Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18165/MED

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:

Alexander Schummer

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Alexander Schummer, Appellant

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Agent

Held by teleconference: January 28, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Alexander Schummer (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 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 drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles 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 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.

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 safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

ii. If so, is this medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive 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 alcohol use disorder, and it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

10It was reviewed at the outset of the hearing that the appellant had a late submission of his medication list. The Registrar had no objection to late submission, and it was accepted by the Tribunal.

11The appellant subsequently raised that he had submitted several supporting documents and phone messages confirming he had requested documentation from his healthcare provider, Nurse Practitioner D-B. He indicated he had just received several of the documents he had requested but was unable to submit them in time for the hearing.

12It was discussed with the appellant that he could request an adjournment to allow for the opportunity to submit these medical documents. He denied that he required an adjournment and indicated he would testify as to the documentation and wished to proceed with the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

1The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

2The Registrar’s position is supported by:

i. A Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated April 10, 2024, from Dr. G;

ii. a second MCR dated April 17, 2024, from Dr. S;

iii. a Substance Use Assessment Form dated February 12, 2025, from Nurse Practitioner B-D;

iv. a second Substance Use Assessment Form dated November 18, 2025, from Nurse Practitioner B-D.

3Emergency room physician, Dr. G, submitted an unsolicited MCR dated April 10, 2024, to the Registrar reporting that the appellant suffered from a diagnosis of an uncontrolled substance use disorder due to alcohol.

4Following the submission of the MCR, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence effective April 25, 2024, due to alcohol use disorder, and requested the completion of a Substance Abuse Assessment Form.

5A second unsolicited MCR dated April 17, 2024, was submitted by hospitalist, Dr. S, that also stated that the appellant suffered from a diagnosis of an uncontrolled substance use disorder due to alcohol. Dr. S added a narrative comment that the appellant had an alcohol level of 37 while in the emergency room after a motor vehicle accident.

6The requested Substance Use Assessment Form was submitted ten months later, dated February 12, 2025, by Nurse Practitioner B-D. This Form indicated the appellant suffered from severe substance use disorder due to alcohol as well as illicit substances and/or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals. It further indicated the appellant had not abstained from all substances, and he had not completed a supervised treatment program. The following narrative comments were added, “Client ++ agitated, does not want to be sober, states enjoys drinking but has cut back”.

7Following receipt of this Form, the Registrar changed the medical condition to substance use disorder. Before reinstating the appellant’s driver’s licence, the Registrar requested confirmation of abstinence from alcohol and drugs for a period of one year, but the period may be reduced to six months with successful completion of an alcohol and drug treatment program and support from the appellant’s healthcare practitioner.

8A second Substance Use Assessment Form completed by Nurse Practitioner B-D was submitted, dated November 18, 2025, and again confirmed a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder due to alcohol and illicit substances and/or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals, and this time cannabinoids were added as a substance. The Form indicated the appellant had abstained from alcohol for less than six months and had not abstained from all other substances that were currently a problem but confirmed the appellant had completed a supervised treatment program. Urine toxicology reports were additionally submitted, and the latest sample result from November 10, 2025, was positive for cocaine and methylphenidate. A result from June 23, 2025, was positive for cannabinoids, and a result from March 25, 2025, was positive for a cocaine metabolite.

9Following receipt of this Form and urine toxicology screening the Registrar changed the medical condition for the suspension from substance use disorder back to alcohol use disorder and requested a one year period of abstinence from alcohol, but this period could be reduced to six months with successful completion of an alcohol treatment program and support from the appellant’s healthcare practitioner.

10The appellant testified that his position is that he has suffered from alcohol use disorder in the past, but he is now sober. He testified that the latest Substance Use Assessment Form was filled out incorrectly by Nurse Practitioner B-D, without evidence or bloodwork, and he has been abstinent from alcohol for over six months and met the Registrar’s requirement for reinstatement.

