Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18499/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:

Devon Fowlin

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Kailey Minnings

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Ava Williams, Counsel

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD: May 19, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Devon Fowlin (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar” or “respondent”) 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 psychiatrist 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 a mental health condition, 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 denies that he suffers from a mental health condition and 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

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

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 not 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 set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On January 16, 2026, Dr. Philip Klassen, psychiatrist at “IME [independent medical examination]” filed a medical condition report (“MCR”) with the Registrar. The MCR indicates, “Schizophrenia (untreated, with cannabis use, though not clearly misuse)”.

11In response, the Registrar sent a letter dated January 20, 2026 to the appellant to request more information. Specifically, the Registrar requested that the appellant take the letter to his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner and have them complete a Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form and a Mental Health Assessment (“MHA”) form.

12The appellant’s family physician, Dr. Nanky Rai, completed the SUA and MHA forms on March 12, 2026. On these forms, Dr. Rai indicated that the appellant’s primary diagnosis is chronic pain, stable with ongoing symptoms, and that the appellant does not have a mental health condition or a substance use disorder. Dr. Rai wrote, “Patient uses cannabinoids for chronic pain management and does not meet criteria for a substance use disorder.”

13In response, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder and sent him a letter on March 17, 2026. The letter states,

This suspension is a result of the ministry receiving a report(s) indicating you have a condition that affects your ability to drive safely. The Mental health report [sic] with information dated March 12, 2026, by Dr Nanky Rai contradicts the information received by Psychiatrist Dr. Philip Klassen January 16, 2026.

14On March 23, 2026, the Registrar sent the appellant an additional letter which instructs, “Take this letter to your treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner when your condition improves and have the following information sent to the Driver Medical Review Office: Copies of clinical notes/discharge summary report referencing your hospital visit at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health (“Ontario Shores”) last January 16, 2026”; and a completed MHA.

15The appellant sent additional medical documentation to the Registrar, including a narrative letter from Dr. Rai. In response on April 14, 2026, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter which indicates that the licence remains suspended due to a mental health condition and no longer due to substance use disorder. The letter instructs the appellant to “take this letter to your treating mental health specialist and have the following information sent […] Copies of clinical notes/discharge summary report referencing your hospital visit at Ontario Shores last January 16, 2026” and a completed MHA.

16The following day, April 15, 2026, the Registrar sent another letter to the appellant. This letter also states that the licence remains suspended due to a mental health condition, but this time, instructs the appellant to take the letter to his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner and also requests copies of clinical notes/discharge summary report referencing a hospital visit at Ontario Shores last January 16, 2026 and a completed MHA.

17The appellant submitted an updated MHA from Dr. Rai which again indicates that the appellant does not have a mental health condition. In response on May 13, 2026, the Registrar sent the appellant an additional letter, requesting information on how long the treating physician has known the appellant; and whether the appellant is taking prescribed medication and confirmation that he is adherent with a recommended treatment regimen.

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition, namely, schizophrenia?

18The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, namely, schizophrenia.

19The Registrar’s position is supported by the MCR, completed by psychiatrist Dr. Klassen, which indicates that the appellant has schizophrenia.

20The Registrar also pointed to an internal document containing an email from Dr. Ben Joseph, a psychiatrist with the Medical Advisory Committee, dated April 19, 2026. In his email, Dr. Joseph recommended that the assessment from Dr. Klassen be obtained and goes on to discuss how and why schizophrenia may affect one’s ability to drive safety.

21The appellant denies that he suffers from schizophrenia and denies that he suffers from a mental health condition. In support of his position, his representative points to the following documents:

i. Two MHA forms completed by the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Rai, dated March 12, 2026 and April 14, 2026. Both forms indicate that the appellant has a diagnosis of chronic pain which is stable and no mental health condition.

ii. An April 1, 2026 narrative letter written by Dr. Rai. In the letter, the doctor writes that that she reviewed the appellant’s historical medical documents, which included a 2023 psychiatry consultation, whereby the psychiatrist concluded that a psychiatric diagnosis could not be assigned to the appellant. She also writes,

