Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18057/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:

Jean Tansley

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Jean Tansley, Appellant

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Agent

Held by teleconference: December 22, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jean Tansley (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend her 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class 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 Registrar may require a holder of a driver’s licence to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a seizure, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend her licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. While she accepts that her physicians have told her she has suffered a seizure, she states that her seizure did not align with her understanding of what a seizure is, and she denies that this condition interferes with her ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

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

i. Did the appellant suffer from a seizure?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely?

9The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

PRELIMINARY MATTER

10At the outset of the hearing the appellant indicated they had a support person present on the teleconference.

11The role of a support person was clarified with the appellant, and the appellant had no questions.

12The Registrar had no objection to the appellant’s support person attending.

13The support person was present for the hearing.

RESULT

14Having 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Did the appellant suffer from a seizure?

15The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a seizure.

16The Registrar’s position is supported by:

i. a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated, October 7, 2025, from Dr. B;

ii. a Progress Note, dated September 22, 2025, by Dr. G;

iii. a Progress Note dated, November 3, 2025, by Dr. B; and

iv. a Seizure and Loss of Consciousness (LOC) Form dated, November 12, 2025, also completed by Dr. B.

17On the MCR, neurologist Dr. B checked the box indicating the appellant suffered from epilepsy, and that this is a disorder that has a moderate or high risk of sudden incapacitation, or that has resulted in sudden incapacitation and that has a moderate or high risk of recurrence.

18Following receipt of this MCR the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence effective October 21, 2025, and requested the completion of a Seizure and LOC form.

19Dr. B completed the requested Seizure and LOC Form on November 12, 2025, and checked the box indicating that the appellant had suffered from a provoked seizure caused by a structural brain abnormality and a second box indicating the appellant suffered from epilepsy with simple partial seizure. He further indicated this was the appellant’s first seizure, and it had been three to six months since the seizure occurred. In the comments he had written that the appellant had an isolated seizure due to a subdural hematoma and continues to take antiseizure medication.

20Following review of the Seizure and LOC form, the Registrar requested confirmation that the appellant remained seizure-free for a period of six months, or the seizure pattern has remained consistent for at least one year before reinstating the appellant’s driver’s licence.

21The appellant submitted progress notes from Dr. B and neurosurgeon Dr. G. Dr. G documented that the appellant was seen post operatively after a right sided chronic subdural drainage on August 12, 2025, and he had arranged for follow up with Dr. B for assessment of her seizures. Dr. B’s note also documented that the appellant underwent a craniotomy for drainage of a chronic subdural hematoma in August, had experienced a focal motor seizure on August 3, and she had been started on an anti-seizure medication and had had no further seizures.

22The appellant asked the Registrar if her family physician could submit a letter to the Ministry, and the Registrar responded that they would review medical information from any physician or nurse practitioner. The appellant clarified with the Registrar whether they were looking for a particular form to be completed or not, and where any new information could be sent. The appellant asked further questions about the proceeding, and the hearing process and role of the Tribunal were restated and clarified for the appellant.

23The appellant testified that she had been given the “all-clear” by Dr. B and Dr. G. She testified she has been healthy since leaving the hospital, taking her medication, being physically active, caring for her granddaughter and volunteering.

24Under cross-examination the appellant testified that she had slipped while at home and banged her head on August 1, 2025, resulting in symptoms of vomiting and a headache. She was taken to a local hospital and transferred to a larger hospital where she testified she suffered a “slight spasm of her upper lip” on August 3, 2025, which she was told was a seizure. She was started on an anti-seizure medication and underwent neurosurgery on August 12, 2025. She testified she was admitted to hospital for approximately three weeks and has not had any further seizures.

25The medical evidence before the Tribunal comprises four medical forms that all document the appellant suffered from a seizure. The appellant accepts that her physicians have told her she has had a seizure, although believes that what she experienced is not consistent with what she understands a seizure to be.

26The medical evidence in this case is clear and the appellant’s testimony supports that a seizure occurred. Based on the available information, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a seizure.

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

28The Registrar’s position is supported by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [2025 Update] (the “CCMTA Standards”).

29The Registrar argued that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with her ability to drive safely and relies on the CCMTA Standards. Chapter 17 describes seizures and the associated concerns with driving. Standard 17.6.1 applies to drivers who have been diagnosed with a provoked seizure caused by a structural brain abnormality, and states that a driver is eligible for a licence if:

i. They have undergone a neurological assessment to determine the cause of the seizure, and epilepsy is not diagnosed.

ii. It has been six months since the provoking factor stabilized, resolved, or was corrected, with or without treatment, and they have not had a seizure during that time.

iii. The treating neurologist or neurosurgeon indicates that further seizures are unlikely.

30The CCMTA Standards indicate that seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, for which a driver cannot compensate. Thus, experiencing a seizure would significantly interfere with a driver’s ability to drive safely and present a safety risk to the driver, themselves, and other road users.

31Section 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.

32The appellant testified that she feels well and does not think that her history of having a seizure would impact her ability to drive safely.

33Under cross-examination the appellant was asked about whether she had discussed driving with Dr. B. She testified that Dr. B had instructed her not to drive until she had received confirmation of her licence being reinstated from the Ministry. The appellant was asked about her anti-seizure medication, and she testified she was instructed to stay on her medication, and there were no plans to discontinue the medication, despite her surgery to drain the subdural hematoma.

34The progress note from Dr. G reports that the appellant had asked him about driving at the appointment and he responded that it would not be allowable for her to drive after having a seizure, and indicated he had made a referral to Dr. B for further seizure management.

35The progress note from Dr. B reports that the appellant had an EEG that demonstrated a right hemisphere breach rhythm secondary to her surgery and no epileptiform activity. He reported that he advised she continue to take her anti-seizure medication and that, “Hopefully, she will continue to remain seizure-free, and subsequently consideration will be given to discontinue her medication”.

36I have considered the appellant’s position that her history of a provoked seizure secondary to a subdural hematoma will not impact her ability to drive safely. While the structural brain abnormality has been addressed with neurosurgery, there is no medical evidence before me that supports that the risk of further seizure is unlikely or resolved. The latest medical evidence provided is from Dr. B, who indicates that the appellant should stay on the anti-seizure medication. This suggests that the neurosurgical procedure did not eliminate the risk of further seizures and that there is an ongoing risk of seizures that needs to be reduced with medication. Dr. B’s only comment regarding future risk of seizure is vague and not reassuring that the risk is low when he writes, “Hopefully, she will continue to remain seizure-free”. Dr. G’s only comment regarding driving is that the appellant should not drive following her seizure.

37The CCMTA Standards describe that seizures must be controlled as a prerequisite to driving, and that the purpose of a seizure free period elapsing for a provoked seizure prior to returning to driving is to establish that the provoking factor has been successfully treated or stabilized and another seizure is unlikely to recur. Given the risks to driving while having a seizure, I accept and apply the CCMTA guidance that having a period of stability is reasonable. Given the absence of a medical opinion for early reinstatement for a provoked seizure following a structural brain abnormality, or that further seizures are unlikely, I find this insufficient to set aside the suspension.

38I appreciate the hardships that the appellant is experiencing with the loss of her driver’s licence but based on the medical evidence and the individual merits of this case, I believe a longer seizure-free period is reasonable.

39As 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 her ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

40I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a seizure, and that condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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.