Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17243/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:

Adam Lang

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Peter Savage M.D.

Dagmar Boettcher, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Adam Lang, Appellant

George F. James, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: July 15, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Adam Lang (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his 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 an unsolicited Medical Condition Report stating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive safely.

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 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 denies that he suffers from an alcohol use disorder and denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his 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.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

6At the commencement of the hearing the appellant advised that he had received an affidavit from the appellant’s wife, Evdoxia Lang, and requested that it be submitted as an exhibit into evidence. The Registrar advised that he had no objections to allowing the affidavit to be entered as evidence and had been served and reviewed the document. The Tribunal did not have a record of the affidavit and the proceeding was paused until the appellant could email the affidavit to the Tribunal. Proceedings were paused in order for the panel to review the 3 page affidavit. We then discussed with the parties whether to accept the affidavit or whether to have the appellant’s spouse appear as a witness instead. The appellant advised that his wife was working but it might be possible to bring her into the call as a witness.

7In compliance with Rule 9.3 of the Rules, we gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions on their position regarding whether or not the appellant’s late submission should be admitted into written evidence. The appellant submitted that the affidavit will dispute a number of statements made by the emergency room physician and also refute statements that the physician noted were made by the appellant’s wife. The Registrar confirmed that it had no issues with the late submission of the document, consented to the inclusion of the document as written evidence, and did not request that the appellant’s spouse appear as a witness. As the affidavit is sworn under oath, we accepted the affidavit by Evdoxia Lang as an exhibit to the proceedings.

ISSUES

8The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

9To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol abuse disorder?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely?

10The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

11Having 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 their 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?

12The evidence presented at the hearing does establish that the appellant suffers from alcohol abuse disorder.

13The Registrar relies upon the unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated March 30, 2025, completed by the emergency room (“ER”) physician, Dr. Justin Losier. The MCR states that the appellant suffers from a substance abuse disorder, specifically alcohol. Dr. Losier recommends outpatient intensive treatment. No further details were provided.

14The Registrar also relies upon the clinical notes of the ER physician, which contain a number of statements which Dr. Losier alleges that the appellant’s wife made. These include Mrs. Lang’s statement that her husband is essentially never sober, constantly has alcohol in his system, and drives with alcohol in his system. The notes also contain the notation by Dr. Losier that during the past two weeks the appellant’s alcohol consumption has increased to a bottle of wine a night, and that prior to coming into the emergency department, the appellant had consumed one glass of wine.

15The Registrar relies upon Dr. Losier’s notation in the ER clinical notes of March 30, 2025 that the bloodwork indicated a level of alcohol in excess of one glass of wine. Dr. Losier assessed the appellant as having a stress reaction secondary to the amount of alcohol in his system and provided an alcohol withdrawal information/substance use disorder pamphlet and noted that the appellant would follow up with his family physician the following morning. He prescribed a tapered dose of diazepam, a prescription drug used to assist with alcohol withdrawal.

16The Registrar also relies upon the Substance Use Assessment completed by the family physician, Dr. James Vavougios dated April 9, 2024 in which he indicates that the appellant suffers from a mild use disorder, namely alcohol, and that the appellant has abstained from alcohol since the suspension of his licence. Dr. Vavougios also notes the appellant has contacted the Rapid Alcohol Abuse Clinic (“RAAM”) Clinic and is awaiting an appointment.

17The appellant admits he suffers from mild alcohol use disorder but denies that it significantly impacts his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

18The appellant testified that he had driven to Buffalo on March 29, 2025 to watch his son’s basketball game, and after the game the family went out to dinner, during which the appellant consumed two glasses of wine. In the early hours of the next morning, he experienced significant stress levels which the appellant testified often occur on Sundays. He consulted his wife and they agreed that he should drive home and rest. As his wife had driven separately, she was able to drive home with their children at a later time.

19When the appellant arrived home, he testified that he continued to experience high stress levels and decided to drink three glasses of white wine to try to ease the stress. When the wine didn’t help his stress levels and his symptoms continued to worsen, the appellant states that he asked his father to drive him to Michael Garron Hospital ER. During Triage the appellant testifies that there was a miscommunication with the Triage Nurse in terms of the number of glasses of wine he had consumed that morning, resulting in the chart indicating that he had one glass of wine. The appellant did not dispute that he had alcohol in his system when speaking with Dr. Losier. The appellant testified he was discharged around 6 pm with a recommendation that he would receive an appointment time for the RAAM Clinic the following day.

