Constance Moulton v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 61157

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17033/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:

Constance Moulton Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Peter Savage Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: No one appearing For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: June 16, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Constance Moulton (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 her 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

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

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

RESULT

4Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and we confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

5The hearing began on June 16, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The appellant, who is self-represented, did not appear and remained absent from the proceedings for the next 30 minutes. During this time, the Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant without success. The appellant did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence. We ordered the hearing to proceed in the appellant's absence.

6Section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act ("SPPA"), states that, where notice of an oral 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 appellant's Notice of Appeal was filed May 7, 2025. A case conference took place on June 3, 2025, of which the appellant was provided proper notice. The appellant did not attend the case conference and did not communicate with the Tribunal that she did not intend to appear at the case conference nor did she provide a reason for her non-attendance.

8The hearing was scheduled to take place at 1:30 p.m. on June 16, 2025 and proper notice was sent to the appellant. The appellant did not attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal that she did not intend to appear at the hearing nor did she provide a reason for her non-attendance.

9We therefore relied on the discretion afforded by s. 7(1) of the SPPA and Rule 3.7.1 of the Rules and proceeded with the hearing in the appellant's absence.

ANALYSIS

Overview

10The 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.

11A 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 mental health condition?

12I find that the Registrar has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition.

13The Registrar's representative submitted into evidence a Medical Condition Report ("MCR") dated December 30, 2021, completed by the appellant's psychiatrist, Dr. Joshua Dias, and sent to the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO"), which notes that the appellant has a chronic disorder, being schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder. The MCR was provided to the MTO pursuant to s. 203 of the Act which provides that a medical practitioner may report to the Registrar a person who appears to have a prescribed medical condition or a medical condition that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle.

14In response to the MCR submitted by Dr. Dias, the Registrar suspended the appellant's driver's licence pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act and requested that the appellant provide further medical information including a Mental Health Disorder Form ("MHDF") which the appellant was asked to have her treating physician complete. In January 2022, the Registrar received an MHDF which appears to have been completed by the appellant and is unsigned. The appellant also submitted to the Registrar a report dated September 23, 2016, completed by Dr. Felix Yaroshevsky. It appears from Dr. Yaroshevsky's report that the appellant was referred to him by the appellant's family doctor for a psychiatric consultation.

15Dr. Yaroshevsky's provisional diagnosis was "Relational Problem" and he recommended that the appellant obtain supportive counselling.

16In response to the documents submitted by the appellant, the Registrar requested further medical information including a MHDF to be completed by the appellant's treating physician. The appellant did not respond to that request until the Notice of Appeal was delivered in May 2025.

17In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant writes that she was told she is mentally ill and that the Toronto police are threatening to hospitalize her. The Notice of Appeal states that she was never mentally ill and is stable. The Notice of Appeal includes two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board dated October 4, 2025, which determined that the appellant is capable with respect treatment including antipsychotic medication and that she does not meet the requirements of the Mental Health Act for involuntary admission to hospital. The appellant presents this as evidence that she does not have a mental health condition.

18The appellant did not attend at the hearing and thus did not testify as to her mental health condition. She did not provide the Tribunal with any other medical documentation to support the statements in her Notice of Appeal.

19We find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden of establishing that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely mental health condition. We accept the opinion of Dr. Dias that the appellant suffers from schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder. Dr. Dias was the appellant's treating psychiatrist and was in the best position to make this diagnosis. We note that neither Dr. Yaroshevsky nor the Consent and Capacity Board comment on whether or not the appellant suffers from schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder and we do not find their reports sufficient to find otherwise.

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

20We find that the Registrar has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

21The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standard for Drivers [February 2021] (the "CCMTA Standards"), specifically Chapter 17, and submits that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal.

22Section 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.

23Section 14.1 of the CCMTA Standards notes that the effects of schizophrenia on an individual can be profound and can include delusions and hallucinations, thought disorders, lack of motivation and social withdrawal. The Registrar submits, and we agree, that schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders can have a significant negative impact on the ability of an individual to drive safely for which a driver is unable to compensate given the impact of such disorders on a person's perceptions and insight.

24We also accept the assessment in s. 14.4 of the CCMTA Standards that schizophrenia may impair important driving functions including attention, executive function, spatial abilities, memory and motor and tactile dexterity. Although the CCMTA Standards state that drivers with psychiatric disorders may be able to compensate for their impairments if treated and/or stabilized, they also recommend functional assessment in order to make that determination. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the appellant has undergone a functional driving assessment and there is no evidence that any of her treating physicians are supportive of the reinstatement of the appellant's driver's licence.

25We find that the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and persuasive. The only medical opinion in evidence with respect to the effect of the appellant's mental health condition on her driving is that of Dr. Dias who submitted the MCR indicating that the appellant has a mental health condition which may make it dangerous for the appellant to operate a motor vehicle safely. We accept the Registrar's submission that the appellant's mental health condition can interfere with the safe operation of a vehicle due to the risks set out above.

26We are accordingly satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

ORDER:

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