Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17118/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:

Stephen M. Ryan

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. K. Minnings L. Hodgson

For the Appellant:

S. Ryan, self represented

For the Respondent:

I. Sookram, Representative

HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE: June 10, 2025

1Stephen Ryan (the appellant) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his Class G licence. It is the Registrar’s position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, substance use disorder related to cannabis, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (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. Under s. 14(2)(b) of this regulation, the Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3The appellant denies suffering from a substance use disorder that interferes with his ability to drive safely.

4Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUES

5The issues in this appeal are as follows:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder related to cannabis?

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

6The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

7Having considered the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the Registrar has established that the appellant suffers from medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant suffers from a substance use disorder

8On April 22, 2025, Dr. Dang, a psychiatrist at St. Michael’s Hospital, completed a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”). The MCR indicates that the appellant suffers from an uncontrolled substance use disorder involving cannabis. In the report, Dr. Dang provided the following details, “smokes 7-15 joints per day, admitted to driving after having smoked one month ago. Stated he wasn’t intoxicated because he has developed tolerance.”

9The Registrar requested additional information from the appellant. In its letter dated May 01, 2025, the Registrar notified the appellant that, for licence reinstatement to be considered, he must return a Substance Use Assessment Form completed by a treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner. The appellant did not return this form. He testified that his treating nurse practitioner was unwilling to complete the form and two Rapid Access Addiction Medicine clinics refused to complete it without more background information.

10It is the appellant’s position that, while he uses cannabis recreationally, he does not have a substance use disorder. The appellant testified that he was diagnosed with “non severe” Cystic Fibrosis (CF) as a teenager and that he has struggled with mental health issues for an extended period. The appellant had moved to Toronto in 2021 and told the Tribunal he was trying to reestablish himself professionally. In February 2025, he experienced a mental health crisis and attended a Toronto area hospital’s emergency department. He received a referral to the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at St. Michael’s Hospital. There, he was assigned a care team that included nurse practitioners, social workers and psychiatrists.

11The appellant testified that on April 22, 2025, he attended a 65 minute consultation with the CF clinic psychiatrist Dr. Dang, who subsequently completed the MCR. The appellant stated that, at that meeting, he painted a dark picture for Dr. Dang and focused on the period in January and February 2025, when he had been depressed and unmotivated. In the appellant’s view it was a “surface level” meeting with less than 10 minutes devoted to his cannabis use. The appellant believes that the psychiatrist took his comments about past cannabis use “out of context”. He explained that the number of joints he would smoke varied depending on whether he was driving that day and Dr. Dang gave no consideration to the potency of the cannabis or the amount of cannabis in each joint. In the appellant’s view, the physician didn’t understand what grams or even joints were. The appellant stated that the reference to him driving after smoking was false and noted that one can develop a “tolerance” without suffering from an addiction.

12The appellant provided an undated letter from his CF Clinic Nurse Practitioner indicating that she has provided the appellant mental health care since February of 2025 and he “has expressed a willingness to reduce or discontinue his cannabis use, particularly if doing so would be beneficial for his mental health. He has remained engaged and continues to participate in ongoing support with our mental health team.”

13The appellant provided portions of his CF Clinic records which he had significantly redacted. Notes made by his Nurse Practitioner, documenting a phone call with the appellant on May 14, 2025, stated that that the team had been focusing on the medical management of the appellant’s depressive symptoms and that the appellant “expressed openness in cutting back on cannabis/stopping cannabis “cold turkey””. The Nurse Practitioner noted her concern in abruptly stopping cannabis, “specifically around withdrawal symptoms”. She further noted, “We did also discuss the potential to cut back on potency of cannabis which he reported he did do. He has remained engaged in ongoing mental health supports with myself and our Social Worker.”

14A former colleague and the appellant’s partner both testified that, in their view, the appellant did not have addiction issues and they had never known him to drive under the influence. The appellant also provided numerous letters from former employers and coworkers who attested to his long-standing professionalism and reliability. They indicated that they had witnessed no signs of cannabis addiction.

15The Tribunal finds that the medical evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant has a substance use disorder. Dr. Dang, a psychiatrist, concluded, after an assessment, that the appellant had a substance use disorder. On the MCR, he provided some context for this diagnosis. While the appellant has provided medical evidence that he “has expressed willingness to reduce or discontinue his cannabis use” and had reported to “cut back on potency”, this does not challenge Dr. Dang’s diagnosis. The Tribunal also notes the appellant’s Nurse Practitioner documented concerns about possible withdrawal symptoms should the appellant stop cannabis use abruptly.

16As a physician duly licenced to practice medicine in Ontario, Dr. Minnings is aware that substance use disorder is diagnosed according to standardized criteria set out in the DSM-V, and that the assessment and diagnosis of a substance use disorder is within the specialized scope and expertise of a psychiatrist. Further, Dr. Minnings takes note that tolerance and withdrawal are two of the several criteria that are considered when determining if someone has a substance use disorder. Dr. Minnings takes note of these facts pursuant to s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act,

17The appellant did not, as requested by the Ministry, return the Substance Use Assessment Form completed by a treating medical practitioner. As explained by the Respondent, this form could provide a means for a medical practitioner to support the appellant’s position that he does not suffer from a substance use disorder and a basis for license reinstatement.

18The Tribunal has considered the testimony of the appellant, his witnesses and numerous support letters attesting to his past professionalism and substance use patterns. We note that the witnesses and work colleagues that provided letters of support are not physicians or mental health practitioners. In the circumstances here, greater weight is given to that of the medical assessment conducted by the psychiatrist on April 22, 2025. There is no basis to the appellant’s submission that the psychiatrist had no understanding of the substance at issue or potency considerations. The physician determined that the appellant met the criteria for classification of a substance use disorder at that time. Based on the medical evidence, we find the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant has a substance use disorder.

The medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with the ability to drive a motor vehicle safely

19The respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s condition will significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

20The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). The CCMTA Standards note that the use of cannabis can create delays in decision making and information processing. Additional effects are time distortion, relaxation, exaggeration of sensory experiences and loss of inhibitions. With respect to substance use disorders, the CCMTA Standards recommend a period of abstinence of one year (or 6 months if an approved treatment program is completed and with the support of the treatment provider).

21The Registrar points to the MCR, where it is documented that the appellant has a substance use disorder and admitted to driving after consuming cannabis. We have fully considered the appellant’s evidence that he never drives under the influence and that he denies saying this to the physician. While there is medical evidence that the appellant indicates his willingness to reduce or abstain from cannabis use, there is no medical evidence confirming that the appellant’s condition is stable. Nor is there medical evidence indicating that any medical practitioner supports a return to driving at this time. As noted, the requested Substance Use Assessment Form, which could provide important information about the severity of the appellant’s substance use and any impact on driving. has not been provided.

22The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them. We are persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards here. Under the CCMTA Standards, the appellant is not eligible for a licence at this time. The Registrar has established that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

23The Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

24For 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.

Released: July 14, 2025

__________________________

Laura Hodgson

Adjudicator

_________________________

Dr. K. Minnings