Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17927/MED

In the matter of 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:

Jeffery N. Voros

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

AMENDED DECISION

PANEL:

Kailey Minnings, M.D., Adjudicator

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jeffery N. Voros, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD: November 27, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jeffery N. Voros (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) to suspend his Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“HTA”) as set out in the Registrar’s letter dated October 3, 2025, after the Registrar received a report from Dr. Imran Atta, emergency room physician dated September 28, 2025 following a hypoglycemic incident on September 28, 2025 for which the appellant was brought to the hospital.

2The October 3, 2025 letter from the Registrar states that the licence suspension is based on “hypoglycemia unawareness”. At the hearing, the Registrar clarified that the October 3, 2025 letter contained a clerical error and that the suspension is actually based on “severe hypoglycemia” as set out in the Registrar’s letter to the appellant dated November 24, 2025. The appellant accepted this clarification. As a result, we take the October 3, 2023 letter from the Registrar to the appellant as referring to “severe hypoglycemia”.

3Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA (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.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the HTA. The appellant states in his Notice of Appeal that he is appealing the October 3, 2025 decision of the Registrar.

ISSUES

5The issue in dispute is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely severe hypoglycemia, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

6Resolution of that issue requires us to address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from severe hypoglycemia?

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

RESULT

7For the reasons set out below, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, we set aside the Registrar’s October 3, 2025 decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia

8The appellant testified that he is 47 years old and has had Type 1 diabetes for 37 years as clearly confirmed by the medical evidence filed by both parties. The appellant also testified that he was under the care of an endocrinologist, Dr. Linda Sinnaeve, but that Dr. Sinnaeve discharged him and turned his care over to family physician Dr. Subhash Sharma some 20 years ago because his diabetes was stable.

9The appellant acknowledged that on September 28, 2025 he experienced an episode of hypoglycemia.

10We accept the admissions of the appellant in his testimony and find based on his evidence, and the medical information filed by both parties, that the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia. The appellant does not dispute the medical condition alleged by the Registrar.

The appellant’s medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely

11We find that the appellant’s medical condition, specifically severe hypoglycemia, is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely for the following reasons.

12Based on the evidence before us, it appears that the appellant’s September 28, 2025 episode of hypoglycemia was an isolated incident which resulted from the appellant’s failure to react immediately when his blood glucose monitor sent him an alarm that his blood sugar was low.

13The appellant testified that he was working outside when he heard the monitor alarm but did not go into his home immediately and continued to finish his yard work. He testified that he did not have much left to do, and he wanted to get this work done, so he chose to ignore the alarm. When he did go inside his home, he put some hot dogs in the air fryer and sat down, after which he believes he fell asleep. The appellant woke up to find that his father had called an ambulance and that paramedics were administering a nasal glucagon spray to him before they took him to the hospital. At the hospital, the appellant was assessed by emergency room physician Dr. Imran Atta.

14We find the testimony of the appellant as to what led to the incident to be credible and we accept his testimony because it is consistent with the October 29, 2025 report of Dr. Sharma Wilson, the appellant’s long-time treating physician and Dr. Atta’s September 28, 2025 report. Dr. Atta reported that an episode of severe hypoglycemia had occurred that day but that there were no other reported recent episodes. The appellant testified that he was given food at the hospital and released when his blood sugar returned to normal, which he estimated to be about one hour. There is no indication in Dr. Atta’s report that the appellant was admitted to the hospital or referred to a specialist for further assessment or treatment, tending to indicate that the episode had been treated successfully and required no further medical intervention, assessment, or treatment.

15Dr. Sharma confirms that the appellant had an episode of hypoglycemia on September 28, 2025, but notes that the appellant is “extremely well compliant” with all his medications, has not had any documented hypoglycemic attacks. Dr. Sharma has no concerns with respect to the appellant’s diabetes, and confirms that his diabetes control is “exemplary”. Dr. Sharma states that the appellant does not require any restrictions with regards to his driving and “I am writing this letter of support so that he can get along with his normal duties in life.”

