Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18481/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:
Kyle Badovinac
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Kyle Badovinac, Appellant
For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Held by teleconference: April 27, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Kyle Badovinac (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 unsolicited medical 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 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 his ability to drive a vehicle 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. While he does not dispute that he has been diagnosed with epilepsy and has had several seizures, he denies that this condition interferes with his ability to drive a vehicle 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. Did the appellant suffer from a seizure?
ii. If so, is this 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.”
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 medical condition that 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.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
11During the entering of exhibits it was noted that the appellant had a late submission of an updated Seizure and Loss of Consciousness Form. This Form had been sent to the Registrar but not yet reviewed, and had not been sent to the Tribunal.
12During the hearing, this Form was forwarded to the Tribunal, and retrieved by the Registrar. A brief recess was taken for all parties to review the document. After discussion, the Registrar submitted that they had no objection to the late submission. As all parties had a chance to review the document and the Registrar had no objection, it was entered as evidence.
ANALYSIS
Did the appellant suffer from a seizure?
13The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that has resulted in several seizures.
14The Registrar’s position is supported by:
i. a Cerebrovascular Diseases, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Tumour and Other Neurological Diseases Form dated, March 16, 2026, from Dr. C;
ii. a Consult Report by Dr. M, dated February 18, 2026, and
iii. two Seizure and Loss of Consciousness (LOC) Forms dated, March 26, 2026, and April 24, 2026, also from Dr. C.
15The appellant came to the Registrar’s attention when Registrar received an unsolicited letter from neurologist Dr. M asking that the appellant’s ability to drive be assessed. The Registrar subsequently requested further medical information.
16The appellant’s family physician, Dr. C, completed the requested Cerebrovascular Diseases, TBI, Tumour and Other Neurological Diseases Form on March 16, 2026. On this form Dr. C documents the appellant has been diagnosed with epilepsy/seizure disorder, and the last seizure occurred less than three months prior.
17Dr. C also forwarded to the Registrar the Consult Report from neurologist Dr. M dated February 18, 2026. Dr. M documents the appellant was assessed by him for a history of seizures. He describes that the appellant had his first seizure when he was seven years old and started an antiseizure drug at age fourteen. Dr. M further documents the appellant had a seizure on November 11 [2025] and another seizure two to three weeks prior to the appointment on February 18, 2026.
18Following receipt of this medical documentation, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence and requested the completion of a Seizure and LOC Form.
19Dr. C completed the requested Seizure and LOC Form on March 26, 2026, and April 24, 2026. On both forms Dr. C checked the boxes indicating that the appellant has been diagnosed with epilepsy and the appellant’s last seizure was less than three months earlier.
20In the appellant’s Notice of Appeal (NOA) he states that he has been diagnosed with epilepsy, was seizure free for six years, but had three seizures in the previous six months. He further states that the type of epilepsy he has produces seizures only when he is asleep and the period between sleep and wakefulness.
21The appellant does not dispute that he has a diagnosis of epilepsy and has had several seizures in his life. He testified that his first seizure was when he was 14 years old, and he was then seizure free for 6-7 years until November 2025 when he had a seizure due to his medication levels. He testified his seizures have only happened at night when he is asleep and when awakening.
22Under cross-examination, the Registrar asked the appellant to describe the seizure referenced by Dr. M on November 11. The appellant testified this was the only time he had a seizure while he had been awake, and he was under medicated. He testified he was working when he had the seizure and passed out. He testified the seizure lasted approximately 30 seconds and he was taken to the hospital.
23Upon further questioning about the follow up at the hospital, the appellant then testified that the ambulance didn’t take him to the hospital but took him home and he went to sleep. At home he had another seizure that his parents noticed and then took him to the hospital.
24The appellant was asked regarding the second seizure referenced by Dr. M, and he described he had a seizure in February 2026 when he was also undermedicated. He testified he woke and felt off and he had the feeling that had happened after a seizure previously which included symptoms such as his body being sore.
