Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17360/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:

Benjamin Givlin

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Benjamin Givlin, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: August 7, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Benjamin Givlin (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“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 from a treating health care provider 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 seizure, 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 seizure 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.

ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

7To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

• Does the appellant suffer from seizure?

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

ANALYSIS

Background

10An unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) was sent to the Registrar by emergency room physician Dr. Varshere on March 4, 2025. On the MCR, the doctor checked off “Seizure” under “Sudden Incapacitation” and wrote: “1st episode of 5 min of tonic/clonic seizure. Needs further investigations.”

11Following receipt of the MCR, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence effective March 15, 2025, and requested the completion of a Seizure and Loss of Consciousness (“SLOC”) form.

12On March 27, 2025, the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Burk, completed the requested SLOC form and checked the box indicating that the appellant had suffered from a provoked seizure caused by a structural brain abnormality, specifically, a brain abscess, less than three months prior. Dr. Burk wrote that the appellant had a brain abscess secondary to an ear infection that was treated with surgery and intravenous (IV) antibiotics. He wrote “brain abscess surgically removed. No risk of further seizure activity expected as per neurosurgery, Dr. Reddy.” On April 18, 2025, Dr. Burk submitted an additional SLOC form, again indicating the same, and this time specifying that the underlying cause had been successfully treated or resolved for greater than 1 month.

13The Registrar sent the appellant letters dated March 27, 2025, April 17, 2025 and April 28, 2025 indicating that the licence remained suspended, and requesting confirmation that it had been six months since the provoking factor had been stabilized, resolved, or corrected with or without treatment before reinstatement the appellant’s driver’s licence could be considered.

14The appellant sent additional medical documentation to the Registrar including an April 15, 2025 progress note from otolaryngologist Dr. Korman, indicating no further treatment was needed; an April 16, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Burk which states that the appellant has undergone neurological assessment, is unlikely to have another provoked seizure, and has completed treatment; and a June 11, 2025 progress note from Dr. Reddy, neurosurgeon, which states that the appellant had a brain abscess, has recovered very well post operatively, and that there is no concern for his ability to operate a motor vehicle from the neurosurgeon’s perspective.

15The Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated July 4, 2025 requesting confirmation that he has remained seizure-free for a period of six months.

16The appellant subsequently submitted a July 22, 2025 progress note from infectious disease specialist Dr. Cvetkovic indicating that a follow up MRI on July 15, 2025 showed the brain abscess was resolved.

The appellant suffered from seizure

17The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure.

18The Registrar’s position is supported by the following medical reports:

• The March 4, 2025 MCR from emergency room physician Dr. Varshere, as described above.

• The March 27, 2025 and April 18, 2025 SLOC forms completed by Dr. Burk, as described above.

• The June 11, 2025 progress note by Dr. Reddy, neurosurgeon, which recounts the history of the episode, including that the appellant had ear infection symptoms which progressed despite initial treatment, then “Experienced a “?tonic-clonic for ~5 minutes, EMS called, post-ictal for 30 minutes, confused & drowsy.” The note goes on to explain that the appellant underwent a craniotomy procedure to drain a brain abscess. The note states the appellant was treated with anti-epileptic medications along with oral and IV antibiotics and had a tube placed.

19The appellant acknowledges that on March 3, 2025, he experienced an episode of loss of consciousness. He denies, however, that this was ever proven to be a seizure, only that it was a suspected seizure. He points to the MCR which states, “Further investigations needed” as evidence that there was diagnostic uncertainty regarding the episode he experienced.

20I acknowledge the appellant’s position that the episode that he experienced was not definitively diagnosed as a seizure. However, I find the medical documents from Drs. Varshere, Burk and Reddy support that the episode was, on a balance of probabilities, a seizure because:

• Dr. Varshere, an emergency room physician, indicated “1st seizure” on the MCR form. As an emergency physician, this doctor would have training and expertise assessing and diagnosing seizure and differentiating it from other conditions. That the doctor wrote, “further investigations needed” does not make seizure less likely.

• Dr. Burk was consistent and clear on the March 28, 2025 SLOC form, the April 16, 2025 narrative letter, and the April 17, 2025 SLOC form that the appellant experienced a provoked seizure.

• Dr. Reddy’s clinical progress note, while not explicitly diagnosing seizure, mentions a “?tonic-clonic for 5 min… post-ictal for 30 minutes, confused & drowsy”. As a physician duly licenced to practice medicine in Ontario, I know that a ‘post-ictal’ refers to the immediate period of time after a seizure when the individual is returning to their baseline neurological state and that it is a term that is specific to seizure. I take note of these facts pursuant to s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

21The appellant has not suggested any alternate explanation for the loss of consciousness that he experienced on March 3, 2025, nor does the evidence show that any of the physicians involved in his care provided an alternate diagnosis or explanation.

