Joseph Burningham v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 10353

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18160/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:

Joseph Burningham

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Kailey Minnings, MD

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Joseph Burningham, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: January 28, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Joseph Burningham (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 treating healthcare provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his safety to drive.

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 due to alcohol withdrawal, 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 due to alcohol/drug withdrawal 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:

i. Does the appellant suffer from seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal?

ii. 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 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 I confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On December 9, 2025, ER physician Dr. Ninkovich sent a Medical Condition Report ("MCR") to the Registrar, indicating that the appellant had a seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal.

11In response, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated December 12, 2025 indicating that his driver's licence was suspended due to seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The Registrar requested that the appellant submit a Substance Use Assessment form ("SUA") completed by a physician or treating healthcare provider.

12Following review of a Discharge Documentation from a hospital admission that the appellant filed, the Registrar sent the appellant another letter dated Jan 27, 2026. The letter indicates that the appellant's driver's licence remains suspended due to seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal and again requests a completed SUA form.

Does the appellant suffer from seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal?

13The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal.

14The Registrar's position is supported by the MCR, which is dated December 9, 2025 and signed by emergency room physician Dr. Ninkovich. On the form, under the category of "Sudden Incapacitation", the physician has checked off "Seizure, alcohol/drug withdrawal." The form states that "sudden incapacitation" refers to "A disorder that has a moderate or high risk of sudden incapacitation, or that has resulted in sudden incapacitation and that has a moderate or high risk of recurrence."

15The appellant's position is that he did not suffer a seizure due to alcohol or drug withdrawal. He acknowledges that, on December 9, 2025, while at home with his wife, he had been experimenting with a new drug that he was not familiar with and that he had been consuming alcohol and cocaine "to excess". At some point, he lost consciousness, and his wife called an ambulance. He was brought to the hospital and was admitted.

16The appellant relies on a Discharge Documentation report dated December 11, 2025 from Erie Shores HealthCare. The appellant submitted four pages of the seven-page document. The appellant pointed to the "reason for visit" on the report, which was "cocaine overdose, seizure-like activity". The appellant's position is that "seizure-like activity" does not clearly indicate that he had a seizure. The report lists Dr. Qaqish as the attending physician. It does not indicate who prepared the Discharge Documentation report.

17The appellant denies that he had a seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal, because his view is that he was "in a point of consumption" at the time. His points to the blood test results reported on the December 11, 2025 Discharge Documentation to support his position that he was in a state of intoxication rather than withdrawal. Specifically, he pointed to the blood ethanol level <2.2mmol/L, dated December 9, 2025, to support his position.

18The appellant indicated that, as a result of the December 9, 2025 events described above, he has been referred to a neurologist for assessment and that his appointment is upcoming.

19As a physician duly licenced to practice medicine in Ontario, I am aware that a blood ethanol level of <2.2mmol/L on December 11, 2025, the date of discharge, would indicate a negative result, or a low blood alcohol level or sobriety. I take notice of this fact pursuant to s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the "SPPA"). I find that this test result does not support the appellant's position that he was intoxicated with alcohol and/or not in withdrawal.

20I place more weight on the opinion of Dr. Ninkovich that the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal than on the appellant's opinion that he was intoxicated, and therefore could not have experienced a withdrawal seizure. As a physician who works in the ER, Dr. Ninkovich would have experience and training in assessing and diagnosing seizures in the context of substance use. That the reason for the hospital admission was "cocaine overdose" and "seizure-like activity" does not, in my view, exclude the occurrence of an alcohol/drug withdrawal seizure.

21I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal.

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

22I find that the Registrar has 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.

23The Registrar argues that seizures can and will interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely in that a seizure can cause sudden incapacitation which cannot be compensated for.

24The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the "CCMTA Standards"), Chapter 17.6.2, which describes the standard for drivers who have experienced a provoked seizure with no structural brain abnormality, including those who have experienced a seizure due to adverse drug or alcohol reaction, and substance use disorder is not diagnosed. The Standard indicates that drivers are eligible for a licence if:

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

ii. the provoking factor has stabilized, resolved, or been corrected, with or without treatment, and

iii. the treating physician indicates that further seizures are unlikely.

25Section 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.

26The appellant testified that at the time of the incident in question, he was consuming alcohol and cocaine at his home and not driving. He further pointed to his driving record, which does not indicate any history of alcohol-related charges.

27The appellant's wife of 25 years, Amy Burningham, testified that on December 9, 2025 she was at home with the appellant, it was their anniversary, and they "over indulged" with alcohol and drugs. She testified that this is not usual for them. She testified that when she witnessed the appellant lose consciousness and fall to the ground, she panicked and called an ambulance. She testified that he regained consciousness after 1-2 minutes. She also testified that since December 9, 2025, there have been no further episodes of loss of consciousness and that the appellant has remained sober.

28While I am not bound by the CCMTA standards, and each case must be determined on its own merits, I find the Standards reasonable, and I have considered them here.

29I find that none of the criteria set out in Standard 17.6.2 have been met.

30Firstly, there is no evidence before me which indicates that the appellant has undergone a neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure. I note that the appellant has been referred to a neurologist, but that appointment has not yet occurred.

31Secondly, I acknowledge that the appellant and his wife both testified that the alcohol and drug use they describe on December 9, 2025 was not typical for the appellant and that he has remained sober since then. However, the CCMTA Standards clearly sets out that the opinion of a treating physician on whether the provoking factor has stabilized, resolved or been corrected is required.

32Finally, there is no indication that a physician has determined that the risk of recurrence is low, as required by the CCMTA Standard. I appreciate the appellant's position that he was not driving at the time of this incident and that his driving record does not have any drug or alcohol related offenses. However, I must consider not what he was doing at the time of the episode, but the risk of future occurrences. The only physician opinion available to me regarding risk of recurrence is that of the ER physician, who checked off "seizure, alcohol/drug withdrawal" on the MCR, which is characterized as "a disorder that has a moderate or high risk of sudden incapacitation, or that has resulted in sudden incapacitation and that has a moderate or high risk of recurrence."

33I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

34I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

35For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.