Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17349/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:
Mahdiyar Malek
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATORS
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Kevin Kovalchuk Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Mahdiyar Malek, Self Represented
For the Respondent:
Melissa Litrenta, Representative
HEARD: August 20, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Mahdiyar Malek (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 their ability to drive safely.
2The respondent 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 and/or substance abuse, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.
4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. They deny that they suffer from the medical condition which interferes with their 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.
ISSUE
6The 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.
7To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:
i. Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged, namely alcohol/substance use disorder?
ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their 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 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 confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.
ANALYSIS
Does the appellant suffer from alcohol/substance use disorder?
10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol/substance use disorder.
11The Registrar's position is supported by medical reports completed by:
i. Dr. Alshemeili General Surgery Resident.
ii. Dr. Bendel Psychiatry Resident; and
iii. Dr. Oudji, Family Physician
12In a Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated May 23, 2025, Dr. Alshemeili reported "a diagnosis of uncontrolled substance use disorder, excluding caffeine and nicotine and patient is non-compliant with treatment recommendations". He listed the substance use disorder as alcohol and other substances specifically benzodiazepines and cocaine.
13In the same MCR Dr. Alshemeili also reported "patient admitted to be under the influence of alcohol when he was involved in an MVC on 15/5. Assessed by Psychiatry/Addiction services. Recommended that MOT assess his ability to safely operate a vehicle taking into account his medical history, current substance abuse, and treatment plan, with ongoing reassessment of fitness to drive".
14In a MCR dated May 22, 2025, Dr. Bendel reported "a diagnosis of uncontrolled substance use disorder, excluding caffeine and nicotine and patient is non-compliant with treatment recommendations". She listed the substance use disorder as alcohol and other substances specifically cocaine.
15In a Substance Use Assessment dated August 9, 2025, Dr. Oudji reported that to his knowledge the appellant has abstained from alcohol for less than 6 months. He also reported that to his knowledge the appellant has abstained from all other substances that have been or are currently a problem for less than 6 months.
16At the hearing, the appellant testified that on May 15, 2025, he was driving a motor vehicle of which he was the sole occupant when "something crossed his path" causing him to swerve his vehicle and strike a pole. His evidence was that following the accident he "went home and went to bed". He awoke later in pain and went to the Sunnybrook Hospital Emergency Department. His evidence was that he had sustained a concussion, a fractured hand and an injury to his bladder that required surgery.
17The appellant argues that he has serious concerns about the accuracy of the MCRs and that the diagnosis of alcohol/substance use disorder was incorrect and not reflective of his condition. His evidence was that he only had a brief conversation with Drs. Alshemeili and Bendel.
18The appellant admitted that he last used cannabis in April of 2025 and that in early August of 2025 he consumed two vodka based alcoholic beverages. His evidence was that he drinks on the weekend if it is a social gathering. He denied any cocaine use.
19The appellant relies on the report of Dr. Oudji dated May 9, 2025, which reports "no more substance use disorder". The report of Dr. Oudji also reports that that the appellant had recently completed a supervised treatment program as a result of his substance abuse disorder.
20The applicant's evidence was that he has not completed a "rehab program".
21We prefer the written evidence of Drs. Ashemeli and Bendel because we have no reason not to accept their evidence. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that these doctors were wrong in their diagnosis. In fact, Dr. Ashemelli notes in the MCR dated May 23, 2025, that the applicant's medical history and current substance abuse, were taken into account when recommending that the MOT assess his ability to safely operate a vehicle. We also view the appellants evidence that the diagnosis of alcohol/substance abuse was not reflective of his condition because he only had a brief conversation with Drs. Alshemeili and Bendel to be self serving and therefore give it little weight.
22We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from an alcohol/substance use disorder. The was confirmed by the MCRs of Drs. Alshemeili and Bendel. We also note that although Dr. Oudji reports that the applicant has "no more substance use disorder" Dr. Oudji also reported that the appellant had recently completed a supervised treatment program which the appellant denied in his evidence. Because of this inconsistency we place less weight on Dr. Oudji's evidence.
Is the appellant's medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
23We find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
24The Registrar argues that an alcohol/substance use disorder interferes with the appellant's ability to drive safely in that it impairs a driver's judgment and reflex control.
25The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the "CCMTA Standards"), section 15.6.3.
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.
27Chapter 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards describes drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs as eligible for a licence if they meet the following criteria:
- Meets the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.
- Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction's specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.
- The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired; and
- Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.
28The appellant admitted that he last used cannabis in April of 2025 and that in early August of 2025 he consumed two vodka based alcoholic beverages. His evidence was that he drinks on the weekend if it is a social gathering. He denied any cocaine use.
29The appellant made no submissions as to whether or not the medical condition alleged impacts his ability to drive safely rather, he disputed the accuracy of the MCRs.
30In light of the MCRs of Drs. Alshemeili and Bendel as well as the report of Dr. Oudji that the appellant has abstained from alcohol and other substances for a period of less that six months and when coupled with the evidence that the appellant has not completed a drug rehabilitation program, we find that it is reasonable and prudent to apply the CCMTA Standards for re-licensing, as his alcohol/substance use disorder has not yet been adequately resolved.
31We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.
Conclusion
32We find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol/substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
33For 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: September 16, 2025
__________________________
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member
_________________________
Kevin Kovalchuk Vice-Chair