11He testified he has abstained from alcohol since May 2025. He testified, this was over six months ago, and he is not sure why his Nurse Practitioner would document that he had abstained for less than six months. He testified that he is also not sure why his Nurse Practitioner would have said he had no intention of getting sober on the first Substance Use Assessment Form. He testified that at that time she filled out the first Form he was drinking only 5-7 drinks per week in a social setting, as he did not understand then that he needed to demonstrate complete abstinence to meet the Registrar’s requirements. He testified he immediately cut back on his drinking once he became aware of this requirement for abstinence and applied for an outpatient treatment program which he finished October 8, 2025. The appellant submitted a certificate of achievement documenting the successful completion of a mental health and addictions program. He testified that his Nurse Practitioner is biased against him, which he believes is in part because he was self-medicating with alcohol to treat his symptoms of ADHD, and he has since been prescribed medication. The appellant submitted a photograph of his prescription bottle for methylphenidate and a list of medication prescriptions that included he was prescribed methylphenidate by Nurse Practitioner D-B.

12Under cross-examination from the Registrar, the appellant was asked if he was still seeing Nurse Practitioner B-D, and he responded that he was, but he is hoping to find a new primary care provider.

13The appellant was asked about his alcohol consumption. He testified that his drinking has varied greatly, and at times his consumption has been very high. He testified he was drinking heavily in August 2024, on average approx. 15 drinks daily of beer or hard liquor, or over 20 oz. He cut back on alcohol in the spring of 2025 and then stopped drinking entirely by May 2025 but could not recall the date. He was asked when he had last consumed alcohol, and he responded that in December 2025 there were a couple of instances where he drank alcohol. He described feeling stressed at the time, and he spoke to his family and enrolled in an inpatient rehabilitation program to address his return to drinking.

14The appellant submitted a narrative letter from the Clinical Director at the inpatient rehabilitation facility that is undated and documents that he began treatment on January 1, 2026, and is participating in a structured program for the duration of 42 days with the expected completion date of February 12, 2026. He also submitted a letter from an addiction counsellor at the inpatient treatment program, dated January 19, 2026, confirming the same dates of the 42 day program, and that the appellant had been complying with program requirements and attending relevant sessions.

15The appellant was asked regarding the rehabilitation program he was currently enrolled in, and he testified that he had unexpectedly been asked to leave the program after completing only 21 days of the 42 days because he had violated the program’s rules. He testified that he wished he had been able to stay until the end of the program but had continued to seek treatment through attending AA meetings that his parents are assisting him with traveling to and keeping him accountable.

16Under cross-examination, the appellant was asked about the urine toxicology results submitted by his Nurse Practitioner. He testified that he had been requested by Nurse Practitioner B-D to complete a urine toxicology monthly since his motor vehicle accident. He had missed providing one sample because he was unwell. He identified that the urine toxicology results submitted in March and November did not confirm the presence of alcohol, and he had attempted to gather further samples to show the same. The urine toxicology result that was positive for methylphenidate was from his prescribed medication. He testified he had used cocaine in April and again in November, but he did not use cocaine on a regular basis. He testified he uses cannabis nightly to help him sleep.

17I find the medical evidence consistently documents a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder and there is no submitted medical documentation inconsistent with this diagnosis nor indicating that the appellant has recovered. While the appellant testified that Nurse Practitioner B-D incorrectly completed the Substance Use Assessment Form when she did not confirm six months of sobriety, he has also testified that he consumed alcohol the month prior to the hearing, that he needed to return to a rehabilitation program, and that he did not finish the program due to violating the facility’s rules. The appellant’s testimony confirms recent relapse and instability in recovery, which is inconsistent with remission. In the absence of medical evidence that confirms that he no longer suffers from alcohol use disorder, I find the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has alcohol use disorder.

Is the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

18I 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.

19The Registrar argues that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder interferes with his ability to drive safely and relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). Chapter 15 describes substance use disorders in general and the concerns with driving safely with respect to those conditions. Specifically Standard 15.6.3 states that drivers who are under the influence of alcohol would be eligible for a licence if they:

i. Meet the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.

ii. Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

iii. The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.

iv. Where required a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

20The CCMTA Standards further outline the effects of alcohol on the functions necessary for driving including reduced reaction times, blurred or double vision, altered depth perception, reduced judgement and insight, blunted alertness and reduced motor co-ordination. Furthermore, the use of alcohol impairs a driver’s judgment and behaviour towards others, including determining whether they are fit to drive or not. Although a person may, when not under the influence of alcohol, determine never to drive when intoxicated, their assessment of their ability to drive will likely be affected by having consumed alcohol.

21The Registrar submits that the appellant is not eligible to have his licence reinstated based on these criteria. The Registrar argues their position is supported by the appellant’s testimony of continuing to consume alcohol despite receiving treatment for severe alcohol use disorder, only being abstinent for a month, no medical submissions documenting a prolonged period of abstinence from alcohol, and that their decision is prudent and in keeping with road user safety.