16The appellant filed his laboratory results from October 23, 2025 which show a HbA1c level of 5.6%, less than 6.0% being “non-diabetic” according to the laboratory report filed, as well as July 22, 2024 laboratory results showing his HbA1c at 6.3%, June 2, 2023 laboratory results showing his HbA1c at 5.7%. The appellant also filed Dr. Sharma’s Diabetes Assessment dated November 14, 2025 in which Dr. Sharma diagnosed Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin, reported an episode of severe hypoglycemia requiring outside intervention in the past six months but noted “Sep 28th one episode ONLY”, that the appellant is using continuous glucose monitor, patient is stable, “ONLY ONE episode of hypoglycemia in 37 years!”. In this report, Dr. Sharma also noted that the appellant demonstrates good knowledge of his condition, and its management, monitoring and assessment indicate effective blood glucose control, the appellant’s HbA1c results are consistent with the appellant’s glucose logs, and that the appellant has regained adequate glycemic control.

17The appellant testified that he will never delay in responding to his monitor alarm again and realizes that this was a mistake which he could have avoided by walking to his fridge and consuming food. The appellant testified that he sees Dr. Sharma every three months and undergoes testing about once a year, and takes his insulin. This evidence is credible in light of the medical records filed by both parties. The appellant testified that he has a continuous glucose monitoring device, which sends results to his phone every five minutes, and that he always checks his blood glucose level before driving. If he receives an alarm while driving, he stops driving and consumes the soft drinks and cookies that he always has available to him in his vehicle, resuming driving when his blood glucose level is once again normal which he estimated to be about one hour.

18Since September 28, 2025, the appellant has obtained a prescription for Baqsimi, a nasal glucagon treatment for low blood sugar, from Dr. Sharma which he carries with him in case of need. The appellant’s father, who lives nearby to him, has been added to the monitoring device as a person who also receives alerts from his monitoring system.

19We find the recommendation of Dr. Sharma to be persuasive evidence given that he is the appellant’s long-time family physician and appears from his reports to have considerable knowledge of the appellant’s diabetes and its treatment spanning some two decades. Dr. Shama is supportive of the reinstatement of the appellant’s driving licence as is evident from the reports he has delivered.

20We also find persuasive the fact that the appellant has insight into his condition, takes steps to ensure his driving is not affected, such as checking his blood glucose levels before and during driving, carrying food and soft drinks with him in case he needs them, now having a prescription for a nasal spray that he can take if necessary, and the fact that he stops driving when his monitor gives him an alarm. The appellant candidly admitted in his testimony that he should have eaten something immediately when his alarm went off at home and has learned from his mistake. Some two months have passed between the episode on September 28, 2025, and the hearing, and there has been no other episode, before or since September 28, 2025.

21The Registrar’s position is that not enough time has passed since the incident, and that the appellant has a serious medical condition which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

22The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA”) and submits that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal. Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the respondent to consider the CCMTA when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA into consideration, although they are not binding on us. The Registrar relies on chapter 7.6.4.

23Chapter 7.6.4 of the CCMTA recommends that a non-commercial driver who has had an episode of severe hypoglycemia be considered eligible for a driver’s licence if there have been no further episodes of severe hypoglycemia within the past 6 months, earlier if an appropriate specialist indicates that glycemic control has been re-established, and conditions for maintaining a licence are met. Conditions for maintaining licence include blood glucose testing, not driving for at least 40 minutes after successful treatment of hypoglycemia and blood glucose has increased to at least 5.0 mmol/L, and notifying their health-care provider as soon as possible. The CCMTA explains that the neuroglycopenic symptoms associated with severe hypoglycemia can significantly impair the sensory, motor and cognitive functions required for driving.

24Although we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, we note that chapter 7.6.4 provides that if an appropriate specialist indicates that glycemic control has been re-established, earlier re-licensing can be considered. We view Dr. Sharma as an appropriate specialist given his long history of treating the appellant’s diabetes. As a result, and considering all of the evidence, we find earlier re-licensing to be appropriate.

25In our view, re-licencing at this time is appropriate because the appellant does not likely present a safety risk to himself or others while driving given the isolated nature of the September 28, 2025 episode, and the treatment and steps that have been recently been implemented.

26Although the Registrar is of the view that the appellant’s medical condition makes him unsafe to drive, this view is not supported by Dr. Sharma or by the CCMTA standard given that Dr. Sharma is the appellant’s long-time treating physician for his severe hypoglycemia.

27We find on the basis of the medical evidence provided that the Registrar has not met the burden of proof in this case.

Conclusion

28We find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely severe hypoglycemia, but that this is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, we set aside the Registrar’s decision in the letter dated October 3, 2025, to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Released: January 16, 2026

__________________________

Dr. Kailey Minnings

Adjudicator

__________________________

Avril A. Farlam

Vice-Chair