Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18257/MED

An appeal under subsection 50(1) 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 Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Abdul Hadi

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Abdul Hadi, Appellant

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Agent

Held by teleconference: March 23, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Abdul Hadi (the “appellant”) appeals 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 an unsolicited Medical Condition Report stating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive a motor vehicle 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 Registrar 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 two medical conditions, namely a substance use disorder and a mental health condition, which are 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. The appellant argues that he does not have a substance use disorder nor does he have a mental health condition, and he does not have a medical condition that will interfere 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.

6The Open Court Principle was reviewed at the outset of the hearing.

ISSUES

7The 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.

8To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

a. Does the appellant suffer from a substance use disorder?

b. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

ii. If so, are either of these conditions likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

9The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.” The Registrar does not need to prove that both medical conditions exist; proving that one of the conditions exists and is likely to significantly interfere with safe driving will be sufficient to meet the Registrar’s burden.

RESULT

10Having 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 substance use disorder, and it 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.

11As the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence has been confirmed for one of the medical conditions, it is unnecessary to determine a decision on the remaining medical condition.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from a substance use disorder?

12The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder.

13The Registrar’s position is supported by:

i. a Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated, July 12, 2023, from Emergency Room psychiatrist, Dr. K;

ii. a Substance Use Assessment Form dated, January 11, 2024, from psychiatrist Dr. D;

iii. a second Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated, August 23, 2024, from psychiatrist Dr. L, and

iv. a Substance Use Assessment form, dated February 18, 2025, from family physician Dr. I.

14The Registrar submits that the appellant had a prior suspension for substance use disorder after the Registrar received an unsolicited MCR from emergency department psychiatrist Dr. K, dated July 12, 2023. Dr. K indicated the appellant suffered from an uncontrolled substance use disorder due to cannabis use. The appellant’s licence was reinstated following the receipt of a Substance Use Assessment Form, dated January 11, 2024, completed by psychiatrist Dr. D. On this form Dr. D documented the appellant had mild substance use disorder due to use of cannabinoids.

15The appellant’s current licence suspension due to substance use disorder was triggered seven months later when the Registrar received another unsolicited MCR dated August 8, 2024, completed by Dr. L, psychiatrist. Dr. L also documented the appellant suffered from an uncontrolled substance use disorder, and added the narrative comment, “Cannabis use disorder”.

16In response to the Registrar’s request, a Substance Use Assessment Form was completed by family physician Dr. I who documented the appellant suffered from severe substance use disorder due to cannabinoids. Dr. I added narrative comments stating that the appellant had been seen by a psychiatrist who had advised to continue medication for previous psychotic symptoms in the context of cannabis use. Dr. I further documented the appellant had been referred the RAAM (Rapid Access Addiction Medicine) clinic for cannabis use and was continuing to use 1-2 g of cannabis per week, but the psychotic symptoms had resolved, and mood had improved.

17The appellant’s position is that he does not suffer from substance use disorder due to cannabis. He relies on a letter submitted by a person named Ayesha Imran. The appellant highlights that in this letter, the author documented the appellant endorsed a “goal directed and positive outlook on future in relation to previous substance use”.

18The appellant further testified that he is engaged with the RAAM clinic to address his cannabis use and takes medications Abilify and NAC. He testified that he submitted a letter from the CMHA (Canadian Mental Health Association) that states he is engaged in recovery and working towards goals. The appellant further testified that he is completing his finance diploma and managing all his responsibilities independently.

19The appellant’s Notice of Appeal (NOA) states that these letters demonstrate accountability, follow-through and responsible decision making. His NOA further states that he takes his medications of Abilify and NAC as prescribed and they help with his addiction as well as to stabilize his mind. He writes that neither medication causes side effects that can affect cognition, alertness, judgment, vision, or reaction time.

