Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18280/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:

Michael Brand

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kailey Minnings, MD, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jami Sanftleben, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: March 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Michael Brand (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 substance 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 substance 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 a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder?

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 substance use disorder?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by a December 30, 2024 Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) completed by a detox nurse practitioner at the Withdrawal Management Services in Barrie. The nurse practitioner wrote, under discretionary report of medical condition or impairment, “Patient was admitted for multiple substance use withdrawals to [Withdrawal Management Service (“WMS”)]. Patient’s wife disclosed to [Rapid Access Addiction Medicine (“RAAM”)] staff that she suspects that he has been driving her son around while impaired. RAAM notified [Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”)] as well.”

12In response, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter on January 2, 2025 indicating that his licence was suspended for substance use disorder, and requested more information in the form of a Substance Use Assessment form (“SUA”).

13The appellant acknowledges that he did have a substance use disorder, but his position is that he no longer has it. He testified that he had voluntarily presented to the RAAM clinic to seek help for addiction and opioid withdrawal support around December 29, 2024. At that time, he had been taking around 5-10 Percocet tablets per night, in addition to occasional alcohol and marijuana. He testified that he spent 4 days at the WMS and received Suboxone treatment. He was prescribed ongoing treatment for substance use disorder, a monthly injection called Sublocade, which he took one time.

14As a physician duly licenced to practice medicine in Ontario, I am aware that Suboxone and Sublocade are medications that contain buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist medication that is often prescribed to treat moderate to severe opioid use disorder. I take notice of these facts pursuant to s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”).

15The appellant testified that he attended meetings through the RAAM clinic for approximately 4-5 weeks after he was discharged from detox. He testified that he last used opioids on December 29, 2024 and that does not need ongoing treatment as he no longer uses opioids.

16Considering both the information documented on the MCR and the appellant’s testimony, I find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a substance use disorder. I acknowledge that the appellant maintains that he no longer misuses substances and I acknowledge that the condition may currently be in remission, however, I find that remission is not equivalent to resolution.

17I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder.

Is the appellant’s medical condition 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 substance use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that the use of substances can directly affect the functions necessary for driving, and that individuals with substance use disorder are at high risk for experiencing symptoms of substance withdrawal which can also negatively interfere with the functional abilities necessary for driving.

20The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) Chapter 15.6.3, which states that all drivers suffering from substance use disorder may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained from the substance for twelve months. It also states that earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

21Section 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.

22The appellant’s position is that substance use disorder does not impact his ability to drive safely because he no longer uses opioid drugs. He testified that he last used opioid drugs on December 29, 2024 and that he would never consume any opioid drug again. Further, he stated that he is a very safe driver and that he has never driven while intoxicated or while experiencing withdrawal.

23The appellant testified that after discharge from the detox program, he did not complete any bloodwork monitoring with his doctor. He testified that he has a family doctor, and that she completed a SUA form for him approximately 6 months ago. He did not see a reason to go to his doctor.

24On cross exam, the respondent’s representative questioned the appellant on why he testified that he did not undergo bloodwork monitoring, when in his Notice of Appeal, he wrote, “Following the report, I completed bloodwork monitoring for several months.” The appellant indicated that he may have undergone urine monitoring, but the mention of bloodwork may have been a typo.

25The respondent’s representative also questioned the appellant about the SUA form. The appellant orally testified that his family doctor completed a SUA form for him approximately 6 months ago. When asked why he didn’t submit a copy of that to the Registrar, the appellant indicated that he didn’t know as this process was all new to him.

26I take note that in his Notice of Appeal, the appellant wrote, “The monitoring stopped due to a breakdown in my relationship with a new family doctor, not due to relapse or refusal to comply. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to obtain an updated Substance Use Assessment due to this lack of physician cooperation.”

27I acknowledge that the appellant testified that he has been abstinent from opioid drugs for more than 1 year. However, I place little weight on the appellant’s oral testimony, given the discrepancies between it and his written Notice of Appeal. Further, I take note that the MCR refers to “multiple substance withdrawals.” And while the appellant has testified regarding his opioid use, there is no evidence before me regarding other substances.

28I find the CCMTA standards reasonable, and I have considered them here. It is concerning that there is medical documentation indicating that the appellant has multiple substance withdrawals and may have driven while in withdrawal. At minimum, further information to better delineate the appellant’s substance use and diagnosis and functional impact (i.e., the SUA form) is required. If a severe substance use disorder is confirmed, I agree with the CCMTA standards that a period of abstinence and a favourable recommendation from a treating physician are prudent and reasonable requirements for a return to driving.

29I 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

30I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

31For 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.