Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17967/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:

Armand Raymond Duhaime

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kailey Minnings, MD

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Armand Raymond Duhaime, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: February 11, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Armand Raymond Duhaime (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 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 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 cognitive impairment 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 their 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 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 his 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 an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) completed by geriatrician Dr. Lemay and dated May 29, 2025, which indicates “diagnosis of MCI [(mild cognitive impairment)]. On-road test (for safety) recommended. Pt reports this has been booked with Ministry of Transport, Orleans location on Sept. 18th. Please ensure this is an on-road test. Initially referred to CBI for test; pt declined.”

12The appellant’s position is that he does not have cognitive impairment. He states that he was referred to a geriatrician by his family physician because he had mild depression and stressors. He denies that he has been diagnosed with cognitive impairment.

13The appellant’s wife, Lynn Duhaime, testified that she was present when the appellant initially met with the geriatrician, and that he was administered some cognitive testing at that time. She testified that it is her opinion that if there was cognitive impairment at that time, it could have been due to pain, as the appellant had recently undergone surgery, or mild depression. She testified that she does not believe the appellant has cognitive impairment at this time.

14I prefer the opinion of Dr. Lemay, a geriatrician to the testimonies of the appellant and his wife that he doesn’t have cognitive impairment. On the MCR, Dr. Lemay has clearly indicated that the appellant has a diagnosis of “MCI” or mild cognitive impairment. As a geriatrician, Dr. Lemay would have training and expertise in diagnosing cognitive impairment and the witness testified that some form of cognitive testing was administered. Neither Dr. Lemay nor the appellant’s family doctor have provided any alternate diagnosis or explanation.

15I 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

16I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

17The Registrar argues that cognitive impairment interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that those with cognitive impairment are at higher risk for adverse driving outcomes.

18The 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.

19The 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.

20Section 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.

21The appellant’s position is that he does not have cognitive impairment and that he has a clean driving record. He testified that he tried to book a functional driving assessment through the Ministry of Transportation and through CBI but was unable to book it. He was told to follow up with his doctor.

22The appellant’s wife testified that the appellant did not have a good experience with the geriatrician. Additionally, she indicated that they have tried to get a letter of support from the appellant’s family physician but were unable to do so.

23When asked by the Tribunal, the appellant testified that he had one small car accident in a parking garage in January 2025. The appellant’s wife provided further testimony that the accident was minor and that the appellant was deemed not at fault. She indicated that the appellant had one additional minor car accident in January of 2025 that was also not his fault.

24Although 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.

25I acknowledge the appellant’s position that he does not agree with the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and does not feel impaired now. However, in the absence of medical evidence to the contrary, I place significant weight on the geriatrician’s opinion that an on-road assessment is needed for safety. I find this prudent especially considering the research that indicates that those with cognitive impairment are at a higher risk of adverse driving outcomes, as outlined in the CCMTA Standards.

26I 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

27I 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

28For 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.