25The appellant was questioned about when he had his first seizure as Dr. M documents it was at age 7 and the appellant had testified it was at age 14. The appellant responded his first seizure was at age 7.
26The medical evidence before the Tribunal is clear that the appellant has suffered from several seizures, and the appellant does not disagree. Therefore, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from seizures.
Is the appellant’s medical condition 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’s position is supported by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [2025] (the “CCMTA Standards”).
29The Registrar submits that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely and relies on CCMTA Standards, Chapter 17. The Registrar submits that these Standards are written by physicians and experts across the country and used as guidelines to assess medical fitness as it pertains to driving. Chapter 17 of the CCMTA Standards describes seizures and the associated concerns with driving. Standard 17.6.6 applies to non-commercial drivers who have been diagnosed with epilepsy, and states that a driver is eligible for a licence if:
i. It has been at least 6 months since the last seizure occurred while on antiepileptic medication OR it has been at least 6 months since the last seizure occurred without antiepileptic medication if the driver has been assessed by a neurologist who is of the opinion that the risk of having a seizure without antiepileptic medication is low.
ii. Waiting period may be reduced to no less than 3 months on neurologist’s recommendation if rationale is provided.
30The CCMTA Standards indicate that seizures, such as the type of seizure the appellant is described to have suffered, 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.
31The Registrar submits the appellant does have a condition that is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely, and the appellant has been seizure-free for less than three months. The Registrar submits that the law and CCMTA Standards are being reasonably applied, and until they receive confirmation that a 6-month seizure free time frame elapsed or a minimum of 3 months with a favourable recommendation, they have no choice but to keep the appellant’s licence under suspension.
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 is not bound by them.
33The appellant states in his NOA that it had been made clear to him that his prescribed medication dose was too low for his increased height and weight as he had been on the same dose since he was 14 years old. He documents that because his seizures occur in the period between sleep and wakefulness, they have no effect on his ability to drive. He further documents that he has visited his doctor to approve an increase in medication dosage, and since this increase he has not had another seizure.
34The appellant testified that he has been taking his medication, and his doctor has been monitoring his levels to make sure he can drive. He testified that his condition has never had any effect on his ability to drive. He testified he wasn’t taking his medication to its full use back in November and now he is on an increased dose.
35I acknowledge that Dr. C documents on the Seizure and LOC Forms that the appellant has had compliance issues that have resolved and that the appellant’s Keppra level is therapeutic, and he supports his return of licence. I further take note of the Consult Report from Dr. M that notes the appellant would often miss his morning dose of Keppra, and before the Nov. 11 seizure the appellant was at a party, did not get much sleep and drank a significant amount of beer. Dr. M advises that the appellant’s seizures are in large part due to compliance issues and instructed the appellant he cannot drink more than 1 to 2 beers when he is at a party. He further added that he will report the appellant to the Ministry of Transportation and when the appellant gets the forms, he can bring them back to Dr. M to fill out.
36Under cross-examination, the appellant was questioned about his antiseizure medication. He testified that he was prescribed Keppra 250 mg two tablets twice daily for many years. He was asked if the dose changed following his two seizures in November that brought him to hospital. He responded that his dose was not changed, but he was advised to take the medication every morning and night as he had been taking only the night dose for a good amount of time. He testified that his dose has since increased since November, but the exact dose and timing could not be recalled. He testified that the last dose increase of his antiseizure medication was in approximately February 2026.
37The appellant was asked why he was taking his medication only at night for an extended period of time, and he responded that he didn’t think the medication was doing anything. He testified that he probably should have consulted his physician before reducing the dose. He testified he now has a pill box to help him remember to take his medication.
38The appellant was questioned about Dr. M’s recommendation about alcohol consumption and its impact on seizures. The appellant testified that Dr. M had advised him the lack of sleep and alcohol consumption should be taken into account, and that it would be best to stop alcohol completely or to lower his intake as it could be a possibility in why the seizures happen. The appellant testified that he is going out less than he used to and is trying to not have more than half a dozen beers at a time. The appellant was asked if he had told his physicians about his limit being six beers at a time, and he responded he told them he would be controlling his alcohol more.
