Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18141/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:

Anne Dougherty

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kailey Minnings, MD

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Anne Dougherty, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: February 10, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Anne Dougherty (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend her 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 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 cognitive impairment, that is likely to significantly interfere with her 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. She denies that she suffers from cognitive impairment and denies that she suffers from a medical condition which interferes with her 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from cognitive impairment?

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

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from cognitive impairment?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the following medical reports:

i. An unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) from psychiatrist Dr. Klil-Drori, which indicates that the appellant has cognitive impairment due to dementia and is dated December 10, 2025.

ii. A December 30, 2025 Cognitive Disorder form (“CD”) completed by family physician Dr. Barron-Klauninger, which indicates that the appellant has mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia, and that she successfully completed a functional driving assessment in April 2025 following lessons. The doctor wrote, “patient’s psychiatrist was concerned about driving ability based on MOCA testing – done at a time when patient was upset – I have not seen the same changes.”

12The appellant denies that she has cognitive impairment. She was forthcoming that she has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, for which she is followed by a psychiatrist. She testified that she visited her psychiatrist in December of 2025 for a prescription refill. She testified that she did not know why her psychiatrist administered cognitive testing at that time. Further, she indicated that her family physician of thirty years, Dr. Barron-Klauninger, does not say that she has cognitive impairment.

13Based on the totality of evidence before me, I find that the appellant does, on a balance of probability, have at least mild cognitive impairment. I prefer the opinions of both the appellant’s physicians that the appellant has cognitive impairment to the appellant’s testimony that she doesn’t. Even though Dr. Barron-Klauninger wrote on the CD form that the psychiatrist was concerned about driving ability and that she had not seen the same changes, the physician still indicated on the same form that the appellant has a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment.

14I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment.

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

15I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

16The Registrar argues that cognitive impairment interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that those with dementia are at higher risk for adverse driving outcomes.

17The Registrar’s position is that the appellant is required to satisfactorily complete a Functional Driving Assessment at one of their approved sites before reinstatement of the driver’s licence would be considered.

18The respondent relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). Specifically, Standard 6.6.1 states that drivers who are diagnosed with cognitive impairment or dementia would be eligible for a licence if:

i. Complete medical assessment indicates cognitive functions necessary for driving are not impaired;

ii. Where required, functional driving assessment shows condition does not affect ability to drive; and

iii. Conditions for maintaining a licence are met.

19Section 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.

20The appellant testified that she is a safe and appropriate driver. She testified that she is stable, compliant to all medications, and committed to safe driving. In her Notice of Appeal, she indicates that she has never had a car accident.

21The appellant testified that she underwent a Functional Driving Assessment on January 29, 2026 and that she has not yet received the official results. However, when asked by the Tribunal, she testified that she was told verbally that she did not do as well as her previous assessment, and that it was not a pass.

22Although the Tribunal is not bound by the CCMTA Standards, they can be considered when making the decision because these Standards 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. Upon review of the CCMTA Standards and the evidence before me, I find that none of the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA Standards have been met.

23I acknowledge the appellant’s position that she is a safe and cautious driver, and that the lack of a driver’s licence is a significant burden for her. However, this is weighed against the research that indicates that those with dementia are at a higher risk of adverse driving outcomes, as outlined in the CCMTA Standards, and that the appellant testified that she was told that she did not pass the on-road functional driving assessment completed on January 29, 2026.

24I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

25I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

26For 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.