20The appellant testified that Dr. Losier had assumed that the appellant had driven home from Buffalo that morning with a sufficient amount of alcohol in his system to register the levels indicated in the bloodwork. He denied that he drove home with alcohol in his system, and that the bloodwork indicated the wine consumed at home that morning.

21The appellant also testified that the affidavit of the appellant’s wife calls into question comments made by Dr. Losier regarding what Mrs. Lang specifically said to the doctor. In particular, Mrs. Lang states in the affidavit that she never made the comments to Dr. Losier that her husband is “constantly drinking alcohol and is never sober” and that he frequently drives with alcohol in his system. The appellant testified that Dr. Losier only spoke briefly to his wife in the hallway. The affidavit calls into question Dr. Losier’s assumption that the appellant drank alcohol during his return trip from Buffalo.

22The appellant testified that at the time of his suspension, he did suffer from alcohol use disorder and confirmed this was noted within the MCR of March 30, 2025 completed by the ER physician Dr. Losier, as well Substance Use Assessment of April 9, 2024, completed by the family physician. However, the appellant testified he has made considerable changes in his lifestyle. These include abstinence from alcohol, removing alcohol from the home as his wife does not drink alcohol, exercise, diet and weight loss, and a change to his after-work friends and activities with friends. The appellant testified that he has an awareness of the impact that alcohol was having on his life and during a follow-up appointment with his family doctor after the RAAM Clinic appointment, the appellant’s health had improved to the extent that his family doctor removed one of the blood pressure medications. The appellant also testified that his doctor at no time recommended that he should not be driving.

23The appellant’s representative put forth a number of arguments for reinstatement of the licence, including the fact that the driving extract shows no alcohol related driving offences in the past 25 years and that, when questioned, the Registrar confirmed that mild alcohol use disorder does not normally result in a licence suspension. In addition, the appellant’s representative stated the appellant has made significant changes to his lifestyle which include removing alcohol from his life, and that the appellant did attend the RAAM Clinic on July 5, 2025 and was advised that no follow-up was necessary.

24The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder. The appellant himself testified that believed he suffered from alcohol use disorder and has subsequently made several changes to his lifestyle. The MCR and the family doctor’s Substance Use Assessment also indicate a medical condition of alcohol use disorder.

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

25We find that the Registrar has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition, alcohol use disorder, is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

26The Registrar argues that the medical condition interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely and relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which states that alcohol is a depressant drug that impairs a driver’s judgement, reflex control and behaviour towards others.

27Section 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.

28The CCMTA Standards do not differentiate between mild, moderate and severe alcohol use disorder. The Registrar testified that mild alcohol use disorder does not normally result in a licence suspension, however, submits that each case must be considered individually.

29The appellant argues that his medical condition does not impact his ability to drive safely and testified that his family doctor supports this position.

30The appellant testified that whenever he drank an excessive amount of alcohol, he would arrange an Uber, or his wife would drive. His wife’s affidavit confirms his testimony.

31The appellant’s representative points to the appellant’s driving record that shows no alcohol charges over many years of driving.

32The appellant’s representative draws attention to the discrepancies between the ER clinical notes and the affidavit filed by the appellant’s wife, specifically regarding whether the appellant drove home from Buffalo with a significant amount of alcohol in his system.

33We accept the CCMTA concerns with alcohol use disorder. However, the CCMTA does not seem to differentiate between mild, moderate and severe substance use disorder. The Registrar stated that mild substance use disorder does not normally lead to licence suspension, and that each case must be decided on its own merits.

34In light of the appellant’s forthcoming testimony, his insight into the impacts of alcohol on his life, and the changes to his lifestyle, we are not persuaded that the appellant’s medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. In addition, we find that the appellant has the support of his wife and family doctor, and his addressing this condition.

35We are not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

Conclusion

36We 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 their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

37For 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.