Hope Major v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 61186

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17094/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:

Hope Major

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member Colin Osterberg, Vice-chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Hope Major, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: June 12, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Hope Major (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 health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect her safety to drive.

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 alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend her licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. She acknowledges that she suffers from alcohol use disorder but denies that she suffers from a medical condition which interferes with her 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

7To resolve that issue we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with her 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, we 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the following reports:

i. a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated May 29, 2021, completed by Dr. Andrew Gray, an emergency room physician who treated the appellant, in which he diagnosed seizure due to alcohol withdrawal;

ii. a medical examination report dated May 17, 2022, completed by Dr. Jennifer Jeffries, the appellant’s family physician, in which she noted evidence of drug habituation and commented that the appellant was then in an active recovery program;

iii. a Substance Use Assessment form (“SUA”) dated June 14, 2022, completed by Dr. Jeffries in which she reports the diagnosis of moderate substance use disorder with respect to alcohol, cannabinoids, and illicit substances and/or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals, along with seizure related to alcohol withdrawal;

iv. an MCR dated December 4, 2022, completed by Dr. Gray diagnosing a seizure due to alcohol or drug withdrawal; and

v. an SUA form provided by Dr. Jeffries to the respondent on April 16, 2024, which sets out a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder involving alcohol, cannabinoids, and illicit substances and/or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals.

12The appellant acknowledges that she has in the past suffered from substance use disorder, involving both drugs and alcohol, however, believes that she no longer suffers from that condition. The appellant based this submission on her own evidence that she no longer uses alcohol or drugs as she had in the past and does not believe she will do so in the future.

13We note that the Registrar sent the appellant a letter on June 11, 2025, indicating that her licence remains suspended due to alcohol use disorder. This was following review of additional letters from Dr. Jeffries, dated April 10, 2025, and June 4, 2025, which indicate that the appellant’s urine drug screening tests have been negative for illegal drugs since December 2023.

14We note that the appellant’s family doctor, Dr. Jeffries diagnosed the appellant with severe substance use disorder, involving alcohol and drugs, as recently as April 16, 2024. While there is medical evidence to support that the appellant no longer has an active substance use disorder involving drugs, there is no medical evidence before us to support that she no longer has alcohol use disorder or that it is in remission.

15We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

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

16We find that the Registrar has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

17The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that the use of alcohol is likely to adversely affect driving performance. The Registrar says that the use of alcohol is associated with altered vision, reduced concentration and reaction times, reduced attention, alertness, and other cognitive functions, and is known to be causally related to driving accidents and other adverse driving outcomes.

18The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), Chapter 15, which supports its allegations as to the negative impacts of alcohol use on persons’ abilities to drive motor vehicles safely.

19Section 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.

20The CCMTA Standards recommend that a driver who has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder be considered eligible for a licence if they have abstained from using alcohol for 12 months and their functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired. Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist or treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

21Although the Registrar’s representative conceded that there is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests the appellant has consumed alcohol in the last 12 months, we note that the appellant’s family doctor reported severe substance use disorder, related to substances including alcohol, in April 2024. There was no medical testing which was done since then to specifically rule out the ongoing use of alcohol.

22The appellant argues that their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle is not affected by alcohol use disorder.

23The appellant testified that her licence was suspended in 2022 because she suffered two alcohol-related seizures. In 2023, she entered a 3-month treatment program followed by a sober-living house and attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous programs. She continues to attend regular Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

24The appellant says that she has changed her life significantly since 2022 and no longer uses illegal drugs or alcohol. The appellant says that in the last 12 months she has had one beer and that was at dinner 8 months ago. She testified that there is no alcohol present in her home and that her boyfriend, who lives with her, does not drink regularly. The appellant does not intend to drink in the future.

25The appellant’s family doctor has been conducting regular urine toxicology screening which the appellant understood to include testing for both alcohol and drugs. On April 10, 2025, Dr. Jeffries wrote to the respondent’s Medical Review Section stating that, aside from cannabis, the appellant’s urine tox screens have been negative since December 2023. Dr. Jeffries states that she is waiting for psychological counseling and her family and partner are supportive. Dr. Jeffries concludes the letter by stating: “Please consider her for driver’s licence reinstatement.”

26On June 4, 2025, Dr. Jeffries again wrote to the respondent’s Medical Review Section stating that the appellant’s drug screens were negative, and that she is supportive of the appellant regaining her driver’s licence.

27The Registrar’s representative testified that someone from the Medical Review Section contacted Dr. Jeffries to find out whether the tox screening included testing for alcohol use and Dr. Jeffries said that it did not. The Registrar therefore has requested confirmation that the appellant has been abstinent from alcohol for at least 6 months before it will consider reinstating her licence.

28In addition to the appellant’s testimony, the appellant’s father, Jeff Major testified at the hearing. According to Mr. Major, he has had regular in-person and telephone contact with the appellant. He testified that the appellant has changed dramatically since 2022 and that, as far as he knows the appellant has not used alcohol or drugs in the past year.

29We are not satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The appellant’s evidence that she has remained abstinent with respect to alcohol for the past eight months is supported by the evidence of Jeff Major, which we found to be credible, as well as by the preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. Although Dr. Jeffries did not specifically arrange screening tests for alcohol use, that is a fact more consistent with an understanding on Dr. Jeffries’ part that alcohol was not a significant issue in the case of the appellant. This is supported by the fact that Dr. Jeffries knew the testing was being done, at least in part, for the purpose of reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence. It makes little sense to conduct testing with respect to drug use, but no testing with respect to alcohol use if alcohol was a significant concern.

30The appellant’s position is further supported by Dr. Jeffries’ statements in support of reinstatement of the appellant’s licence. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it is clear that Dr. Jeffries was aware of the appellant’s history of both drug and alcohol use when she provided her opinion that her licence should be reinstated. We find that Dr. Jeffries likely took both issues into account when she recommended reinstatement.

31The Registrar admits that the appellant has satisfied all of the CCMTA Standards’ criteria for licence reinstatement except that there is no specific statement from the appellant’s doctor that the appellant has been abstinent with respect to alcohol for six months. However, the CCMTA Standards do not specifically state the nature of the evidence that the appellant must produce with respect to abstinence, or that it must come from a physician, and we find this is dependant on the circumstances of each case. In the present case, we accept the appellant’s evidence that she has been abstinent with respect to alcohol for the past 6 months, and we find that she has met all of the criteria recommended by the CCMTA Standards for reinstatement in the circumstances. The appellant’s evidence in this regard, which we found to be credible and persuasive, is supported by the evidence of Jeff Major and the reports of her family doctor. There is no evidence to suggest the appellant’s testimony regarding her length of abstinence from alcohol is not accurate.

32After considering all of the evidence presented, we are not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

33We 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 alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

34For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.