Pierce Warwick v. Minister of Transportation, 2026 CanLII 18334

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18045/MED

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 Minister of Transportation to downgrade the class of licence pursuant to Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

Between:

Pierce Warwick

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kailey Minnings, MD

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Pierce Warwick, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: February 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Pierce Warwick (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of Minister of Transportation (the “Minister” or the “respondent”) to downgrade his driver’s licence from a commercial Class “C” to a “G” licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), after the respondent received a report from a health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his safety to drive a commercial vehicle.

2The Minister has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act to impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.

3Section 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 may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

4The Minister takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely, epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and that this provides sufficient reason to downgrade his licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

5The appellant appeals the change in class of his licence under s. 50(1) of the Act. He denies that he has epilepsy and denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

6Pursuant 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

7The 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 commercial vehicle safely.

8To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely?

9The Minister bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Minister 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 commercial vehicle safely and I set aside the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from epilepsy?

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy.

12The Minister’s position is supported by the following medical reports:

i. An unsolicited Medical Condition Report (”MCR”), completed by emergency physician Dr. Ryan dated July 13, 2024 which indicates that the appellant has suffered a “seizure – nyd [not yet diagnosed].”

ii. A Seizures and Loss of Consciousness (“SLOC”) form, completed by neurologist Dr. Tomkinson, dated February 6, 2025, which indicates that the appellant has epilepsy and that he has been “stable on antiseizure medication more than 6 months.”

iii. A narrative letter from Dr. Tomkinson dated September 5, 2025 which indicates that the appellant had new onset seizures in July 2024.

iv. A second SLOC form from Dr. Tomkinson, dated January 9, 2026, which again indicates a diagnosis of epilepsy. Dr. Tomkinson writes, “Stable more than a year on antiseizure medication. I would support an earlier return to commercial license given stability on medication.”

13The appellant testified that in July of 2024, he experienced 3 grand-mal seizures. He indicated that two of the three seizures occurred on the same night. At that time, he underwent assessment and investigations and began to see his neurologist, Dr Tomkinson. He was started on antiseizure medication. He denies, however, that he has a diagnosis of epilepsy. He explained that his understanding is that his seizures are idiopathic and that Dr. Tomkinson checked off “epilepsy” on the SLOC form because there was no more appropriate option.

14The appellant and the respondent agree that the appellant has suffered seizures. The appellant disagrees with the diagnosis of epilepsy. I have considered his position, however, I prefer the opinion of Dr. Tomkinson that the appellant has epilepsy. As a neurologist, Dr. Tomkinson would be in the best position to diagnose epilepsy. The physician has not provided an alternate diagnosis or explanation for the seizures.

15I find that the Minister has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from epilepsy.

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

16I find that the Minister 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 commercial vehicle safely.

17The Minister’s position is that epilepsy interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that sudden incapacitation due to seizure will significantly interfere with a driver’s ability to drive safely. The Minister’s representative explained that commercial drivers spend more time driving, and drive longer distances than drivers of non-commercial vehicles and that should a crash occur, the consequences are more likely to be serious given the size and/or gross weight of a commercial vehicle or the number of passengers on board.

18The respondent relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), chapter 17.6.12, which states that a commercial driver suffering from epilepsy must be seizure-free for five years before resuming driving a commercial vehicle.

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’s position is that the seizures he experienced in July 2024 do not interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely. He testified that he has not had any seizure since he has been placed on antiseizure medication in July 2024, that he is stable and adherent to his medication, and that his neurologist is supportive of his return to commercial driving. He points to the January 9, 2026 SLOC and the September 5, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Tomkinson, where she writes,

Please accept this letter in support of a shorter return to driving period... in terms of his DZ licence. He requires this license for employment.

I am the treating neurologist following Mr Warwick and have been involved in his care since July 2024, when he had new onset seizures without any previous indication of this diagnosis. He has now been seizure free for over a year and has been stable on antiseizure medication during that time. I feel that in his case it would be reasonable to consider reducing the wait time for him to return to driving larger vehicles for work.

21The appellant testified that he works as a firefighter and requires his CZ license in order to drive a firetruck at work. He indicated that while it is important for his job, he generally is not required to drive for extended periods.

22Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, I have considered them. While the CCMTA standard 17.6.12 states that a commercial driver suffering from epilepsy must be seizure-free with or without medication for five years before resuming driving a commercial vehicle, I note that the CCMTA Standards emphasize making a risk analysis of all relevant sources of information. This includes: whether the impairment is persistent or episodic and the individual characteristics and abilities of each driver, factors such as whether the driver is a commercial or non-commercial driver, the driver’s ability to compensate for any impairment, the driver’s compliance with treatment, and whether the driver has insight into their medical condition and the impact that their medical condition may have on driving.

23I find, based on the totality of evidence before me, that the appellant’s epilepsy is stable, that he is adherent to his medication and that he has been seizure-free for one and a half years. As his treating physician and a specialist in neurology, Dr. Tomkinson would have an excellent understanding of the appellant’s condition and the risk of seizure recurrence. I therefore place significant weight on the neurologist’s repeated endorsements for the appellant’s return to commercial driving, noting that she made recommendations in September of 2025 and again in January of 2026 that the wait time for a return of his commercial licence be reduced.

24I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

Conclusion

25I find that the Minister has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely epilepsy, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

ORDER

26For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s commercial driver’s licence.