Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18259/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:

Stephen John Soch

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Kailey Minnings, MD

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Stephen John Soch, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: March 18, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Stephen John Soch (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 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 alcohol 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 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 their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol 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 alcohol use disorder?

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

11The Registrar’s position is supported by the following medical reports:

i. An unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”), completed by emergency room physician Dr. Stajcer, dated December 17, 2025. The MCR indicates that the appellant has substance use disorder, specifically with alcohol, and, “patient alcoholic, admits to driving while going through withdrawal.”

ii. A January 29, 2026 Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form, completed by family physician Dr. Hewitt. The form indicates that the appellant has a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder, specifically with alcohol; that he has abstained from alcohol for a period of less than 6 months; that he has completed a supervised treatment program; and that he has never experienced a withdrawal seizure. The doctor writes, “completed inpatient detox in Kingston (December 2025). Attending AA twice per week. Wife confirms abstinence.”

12The appellant acknowledged in his testimony that he has struggled with escalating alcohol use and that in December of 2025, he voluntarily attended a detox and treatment program to “straighten myself out”.

13I note that the opinion of the appellant’s family doctor is that the appellant has severe alcohol use disorder. In my view, as his primary care physician, Dr. Hewitt would not only have a good understanding of the appellant’s medical history and habits but would also have training and expertise in diagnosing alcohol use disorder. The appellant does not dispute that he has alcohol use disorder.

14I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

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

15I 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.

16The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that alcohol is a depressant drug that slows the brain and body, affecting the functions necessary for driving including causing reduced reaction times, blurred or double vision, altered depth perception, reduced judgement and insight, blunted alertness and reduced motor coordination. Further, that individuals with alcohol use disorder are at a high risk of experiencing withdrawal symptoms, including seizure and neurological complications.

17The 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, 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-licensing 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.

18Section 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.

19The appellant’s position is that his alcohol use disorder does not affect his ability to drive safely.

20The appellant explained that he has worked as a taxi driver since 1994 and that part of the conditions of this work is to undergo an annual review of his driving record, and if there are any alcohol-related infractions, he would be ineligible to work as a taxi driver. More recently, he began to work as a driver for students of a prestigious private school. He testified that he has never worked while under the influence of alcohol, while hungover, or while experiencing withdrawal symptoms and that he would not jeopardize his job or livelihood by drinking and driving.

21The appellant testified that he had begun drinking escalating amounts of alcohol since he retired from full time work at the age of 65. He stated that prior to becoming abstinent in December 2025, he doesn’t know how much alcohol he was drinking but estimated that he was spending $1300 per month on alcohol. He testified that he would drink on his own, at night and only when he didn’t have work or other driving requirements the following day.

22He testified that, on one occasion, as he was coming home from doing errands in the afternoon, he felt tremulous while driving. He testified that he recognized this as a symptom of withdrawal and decided to seek help for his alcohol use. He presented to the Emergency Department seeking admission for alcohol detoxification; however, he was instead referred to an outpatient withdrawal service which he attended the next day.

23The appellant testified that he has been abstinent from alcohol since December 15, 2025 and that he intends to remain abstinent going forward. He explained that he is highly motivated to remain abstinent for several reasons, including his marriage, health and finances.

24Brad Filman testified that he has been a close friend of the appellant for 45 years and that for many years, Mr. Filman has met with the appellant at least on a weekly basis for coffee. Mr. Filman testified that the appellant would drive himself to their meetings and on no occasion did he ever witness the appellant under the influence of alcohol when driving, nor did he ever appear to be hungover or in withdrawal during their interactions. Mr. Filman explained that he is a retired provincial police officer, and as such he is very aware of the signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication, having personally laid many charges for impaired driving throughout his career as a police officer. He testified that he never saw any indication whatsoever that the appellant had been intoxicated, in withdrawal or hungover on their numerous, regular meetings over the span of 45 years. Additionally, Mr. Filman indicated that it was very surprising to learn that the appellant had a problem with alcohol.

25The appellant’s wife, Maureen Soch, testified that when the appellant had been drinking alcohol previously, he had never driven while intoxicated. She testified that the appellant was very successful in the detox and rehabilitation program and that he continues to see his physician and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly; that she lives with the appellant and to her knowledge, he has not had any alcohol since December 2025; and that there is no alcohol in the home.

26While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

27Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, I find them reasonable and given the evidence and submissions, I am persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards in the circumstances of this case.

28The use of alcohol affects the functions necessary for driving including reaction times, visual acuity, judgement and insight, alertness and motor co-ordination. The use of alcohol impairs a driver’s judgment and behaviour towards others, including in determining whether they are fit to drive or not.

29I commend the appellant for the effort he has put forward in recovery. I found his testimony to be insightful, and his witnesses to be supportive of his efforts. However, I am concerned about the severity of his alcohol use disorder. The appellant testified that he has been consuming alcohol regularly for several years. However, he was not forthcoming regarding the amount of alcohol consumed. I note in the medical documentation that the appellant’s family physician indicated a “severe” alcohol use disorder, and the emergency room physician has documented concern around driving while experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

30I acknowledge Mr. Filman’s testimony that the appellant did not appear to be intoxicated, hungover or in withdrawal during their once weekly meetings. However, I place less weight on his endorsement to return to driving. While Mr. Filman is a retired police officer and would have experience in recognizing the signs of alcohol intoxication, Mr. Filman was unaware of the appellant’s alcohol use disorder despite being a close friend, and further, their meetings were limited to one occasion each week.

31Based on the circumstances of this case, I find that it is too early for reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence. At the time of the hearing, the appellant had been abstinent for approximately 3 months. I agree with the CCMTA standards, which require confirmation of a longer period of abstinence prior to considering reinstatement. The appellant has no favourable recommendation from a treating healthcare provider for earlier re-instatement of his driver’s licence. Therefore, the criteria set out in CCMTA Standard 15.6.3 have not been met.

32I 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

33I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

34For 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.

Released: April 14, 2026

__________________________

Kailey Minnings, MD

Adjudicator