22I prefer the opinions of the three physicians to the opinion of the appellant, and therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffered from seizure on March 3, 2025.

The appellant’s medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely

23I find that the Registrar has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

24The Registrar’s position is that the March 3, 2025 seizure interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, for which a driver cannot compensate. Thus, experiencing a seizure would significantly interfere with a driver’s ability to drive safely and present a safety risk to the driver, themselves, and other road users.

25The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), specifically Standard 17.6.1, which states that a driver who has been diagnosed with a provoked seizure caused by a structural brain abnormality is eligible for a licence if:

• They have undergone a neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure, and epilepsy is not diagnosed.

• It has been six months since the provoking factor stabilized, resolved, or was corrected, with or without treatment, and they have not had a seizure during that time.

• The treating neurologist or neurosurgeon indicates that further seizures are unlikely.

26Section 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.

27The respondent’s representative confirmed that the appellant has met the first and third criteria set out in Standard 17.6.1, but it has not yet been six months since the provoking factor was resolved. Accordingly, their most recent letter to the appellant requests confirmation that has remained seizure-free for a period of six months.

28The appellant’s position is that the March 3, 2025 episode does not impact his ability to drive safely as the brain abscess, which, he testified, was the provoking factor, is now fully resolved and his neurosurgeon has cleared him for a return to driving.

29The appellant further testified that he has been cleared by his ENT specialist, his infectious disease specialist, and his neurosurgeon due to the full resolution of his condition and that additionally, he has since undergone EEG testing and had a follow up MRI which did not show any concerns.

30He stated that following brain surgery on March 6, 2025 to drain the abscess, he was placed on a course of antibiotics, which he has now completed, and anti-seizure medication for approximately ten days by his neurosurgeon out of an abundance of caution.

31The appellant points to medical documentation from his otolaryngologist, his infectious disease specialist, and his neurosurgeon which corroborate his testimony that his condition of brain abscess is resolved. Further, he testified that he has no neurologic deficits as a result of the abscess or surgery, and his testimony is supported by the normal neurologic assessment documented by his neurosurgeon on June 11, 2025.

32The appellant testified that Dr. Reddy supports his return to driving, referring to the June 11, 2025 progress note which states, “he has recovered very well post operatively. From a neurosurgery perspective, there is no ongoing concerns regarding Benjamin’s ability to operate a motor vehicle… we do not identify any reasons to restrict his ability to operate a motor vehicle.”

33The appellant’s wife testified that his licence should not have been suspended. She stated that some physicians involved in the appellant’s care advised them that his condition should not have required a report to the Registrar. I place little weight on this testimony. Physicians in Ontario have a duty to report every person who has or appears to have a prescribed condition or impairment in accordance with s. 203 of the HTA, and s. 14.1(3) of Regulation 340/94 sets out the prescribed medical conditions that shall be reported. This includes conditions which have a risk of sudden incapacitation.

34As above, Standard 17.6.1 states that a driver who has been diagnosed with a provoked seizure caused by a structural brain abnormality is eligible for a licence if:

• They have undergone a neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure, and epilepsy is not diagnosed.

• It has been six months since the provoking factor stabilized, resolved, or was corrected, with or without treatment, and they have not had a seizure during that time.

• The treating neurologist or neurosurgeon indicates that further seizures are unlikely.

35While I find the CCMTA Standards reasonable, every case must be considered on its own merits.

36I am satisfied, based on the testimonies and the medical evidence before me, that the appellant has met the first criterion outlined in the CCMTA Standard 17.6.1. He has undergone a neurologic assessment to determine the cause of the seizure and epilepsy was not diagnosed.

37While the appellant has not met the 6-month seizure-free period recommended by the CCMTA Standards and required by the Registrar, at the time of the hearing, it had been five months since the appellant’s seizure and he had not experienced any seizures during that time.

38I acknowledge that Dr. Reddy’s progress note does not directly comment on the likelihood of further seizures, but it does indicate that he has no ongoing concerns about the appellant’s ability to drive. Further, he has not recommended any ongoing anti-seizure medication, nor any further investigations or follow-up appointments. Taken together, I am satisfied that the neurosurgeon has no ongoing concerns about the appellant’s safety to drive. I also take note that Dr. Burk, the appellant’s family physician, has provided his opinion that further seizures are unlikely.

39I find that the totality of evidence before me supports the appellant’s position that the provoking factor of the seizure has resolved. This includes medical documentation from four physicians confirming that the brain abscess has resolved following surgery and antibiotics. I give significant weight to the neurosurgeon’s endorsement for a return to driving, as he would be in the best position to comment on any ongoing risks following the abscess and surgery. I find that five months seizure-free is a sufficient amount of time to show his stability and it is close to the six-month requirement set out by the CCMTA Standards.

40I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition of seizure is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

41I 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 seizure, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

42For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.