Upon repeated assessments and prior documentation, I can confirm that this client does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia or a substance use disorder at this time. Re: the diagnosis of schizophrenia: I am deeply concerned at the misuse of this diagnostic label for my client. As you may or may not be aware, in order for someone to qualify for a diagnosis of schizophrenia they must experience disorganized speech, delusions or hallucinations in addition to disorganized or catatonic behaviour and negative symptoms such as diminished emotional expression or avolition. Mr. Fowlin does not meet criteria for any of the above signs and symptoms consistent with psychosis. According to DSM-5, in order for a delusion to be diagnosed, the person must hold a fixed belief that is not in keeping with the person's culture or subculture, meaning the belief is not commonly accepted by others in the person's culture [...] Mr. Fowlin has a strong sense of spirituality, and practices his spirituality through rituals which are in keeping with his cultural beliefs.

iii. Email correspondence dated April 2, 2026, with Ontario Shores health records department, which indicates that the Centre has no clinical notes, records or discharge summaries for the appellant.

22The appellant testified that he was not hospitalized in January of 2026, nor has he ever visited Ontario Shores.

23Dr. Rai appeared as a witness. She testified that she is a family doctor at a Toronto Community Health Centre and that she has extensive experience in diagnosing and treating highly complex mental health conditions, including schizophrenia and active psychosis, in her practice. Dr. Rai testified that she has been the appellant’s family physician since March of 2026 and has spent several hours assessing the appellant during medical appointments since then, and more time reviewing his prior medical records. Dr. Rai testified that following her clinical assessments, her opinion is that the appellant does not meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or any mental health condition. She testified that there is no indication or recommendation for psychiatric medication or treatment. She testified that his cognition, judgement and insight appear to be intact and that she endorses his return to driving. Finally, she testified that she reviewed documentation from psychiatrist Dr. Klassen and disagrees with his diagnosis of schizophrenia.

24The respondent testified that the reason that the driver’s licence is still suspended is because there is contradictory information from a psychiatrist, Dr. Klassen, and the appellant’s family doctor, Dr. Rai. The respondent testified that further information is needed from a mental health specialist and stated, “that opinion trumps a family physician’s information.” The respondent pointed to the April 14, 2026 letter to the appellant which specified that the appellant should take the letter to a “treating mental health specialist” to have them complete the MHA form.

25The appellant’s counsel submitted that the appellant does not have a treating mental health specialist, and that the appellant saw Dr. Klassen on one occasion, not for treatment but for an independent medical examination relating to separate litigation.

26There is conflicting evidence. Dr. Klassen, a psychiatrist, has indicated on the MCR that the appellant has schizophrenia. However, I place limited weight on this opinion in the absence of supporting information relating to how he arrived at this diagnosis. I accept Dr. Rai’s testimony and the appellant’s counsel’s submissions that Dr. Klassen was not a treating physician but rather saw the appellant on one occasion, in the context of an independent medical examination relating to a separate litigation, and that the appellant never visited Ontario Shores.

27I place more weight on the abundance of evidence from Dr. Rai, the appellant’s family physician, which includes two MHA forms indicating that the appellant does not have a mental health diagnosis; a narrative letter which contains reasoning, rationale, information on the appellants status and symptoms, and references to the patient’s past medical history; and the oral testimony from Dr. Rai that the appellant, in her opinion, does not have a mental health condition. Dr. Rai has the benefit of seeing the appellant longitudinally over several appointments, instead of the one-time consultation with Dr. Klassen; and while she has only recently become the appellant’s physician, she testified that she has met with the appellant several times for lengthy appointments and has reviewed the appellant’s medical records to 2021. I find it unlikely that if the appellant did have untreated schizophrenia, as Dr. Klassen wrote, that there would be no mention of this anywhere in his medical records. Finally, I am satisfied that Dr. Rai, as a trained specialist in family medicine with experience in diagnosing and treating complex mental health conditions, would have the required knowledge and expertise to accurately assess the appellant. I accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant does not have a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other mental health condition.

28I find that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, namely, schizophrenia. As the Registrar has failed to establish the alleged medical condition, there is no need to proceed with the next issue whether the alleged medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

29I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

30For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Released: May 21, 2026

__________________________

Kailey Minnings

Adjudicator