20Under cross-examination the appellant was asked about the circumstances that led to the MCR submission in August 2024. He responded that it was a long time ago and he did not remember. Upon further questioning, he responded that he believes it was from buying cannabis from the street instead of a legal dispensary. With further questioning about why he was seen by a psychiatrist, he responded that his parents called an ambulance because of concern the product he purchased from the street may have been ‘laced’ and he wasn’t stable. He believes he was admitted to hospital and stayed a couple of days and received the medication Abilify.

21The appellant was asked about his Abilify use and testified that he believes he was taking it for mild psychosis and added that he had discontinued the medication a month prior to the hearing because he didn’t think he needed it anymore. The appellant was questioned regarding who had prescribed the Abilify and if they had recommended it be discontinued. The appellant testified that he had been taking it for approximately a year and a half, and it was now prescribed by his family physician Dr. I. He testified he had made the decision himself to stop the medication without consulting a physician or any healthcare provider. He testified he would make an appointment with his doctor but did not have an appointment booked and reiterated he did not feel the need to take the medication any longer.

22The appellant was asked regarding his cannabis use and testified that he started smoking weed approximately 3-4 years ago and was smoking it every day. He testified that he has not smoked weed for approximately five months but last used CBD (cannabidiol) on approximately December 21, 2025. He was asked about his plan for abstinence or continued use of cannabinoids and responded that he plans to stick with smoking CBD once per day. He was asked regarding any recommendations for abstinence from the RAAM clinic, and he indicated he did not know what their recommendations were but testified that he has made progress. He testified that other RAAM clinic suggestions had been to consider using another medication for cravings, Gabapentin, and to consider another counseling service, but he did not think these were necessary at this point.

23The appellant was asked regarding the letter from Ayesha Imran as it was unsigned and the author’s qualifications were not documented on the letter. The appellant responded that the author was a physician covering for his regular family physician, Dr. I. The letter from Dr. Ayesha Imran is dated January 2, 2026, and states that the appellant reports complete abstinence from illicit drug use for the previous three months, last use of marijuana three months earlier and last use of CBD gummies three weeks earlier. It states the patient endorses a goal directed and positive outlook on the future in relation to previous substance use.

24The appellant’s letter from the CMHA is written by a court and family support worker and dated June 9, 2025. The letter documents that the appellant was connected to services through CMHA since November 2024 and he has been meaningfully engaged and working on self-identified recovery goals including returning to school and addressing his substance use issues. He was finished this program as of June 3, 2025.

25The appellant’s submissions included a letter from a Registered Practical Nurse at the RAAM clinic dated January 6, 2026. The letter documented that the appellant had attended the RAAM clinic since February 25, 2025, for management of Cannabis Use Disorder. He has attended 22 appointments, and there are plans to continue with biweekly appointments. The letter states that as of the appointment on January 6, 2026, the appellant’s reported last date of cannabis use was December 21, 2025.

26The medical evidence before the Tribunal is consistent and longitudinal. Multiple physicians have diagnosed substance use disorder due to cannabinoids, and the appellant has a prior suspension for the same condition. While the appellant argues that he does not have a substance use disorder, he has not provided any medical evidence demonstrating he has recovered from this condition. I give significant weight to the letter from the RAAM clinic as it is the most contemporary evidence, it is written by a healthcare provider, the clinic specializes in treating substance use disorders, and the appellant has been followed there for over a year, attending at least 22 appointments. The letter from the RAAM clinic documents the appellant is receiving ongoing treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder and that the appellant’s last use of cannabis was December 21, 2025, or two weeks prior to the January 6, 2026, appointment. While I acknowledge the appellant’s testimony that he has made progress with respect to his cannabis use, I find the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a substance use disorder due to cannabinoids.

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

27I 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.

