Robert Lukings v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 2259

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18082/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:

Robert Lukings

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Kailey Minnings

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Robert Lukings

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: January 13, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Robert Lukings (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 a treating health care provider 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 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 syncope/loss of consciousness, 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 syncope/loss of consciousness 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.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

6At the outset of the hearing, it became apparent that the appellant wished to rely on a late submission, which he had sent to the Tribunal and to the respondent at 11:00 pm the evening before the hearing.

7In accordance with Rule 9.3 of the Licence Appeal Rules, 2023, the appellant and the respondent had the opportunity to make submissions on whether to allow the appellant's late submissions into evidence.

8In making my determination to allow the late submission into evidence, I took into consideration that: the hearing had already been adjourned once, at the appellant's request, to allow time for the Registrar to review medical documentation that he had sent in; that the adjournment order indicated that all documents must be sent to the Tribunal and to the other party by January 8, 2026; that the appellant received a letter from the Registrar dated January 5, 2026 indicating that further information was required from his physician, and that he was only able to get an appointment with his physician on January 12, 2026; that the content of the document was relevant to the proceeding today, and exclusion of it may prejudice the appellant; that the Registrar's representative indicated that he had received and had time to peruse the document before the hearing; and that the respondent did not oppose the admission of the document into evidence.

ISSUES

9The 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.

10To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from syncope/loss of consciousness?

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

11The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is "yes."

RESULT

12Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar 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 motor vehicle safely and I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

13On October 22, 2025, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his driver's licence was suspended due to seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. This was following the receipt of an unsolicited Medical Condition report from emergency physician Dr. Coome, dated October 18, 2025, which indicated that the appellant had suffered a drug/alcohol withdrawal seizure and had chronic alcohol abuse. In the letter, the Registrar requested additional information from the appellant's physician, specifically, a Substance Use Assessment form and a Seizures and Loss of Consciousness form.

14Following review of a Substance Use Assessment form ("SUA"), which was completed by the appellant's family doctor on December 23, 2025 and sent in to the Registrar, the Registrar issued another letter to the appellant on January 5, 2026 indicating that the appellant's licence remains suspended due to syncope/loss of consciousness.

Does the appellant suffer from syncope/loss of consciousness?

15The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness.

16The Registrar's position is supported by the SUA and a narrative letter, both completed by the appellant's family physician Dr. Balaska and dated December 23, 2025. On these documents, Dr. Balaska indicates that the appellant did not, in her opinion, suffer an alcohol withdrawal seizure. In the letter she writes, "The recent visit to ER was for decreased or loss of consciousness, with no seizure witnessed or clearly documented and no evidence of ongoing seizure disorder."

17The respondent's representative explained that following review of the SUA and the December 23, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Balaska, the issue of alcohol withdrawal seizure was resolved. However, the appellant's licence remained suspended due to Dr. Balaska's mention of decreased or loss of consciousness.

18The appellant's position is that does not suffer from syncope or loss of consciousness. He testified that he visited the emergency department on October 18, 2025. That evening, he had been drinking alcohol at home and suffered a fall. He stated that he did not lose consciousness. He testified that while he didn't think it was necessary, his wife was worried and called an ambulance. He was brought to hospital and remained there until the following morning, October 19, 2025, when he was discharged home. He testified that his symptoms were generalized weakness and difficulty walking, which he attributes to the alcohol he had consumed. He testified that during his hospital visit, he underwent some investigations to rule out injury, but did not receive treatment and at no point during these events did he experience any loss of consciousness or syncope.

19The appellant points to another letter, dated January 12, 2026, from Dr. Balaska to support his position. He testified that Dr. Balaska has been his family physician for approximately 20 years. The narrative letter states,

After a careful and detailed review of the emergency department

documentation from October 19, 2025, there is no recorded history of loss of consciousness, seizure activity, syncope, or post-ictal state associated with this presentation. The emergency department visit was documented as being due to acute alcohol intoxication with generalized weakness and a fall from bed, without evidence of head injury or neurological event. The patient was alert and oriented throughout the encounter… A prior office note dated December 23, 2025 referenced decreased level of consciousness as the reason for the emergency department visit. Upon careful review of the original emergency department records, this characterization does not appear to be supported by the documented clinical findings. This correspondence serves to clarify and correct that prior note, reflecting that no loss of consciousness or seizure activity was documented during the October 19, 2025 encounter.

20I have considered the conflicting documents from Dr. Balaska. On December 23, 2025, she wrote that the appellant visited the emergency department on October 19, 2025 for decreased or loss of consciousness. On January 12, 2026, she wrote a detailed, two-page narrative letter that indicates that upon careful review of the documents from that emergency department visit, there was in fact no indication or mention of decreased or loss of consciousness. She indicated that this second letter "serves to clarify and correct that prior note." As the appellant's family physician of 20 years, Dr. Balaska would have a good understanding of the appellant's medical conditions and would generally have access to medical notes, investigations and results from emergency room visits. I note that Dr. Balaska, in her January 12, 2026 letter, wrote that she has carefully reviewed all of the documents related to the October 18-19, 2025 emergency room visit in question; that she has personally assessed the appellant in follow up; and that he has no clinical findings suggestive of any neurological condition that would affect his ability to drive. I accept her opinion that there was no loss of consciousness or syncope.

21I find that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from loss of consciousness or syncope.

22As the Registrar failed to establish the alleged medical condition, there is no need to proceed with the next issue, whether the alleged medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

23I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

24For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.