Greg Stephens v. Minister of Transportation, 2026 CanLII 45570

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18314/MED

In the matter of an appeal from the downgrading of class of licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

Between:

Greg Stephens

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Peter Savage Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Greg Stephens, self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Heard: by teleconference April 29, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Greg Stephens, the appellant, appeals from a decision of the Minister of Transportation, the respondent, to downgrade of his driver’s licence from a commercial “AM” class to a non-commercial “GM” class, on January 14, 2026, pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

ISSUE

[2] The issue to be determined is: i. Whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

RESULT

3The downgrade of the appellant’s licence is confirmed.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

No real or perceived conflict-of-interest; no apprehension of bias

4Dr. Savage informed the parties that, as a GP, he maintained a medical practice in the same community as the appellant, Collingwood, for many years and knows some of the physicians in Collingwood who have treated the appellant. He clarified that he has never treated the appellant, had him as a patient, nor had any personal knowledge of or relationship with the appellant.

5The parties raised no concerns with Dr. Savage’s knowledge of and familiarity with the medical community that provided services to the appellant. They identified no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, or any apprehension of bias in relation to Dr. Savage presiding over the proceeding.

ANALYSIS

The legislative framework for commercial drivers’ licences

6Because the operation of larger, heavier vehicles on public highways creates greater risk to public safety, O. Reg 340/94 (the “Regulation”) imposes restrictions on the class of motor vehicle a given class of licence holder may operate on a highway. For example, a G licence holder is only allowed to drive a G class of vehicle, described as a motor vehicle, or combination of vehicle and towed vehicle with a combined gross vehicle weight of up to 11,000 kilograms, where the towed vehicles do not exceed a total gross weight of 4,600 kilograms. A Class A licence permits a driver to operate any combination of a motor vehicle (other than a bus carrying passengers) and towed vehicles (e.g. a tractor-trailer combination) where the towed vehicles exceed a total gross weight of 4,600 kilograms, or a vehicle in classes D or G. When the class of licence is followed by an “M”, for example, “GM”, the driver has privileges to operate a motorcycle.

7The respondent has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act to change the class of a person’s driver’s licence in accordance with examination results and other prescribed requirements.

8Subsection 14(1) of the Regulation under the Act states:

An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,

(a) suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely

9It is the respondent’s burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant is disqualified from commercial licence privileges.

10Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify or set aside the respondent’s decision or order.

The licence downgrade is confirmed

11We find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

12The respondent submits that the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators’ National Safety Code, Standard 6: Determining Driver Fitness in Canada – 2025 Update (“CCMTA Standards”) were recently amended such that they now stipulate that any commercial driver who has an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (“ICD”) implanted is disqualified from commercial driving. It asserts that the CCMTA Standards disqualify the appellant from having a commercial licence. The respondent seeks the Tribunal’s confirmation of the licence downgrade.

13The appellant submits that, since he had the ICD implanted after a cardiac arrest in June 2021, his cardiac health has improved, and the ICD has never intervened or “fired”. He submits that he has attended annual medical exams since that time and has been able to maintain his commercial licence right up until he received the respondent’s notice of a downgrade in January of this year. Considering that his cardiac health has improved and the ICD has never fired, he submits the risk of his condition interfering with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely remains very low. He seeks the reinstatement of his commercial licence.

14We find the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely. We find that the downgrading of his licence to a GM recognizes the risk that his medical condition poses to highway safety, if he was permitted to drive commercial vehicles.

15We give considerable weight to the respondent’s evidence that the CCMTA Standards were revised in April 2025 and now state that any commercial driver who has an ICD implanted is disqualified from commercial driving. The respondent acknowledges that the appellant met the previous version CCMTA Standards (prior to April 2025) even though he had an ICD implanted. The respondent submits that it applies the current version of the CCMTA Standards in its determinations of a driver’s fitness to hold a certain class of licence.

16We are persuaded by the respondent’s evidence that the changes to s. 3.6.24 of the CCMTA Standards were implemented to align with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (“CCS”) guidelines. The rationale stated in s. 3.6.24 is the CCS recommendation that:

An ICD may sometimes be implanted in low-risk patients. Individual cases may be made for allowing a commercial driver to continue driving with an ICD provided the annual risk of sudden incapacitation is felt to be 1% or less.

17We are persuaded by the respondent’s evidence that the CCMTA Standards are regularly reviewed and updated in accordance with health care professionals’ input and medical research and that the respondent relies on them in determining driver fitness, i.e. whether a person’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a vehicle safely.

18We acknowledge that the appellant had attended several annual medical exams since the ICD was implanted. The respondent’s documents reveal that the appellant had medical examinations in 2022, 2023 and 2024, all of which resulted in sustaining of his commercial licence privileges. We take notice that, under the previous CCMTA Standards, his ICD implant did not disqualify him from having a commercial licence.

19We are not persuaded by the letter from Dr. Paul Smylie, dated October 29, 2025, because, although Dr. Smylie states the appellant represents a low risk [for the recurrence of a cardiac event], he does not put the risk at less than 1%. We are not persuaded by the letter from Southlake Health, dated October 16, 2025, which confirms the appellant’s ICD has not logged any episodes, because the absence of ICD episodes is not a factor in s. 3.6.24 of the CCMTA Standards.

20We are persuaded by and give considerable weight to the opinion of the respondent’s medical advisory committee (“MAC”) in its report of January 2, 2026 (authored by Dr. Chris Simpson), that the appellant’s [initial] ejection fraction (“EF”) of 20% coupled with slow recovery to normal, provides an important overlay to consider when assessing contemporary risk. The report states that the “<1% rule” was never intended to be a mechanism for practitioners to override the guidelines, and “This [the appellant’s case] is not a case where the 1% rule should be applied”, noting that the appellant’s EF of 20% suggests the ICD was implanted for either secondary prevention reasons, primary prevention reasons, or both. In these circumstances, it states, “the guidelines are clear that a permanent disqualification from commercial driving is recommended.”

Conclusion

21Considering the CCMTA Standards reflect the most current understanding of the risks for persons with an ICD implant, that is drawn from the CCS’s recommendations, and the balance of evidence, in particular, Dr. Simpson’s recommendation in the January 2, 2026 report, we are persuaded that respondent has met its burden.

22Accordingly, we find that the respondent has met its onus in demonstrating that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and the downgrade of his licence to a “GM” class, pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act, is confirmed.

ORDER

23We order the following:

i. Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the decision of the respondent to downgrade the appellant’s licence to a GM class.