28The Registrar argues that the appellant’s substance use disorder interferes with his ability to drive safely and relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [2025 Update] (the “CCMTA Standards”). Chapter 15 describes substance use disorders in general and the concerns with driving safely with respect to those conditions. Specifically Standard 15.6.3 states that drivers would be eligible for a licence if they:

i. Meet the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.

ii. Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

iii. The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.

iv. Where required a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

29This Chapter describes substance use disorders in general and the concerns with driving safely. This Chapter cites scientific research in the form of a meta-analysis and a systematic review that document that cannabis use elevates the relative risk of a car accident.

30The Registrar further stated that they also rely on their internal policies that indicate a licence may be reinstated after six months if the appellant has completed a treatment program and the appellant’s healthcare provider is supportive of reinstating driving privileges.

31The Registrar submits that the appellant has been reported twice now for the same medical condition, and they have not received confirmation of abstinence from cannabis use. Their position is to keep the licence under suspension until they receive this confirmation, and this decision is prudent and in keeping with road user safety.

32Section 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.

33The appellant testified that he has had no driving related concerns. The appellant’s NOA documents that the activities required to attend college require sustained attention, judgment, and reliability, all of which are directly relevant to safe driving ability.

34I have heard the appellant’s position that he does not have a medical condition that will interfere with his ability to drive safely. However, I also acknowledge that the appellant has a history of problematic cannabis use for several years, has not completed a treatment program, testified that it was been suggested from the RAAM clinic there may be a role for further medication use to control cravings and attend counseling, testified he plans to continue using cannabinoid products with CBD, has suffered from psychosis in the context of cannabis use, has discontinued taking his anti-psychotic medication without any oversight of his healthcare practitioner, and that scientific research demonstrates cannabis use elevates the relative risk of a car accident, as documented in the CCMTA Standards. Furthermore, although the appellant has submitted three narrative letters in support of his case, and there is no support from any healthcare provider for reinstatement of his driver’s licence.

35I give weight to the medical evidence that the appellant experienced psychosis in the context of cannabis use, and that the appellant testified he was prescribed Abilify for mild psychosis and additionally submitted in his NOA that his psychiatrist has prescribed Abilify which has helped to stabilize his mind. Psychosis is incompatible with safe driving, and this is considered when taking into consideration the appellant’s insight into his condition. Insight is an important consideration when considering safety to drive. 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 a suggested treatment regimen. I am concerned about the appellant’s insight as demonstrated by his decision to discontinue his antipsychotic without medical oversight and his intention to continue cannabinoid use. While I acknowledge that the appellant has testified that he plans to smoke CBD cannabinoid products, I find there is no objective evidence submitted supporting the safety of ongoing CBD use given his history of psychosis in the presence of cannabis use, and I find this situation poses an ongoing risk to safe driving.

36Given that substance use disorders are chronic relapsing disorders that often require long term pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to prevent relapse, I give weight to the CCMTA recommendation of completing a treatment program before licence reinstatement. While the appellant has attended the RAAM clinic for over a year, the medical evidence and his testimony support that he has not completed a treatment program and continues to require their support and services. The letter from the RAAM clinic documents they will continue to schedule biweekly appointments, and by the appellant’s testimony, his healthcare provider has suggested an additional medication to manage cravings and the engagement of further counseling services. These recommended next steps suggest that the current strategies are insufficient to manage the appellant’s substance use disorder.

37Given the prolonged multi-year history of daily use of cannabis, and the continued use of cannabis despite the consequences of a previous licence suspension, I give weight to the CCMTA standard that having a period of abstinence is reasonable. With only a quarter of the recommended time elapsed by the appellant’s testimony, no medical documentation of abstinence beyond two weeks, no evidence of completing a treatment program and no support from a treating healthcare provider for reinstatement, I find this period of abstinence insufficient to set aside the suspension.

38As such, for the reasons cited, I 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

39I 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, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

40As the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence has been confirmed for substance use disorder, it is unnecessary to determine a decision on the remaining medical condition.

ORDER

41For 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 13, 2026

__________________________

Isla McPherson MD

Adjudicator