Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16963/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

John V. Tokarsky Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

PANEL: Kailey Minnings, M.D., Adjudicator Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: John V. Tokarsky, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: May 29, 2025

OVERVIEW

1John V. Tokarsky (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the 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 dated March 31, 2025 from Dr. Osama Hasan, his treating physician at a hospital, that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder-alcohol (“alcohol use disorder”). The appellant received a letter dated April 3, 2025 informing him of the suspension of his driver’s licence due to alcohol use disorder.

2Section 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 physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

3The appellant clarified at the hearing that the Notice of Motion he submitted to the Tribunal along with his Notice of Appeal was meant to form part of his appeal.

4The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

5The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. In summary, the appellant in his Notice of Appeal disagrees with the diagnoses of substance use disorder – alcohol, made by his Dr. Hasan, relies on a letter dated May 21, 2023 from an addiction assessment facility (“PAARC”) where he has started attending counselling recently for alcohol use disorder and part of his blood and toxic screening results dated May 12, 2025. The appellant states that there was “no factual basis” for medical suspension of his driver’s licence. The appellant also denies that his use of alcohol interferes with his ability to drive safely because he has a good driving record.

6Having considered all the evidence, and for the reasons which follow, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ISSUES

7The issue in dispute is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

8Resolution of that issue requires us to address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

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

RESULT

9For 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.

ANALYSIS

The appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder

10We find that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder based on the medical evidence presented at the hearing.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the March 31, 2025 medical condition report from Dr. Hasan who treated the appellant at the hospital on and diagnosed the appellant with alcohol use disorder.

12Although the appellant denies that he has a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, the appellant testified that he was given such a diagnosis in 2003 or 2004 but that this does not matter, and no one has “said this to him recently”. We find the appellant’s testimony unreliable on this point given Dr. Hasan’s recent diagnosis. The appellant also testified that he believes that two of the medications he has been prescribed are to treat alcohol abuse.

13The appellant testified that he voluntarily went to the hospital after a two-week binge of drinking alcohol where he saw Dr. Hasan, was admitted to the hospital, and treated for five days for withdrawal. The appellant admitted that he was “out of control” for the two weeks of binge drinking.

14Although the appellant testified that Dr. Hasan’s diagnosis is not true because Dr. Hasan does not know him and the binge drinking was an isolated incident, neither of the appellant’s two other treating physicians completed a substance use assessment form or submitted any documentation disputing the current diagnosis of Dr. Hasan.

15The appellant filed selected portions of his May 12, 2025 blood and toxicology laboratory results which we find unhelpful because it is partial medical information.

16The appellant testified and that although that he has used alcohol in the past, he no longer does so, he also testified that he has attended AA meetings since 2004, and since the binge drinking episode has sought treatment with PAARC and the intensive concurrent disorders program at the hospital and is due to start the hospital program during the first week of June 2025. We take the PAARC letter, and the appellant’s testimony about the hospital program he is starting, to confirm that the appellant is being treated for alcohol use disorder, which is consistent with the diagnosis of Dr. Hasan.

17We find that the appellant’s testimony about the treatment he is seeking, the two-week drinking binge incident, and the subsequent hospitalization for withdrawal from alcohol, when considered in context with Dr. Hasan’s diagnosis establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

18The appellant submitted Chemtrade Electrochem Inc. v. Superior Plus Corporation, 2025 ABCA 31, an Alberta court decision which we have reviewed but found unhelpful. This case involves contractual interpretation. There is no issue of contractual interpretation before us.

The appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely

19We are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

20The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) and submits that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.

21The CCMTA Standards, specifically 15.6.3, recommends that a driver with substance use disorder be considered eligible for a licence if they meet the criterial for remission and/or has abstained from the use of alcohol for 12 months. It is recommended that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program, and other criteria, if applicable.

22We are not bound by the CCMTA Standards but here, we have decided to follow them.

23Although the appellant testified that his goal is abstinence from alcohol, we find that the appellant has not abstained from the use of alcohol for a significant period of time since Dr. Hasan’s diagnosis.

24Neither of the appellant’s two treating physicians have submitted any recommendation supportive of the appellant’s return to driving a motor vehicle. The PAARC letter does not discuss whether the appellant is able to drive a motor vehicle safely or recommend re-instatement of his driver’s licence.

25Although the appellant testified that his drinking has never affected his driving, and he has had a good driving record for a long time, we do not find this persuasive. The appellant’s physicians are in a better position to assess his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, given his alcohol use disorder, than he is due to the physicians’ medical education, training and experience, and in the case of Dr. Hasan, his treatment of the appellant during the recent binge drinking incident. The fact that the appellant does not have any drinking and driving incident on his driving record to date is not evidence that his alcohol use disorder is unlikely to affect his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, just that it has not done so to date. We also find that the two-week binge incident, and the subsequent five-day hospitalization for withdrawal treatment is indicative of the severity of the appellant’s alcohol use disorder in the approximately two-month period preceding the hearing.

26For the above reasons, we are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely at this time.

Conclusion

27We find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

28For 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.