Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18293/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:

Kyle Majaury

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, Adjudicator Gary Harvey, Adjudicator

For the Appellant:

Kyle Majaury, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: March 31, 2026

1Kyle Majaury (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 - alcohol, 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 acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder but 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, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder due to alcohol?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their 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, we 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 we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On December 2, 2025, emergency room physician, Dr. Lenferna de la Motte completed an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) and submitted it to the respondent indicating that the appellant had a seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal.

11On December 5, 2025, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his driver’s licence was suspended due to seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, and requested more information in the form of a Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form.

12Following review of medical information submitted by the appellant, on February 24, 2026, the Registrar sent a letter to the appellant requesting more information for the reported condition of: alcohol use disorder and requested that the appellant confirm that he has remained abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year and that the period can be reduced to six months if his healthcare practitioner confirms that he has successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of his driving privilege.

13The appellant sent in further documentation and in response the Registrar sent two letters, dated February 26, 2026 and March 30, 2026, indicating that his licence remains suspended under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and that they are requesting the same information however this time noted the reported condition as: substance use disorder

Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder due to alcohol?

14The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder due to alcohol.

15The Registrar’s position is supported by a SUA form completed on February 14, 2026, by family physician, Dr. Kathleen Bedrosian, which indicates that the appellant suffers from moderate substance abuse disorder due to alcohol. In the medical notes it states, “patient was withdrawing from alcohol [at] parents house found in his bedroom seizing.”

16The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from substance use disorder due to alcohol. The appellant submits that he has taken steps to ensure that withdrawal does not happen again and that he had stopped drinking two days before the seizure occurred. He testified that he attends Alcohol Anonymous meetings three times per week, and attends Zoom meetings in a weekly program which is scheduled for 36 weeks.

17The appellant submitted a follow up SUA form from his family physician, Dr. Bedrosian, dated March 19, 2026, where again she indicates that the appellant has moderate substance use disorder due to alcohol and indicates that his last seizure was within the past three to six months. Dr. Bedrosian in the comments section states “[patient] was home drinking then 2 days after stopping had a withdrawal seizure in his bedroom. He was not drinking during this time.”

18The appellant also submitted a letter from Westover Treatment Centre completed by Deborah Pretty, Director of Substance Use Disorder Program dated January 16, 2026, confirming his completion of the residential portion of their two-part treatment program. The letter also indicates that he will need to attend the Recovery Support Program for a period of six months to complete the program. Ms. Pretty writes, “In our opinion, Kyle will continue to remain abstinent as long as he applies himself to the community-based self-help program which was introduced to him during his stay at Westover and regularly attends the recovery Support Program available to him.”

19We place significant weight on the physician reports, in particular, the SUAs completed by the appellant’s family physician. These reports indicate that the appellant has alcohol use disorder and has experienced a withdrawal seizure. The appellant agrees. We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from the medical condition alleged.

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

20We 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.

21The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that alcohol acts as a depressant of the body that affects the functional abilities necessary for driving, in particular, one’s alertness and reaction time. Further, that individuals with alcohol use disorder are at high risk for experiencing symptoms of withdrawal which can also negatively interfere with the functional abilities necessary for driving, and, in the case of seizure, cause sudden incapacitation for which a driver cannot compensate.

22The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) 15.6.3 which states that all drivers suffering from substance use disorder, including alcohol, may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained 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.

23The Registrar also relies on CCMTA Standards 17.6.3 which states that all drivers with alcohol withdrawal seizures may be eligible for all classes of licence if the treating physician has confirmed that the cause of the seizure was alcohol withdrawal and that the driver is not epileptic. It also states that they are required to have undergone addiction treatment and have received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor along with the criteria for licence reinstatement are met in accordance with the Substance Use Disorder Standard in 15.6.3.

24Section 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.

25The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder, but his position is that it does not affect his ability to drive safely. The appellant argues that the withdrawal seizure did not occur when he was driving and that, in his view, a chance of having a sober seizure is close to zero. He testified that he has taken every step to address his alcohol use; that he has remained abstinent from alcohol since November 30, 2025, and plans to remain abstinent; that he attends regular meetings with Alcohol Anonymous and with his treatment program; and that having his driver’s licence suspended is adversely affecting his ability to get to work. He testified that he does not see why or how his alcohol use disorder would affect his ability to drive safely.

26The appellant testified that the date of the withdrawal seizure was December 2, 2025. He was taken to the emergency room and was admitted to hospital for several days. He testified that while admitted, he underwent investigations, and he understood that his tests were all normal. He testified that he has not had any other seizures aside from that of December 2, 2025.

27We are concerned by the appellant’s testimony that he does not see how or why alcohol use disorder would impact his ability to drive safety. We find that this suggests a lack of insight into the condition. Insight means that a driver: is aware of their medical condition; understands how the condition may impair their functional ability to drive; and has the judgment and willingness to comply with their treatment regime and any conditions of licensing. Insight is an important consideration when determining fitness to drive.

28While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

29We are persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards in the circumstances of this case. We find that none of the criteria set out in the CCMTA standard have been met.

30While we commend the appellant for his approximately 4 months of abstinence, we agree with the CCMTA standards that confirmation of a longer period of abstinence is prudent prior to considering reinstatement of a driver’s licence. We also acknowledge that while the appellant did attend and complete an intensive alcohol treatment program, the second part of the program is not yet completed. Finally, the appellant does not have a favourable recommendation from a treating healthcare professional for earlier re-instatement of his driver’s licence. Therefore, the criteria set out in CCMTA Standard 15.6.3 have not been met.

31We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

32We 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 - alcohol, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

33For 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.

Released: April 13, 2026

__________________________

Dr. Kailey Minnings Adjudicator