22The appellant’s position is that he does not have a medical condition that will interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant testified that the motor vehicle collision he caused while driving after consuming alcohol was reduced to an improper lane change and he has paid the fine. He testified he takes full accountability for this event, and that he should never have put himself behind the wheel, and it will never happen again. He testified that this is a mistake that he will live with for the rest of his life, and that this was his first offence.

23He testified he would be willing to have a breathalyzer installed on his vehicle or otherwise have his driver’s licence monitored. He testified as to the hardships of not having a licence and the risk it poses to his employment. He testified his work has accommodated him for 14 months and he is not sure how much longer they will do so, and his loss of licence may cost him his career. The appellant submitted a letter dated January 20, 2026, from a Human Resources Advisor at his employer indicating that he was employed on a full-time permanent basis since July 25, 2022, and that reliable personal transportation was a requirement of the position.

24Under cross-examination, the appellant answered questions about the motor vehicle accident he was involved with when alcohol was detected in his blood as described in the second MCR. The appellant described getting into an argument with a family member after having a couple of alcoholic drinks, which resulted in him driving away. He testified that while driving, he was behind a driver traveling under the speed limit, and out of frustration, he attempted to pass the vehicle while on an incline which subsequently resulted in hitting another vehicle. He testified he lost consciousness, there was airbag deployment, and he needed to be extricated from his vehicle by first responders cutting through the door. He testified he required a two week hospitalization and surgery to address his injuries, and has required a recovery period using walking aids such as a wheelchair, walker and cane, but fortunately the other driver was not injured.

25Under cross-examination the appellant was asked regarding whether there was support for reinstatement of his driver’s licence from his healthcare practitioner. The appellant testified that he had called his Nurse Practitioner’s office two weeks prior to the hearing and asked her why she had documented he had less than six months of abstinence and explained the gravity of the situation in that his licence would not be reinstated, and that the grounds of his appeal was that she had checked the wrong box. He testified that Nurse Practitioner B-D did not provide an explanation and would not modify or redo the Substance Use Assessment Form.

26While I acknowledge the appellant’s efforts towards sobriety, I find it concerning that he has been charged in a serious motor vehicle collision with documentation of alcohol detected in a blood sample after the accident, has attended an outpatient treatment program, yet returned to drinking within two months of finishing the program, started a residential treatment program but did not comply with the rules resulting in his premature discharge. This behaviour brings into question the appellant’s ability to follow treatment recommendations to achieve and maintain sobriety, and his insight into the risks associated with continuing to consume alcohol with a diagnosis of severe alcohol use disorder, as well as his insight into its impact on the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

27I further note that the appellant has not provided any medical evidence documenting support of a healthcare provider for reinstating his driving privileges. The appellant provided testimony that Nurse Practitioner B-D would not amend the Substance Use Assessment Form to document a longer period of abstinence or offer support despite the request from the appellant to do so.

28Section 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 is not bound by them.

29I appreciate the hardships that the appellant is undergoing with the loss of his driver’s licence but given the medical evidence and the individual merits of this case, I believe that a period of abstinence from alcohol is reasonable and prudent for road safety given the risks associated with driving. The CCMTA Standards indicate a period of 12 months of abstinence is advised although a shorter period of time can be considered under certain conditions. By the appellant’s testimony he has been abstinent for no more than a month prior to the hearing.

30I also appreciate that substance use disorders are chronic relapsing disorders that often require long term pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to prevent relapse. For these reasons, I agree with the CCMTA Standards that require a treatment program be completed to consider early reinstatement. While the appellant has provided evidence of completing an outpatient program, he has testified as to the ongoing need for further treatment and enrolled in an inpatient program that was unexpectedly and prematurely terminated, suggesting he would continue to benefit from further treatment.

31Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, they are the result of a lengthy and intensive process to provide medical standards based on the best evidence available and with a focus on functional ability to drive rather than exclusively on medical diagnoses.

32I find the CCMTA Standards relevant and am persuaded to apply them given the circumstances of this case. My review of the evidence shows that the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA Standards have not been met.

33As such, for the reasons cited, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle 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 alcohol use disorder, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his 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.

Released: February 26, 2026

__________________________

Dr. Isla McPherson,

Member