUSION

32I find that the Registrar has not met the burden of proof of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class A motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

33For 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.