Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18008/MED

In the matter of an appeal under s. 50 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(b) of the Act.

Between:

Javad Salehi

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

David To, M.D., Member

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Javad Salehi, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: December 15, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Javad Salehi (the “appellant”) appealed the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) set out in a letter dated April 28, 2025 to suspend the appellant’s 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 Mental Health Assessment report dated April 14, 2025 from the appellant’s physician Dr. Salman Sadeghi, indicating the appellant has a mental health condition.

2Section 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 physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, which is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

4The appellant appealed the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant denies that he has a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, and denies that this interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Having considered all the evidence, and for the reasons which follow, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ISSUE

6The issue in dispute is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant have a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition?

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

ANALYSIS

The appellant has a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition

8The evidence presented at the hearing supports the Registrar’s allegation that the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition.

9The Registrar’s position is supported by a Mental Health Assessment dated April 14, 2025, from the appellant’s physician Dr. Salman Sadeghi, indicating the appellant has a mental health condition. The Mental Health Assessment describes the appellant’s primary diagnosis as schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, indicates that the appellant’s condition is stable with ongoing symptoms for 3-6 months and reports that the appellant has poor insight into their medical condition and is non-compliant with treatment. Dr. Sadeghi also indicates that the appellant has a history of schizophrenia and “no medication currently”.

10Dr. Sadeghi did not answer the question on the Mental Health Assessment: “Has the patient been hospitalized two or more times in the last 12 months due to their mental illness”.

11The Registrar’s position is also supported by other medical reports dating back seven years that is consistent with Dr. Sadeghi’s April 2025 report that the appellant has a history of mental health condition. A Medical Report dated March 31, 2018 by Dr. Sobia Awan noted a history of “psychiatric disorders”. A Medical Condition Report dated December 2, 2023 by an ER physician Dr. Yuan Chung remarked that the appellant had “schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder”. Dr. Sadeghi, in a separate Mental Health Disorder form dated October 29, 2024, listed that the appellant had been admitted once to a hospital in the prior 12 months due to his psychiatric illness and wrote that he had not started the recommended medication.

12The appellant did not put forward any written medical reports or information for the hearing.

13In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant referred to the wrongful diagnosis of physicians and specialist. In his testimony at the hearing, the appellant denied that he has a mental health condition as set out in Dr. Sadeghi’s medical report and testified that he believes he has been misdiagnosed by all physicians who have told him that both now and in the past. Instead, the appellant believes that any problems with his behaviour are caused by pain in his shoulder resulting from tears on his shoulder muscles. The appellant’s view is not supported by the medical evidence before us.

14The appellant testified that he has recently been hospitalized because of an alleged mental health condition in 2023, 2024 and in the summer of 2025. During these hospitalizations the appellant was treated with medications and is currently under a Community Treatment Order, which we understand requires supervised treatment. The appellant testified that he went to see his psychiatrist in June 2025 and his psychiatrist diagnosed schizophrenia, “forced” him to take medication, put him in the hospital and a family member was appointed as his substitute decision maker. The appellant testified that he is “well” now.

15We place greater weight on the medical reports and records filed by the Registrar, including the April 2025 Mental Health Assessment by his family physician Dr. Sadeghi, because the appellant’s physicians provide an objective assessment of the appellant’s mental health compared to the appellant’s testimony. We find the appellant’s testimony about his medical condition unreliable as it was purely subjective and self-serving and is wholly unsupported by any medical opinion from his treating physicians. We find based on these medical reports and the appellant’s testimony about his hospitalizations that the appellant has a mental health condition.

16We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a medical condition, specifically mental health condition.

The appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely

17We are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. There is ample evidence in Dr. Sadeghi’s Mental Health Assessment and other medical records and information filed by the Registrar that the appellant’s mental health condition adversely affects his abilities necessary to drive a motor vehicle safely.

18The appellant testified that he is a good driver and needs his driver’s licence.

19We acknowledge the important role of driver insight in maintaining road safety. Insight refers to a driver recognizing that they have a medical condition and how this could impact their functional ability to drive and having the judgment to follow treatment recommendations. As a physician and pursuant to s. 16(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Dr. To takes notice that unawareness of impairment is common in individuals with schizophrenia and acute deterioration of schizophrenia can lead to symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions, which would significantly interfere with driving.

20In the appellant’s case, his family physician Dr. Sadeghi reported that the appellant has poor insight into his condition, which is consistent with the appellant’s denial that he has any mental health condition. Considering that the appellant testified that he believes that his medication is not helping him and that he does not want to take medications, it is likely that his mental health condition will again deteriorate. As a result, we are unconvinced that the appellant has the insight and understanding of his medical condition to be able to judge whether he can safely operate a motor vehicle.

21The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”), particularly s. 14.6.1 in support of its submission that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal. Section 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, although they are not binding on the Tribunal.

22Section 14.6.1 of the CCMTA Standards provides that a driver who has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may be considered eligible for a driver’s licence if several requirements are met: the condition is stable, the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute, the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired, a treating physician supports a return to driving and the conditions for maintaining a licence are met including remaining under regular medical supervision and compliance with prescribed medication or other recommended treatment.

23In this particular case, although we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, we find the above-described requirements to be reasonable. Here, the appellant’s condition does not appear to be adequately stable from the medical reports filed and the appellant’s description of his recent hospitalization in summer 2025. Although the appellant testified that he is currently required to take medication due to a Community Treatment Order, he states that this ends in a month and does not believe the medication is helping him. Further, the appellant’s family physician Dr. Sadeghi has not recently indicated that the appellant has sufficient insight about his mental health condition and its impact on his ability to drive safely. The appellant did not provide any documentation from his current psychiatrist. None of his treating physicians have given any written indication that they currently support his return to driving.

24The Registrar’s position that the appellant’s driver’s licence should remain suspended at this time is supported by the Mental Health Assessment of Dr. Sadeghi, by the CCMTA Standards and by the appellant’s testimony about his hospitalizations, his fluctuating non-compliance with prescribed medication, and his statement that he does not believe in the medication because it does not help him. We agree with the Registrar’s submissions.

25We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely at this time.

Conclusion

26We find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

27For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.