39The appellant was questioned about his driving practice and testified as part of his employment he is tasked with driving a truck and trailer carrying furniture between a warehouse and different homes. He further testified he has had to rely on family or a bus or uber to get around. He reiterated he has never had any physical effects of his medical condition while driving and has a perfect driving record. The appellant was asked what would happen if he had a seizure while driving and testified that he probably has 30 seconds from the time he knows he’s going to have seizure before he loses consciousness. He testified he would try and pull over safely.
40I have considered the appellant’s position that his history of seizures will not interfere with his ability to drive safely; however, I noted that there are several inconsistencies between his testimony, his NOA, and the medical records which diminishes the reliability of his evidence. First, there are many inconsistencies regarding the appellant’s seizure history. The appellant documented in his NOA and testified under oath that his seizures occurred only at night. His NOA reads, “the type of epilepsy I have produces seizures only when I am asleep”. However, Dr. M clearly documented that the appellant had a seizure while at work, and Dr. C has specifically crossed out the questions on the Seizure and LOC Forms that ask if this is epilepsy with seizures only while asleep or upon awakening. When questioned under cross-examination about this discrepancy, the appellant admitted that he has had a seizure within the last six months that occurred while at work when he was awake. Additionally, the appellant testified that his first seizure was at age 14, but when questioned about Dr. M’s documentation that his first seizure occurred at age 7, he then adjusted his testimony that his first seizure was at age 7. Further, the appellant testified that he had one seizure on November 11 and was taken to hospital, but under cross-examination admitted that he had two seizures before going to the hospital. Dr. M’s documentation reflects that one seizure happened on Nov. 11, which I find odd in light of the detailed seizure history he provided, and brings into question what information is being shared with the appellant’s physicians.
41Secondly, the appellant’s evidence was inconsistent when he documents in his NOA and testifies that his seizures were due to him being prescribed an incorrect dose of antiseizure medication. He documents, “…it has been made clear that my prescribed medication was too low for my increased height and weight…”. While he may have needed an increased dose, it is clear from the medical documentation from Dr. M and Dr. C, that the key concern with the medication dosing was that the appellant was not taking the prescribed dose. This conclusion is supported by the appellant’s testimony under cross-examination that he frequently missed his morning dose, and his prescribed dose was not changed when he went to the hospital in November following his seizures. Instead, he testified he was advised to take the same dose of medication that he had previously been given, but to take it twice a day as prescribed.
42Lastly, it is clear from the medical evidence that the appellant’s alcohol consumption is a contributing factor to his seizures, and Dr. M’s recommendation is clear in his report, “I told him that he really cannot drink more than 1 or 2 beers when he is at a party.” The appellant has testified that he is limiting his consumption of alcoholic drinks to six at a time, but this is not what has been communicated to his physicians. Furthermore, it is concerning that he is consuming three or more times the amount of alcohol advised as the medical evidence establishes that it increases his risk of further seizures.
43While Dr. C has given support for reinstating the appellant’s licence, I do not give this recommendation much weight. Given the appellant’s admitted minimization of alcohol intake to his physicians, along with the other inconsistencies regarding his seizure history, the evidence raises concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to Dr. C when the appellant is asking him to provide documentation in support of regaining his licence. Further, I recognize that as a neurologist, Dr. M would have the expert skills and training to provide a medical opinion on licence reinstatement, and Dr. M documents his willingness to complete any required paperwork requested by the Registrar, “I told him I am going to report him to the MOT [Ministry of Transportation] and when he gets the paperwork he can bring it to me and I will fill it out”. However, the appellant did not follow up with Dr. M to request that he complete the requested paperwork. The importance of a neurologist’s expert opinion on early reinstatement is captured in the CCMTA Standard in that early reinstatement is only considered under the recommendation from a neurologist.
44While I recognize the appellant is a holder of a G class licence, the appellant testified that he drives a truck pulling a trailer full of furniture for work purposes, which may increase the potential consequences should a seizure occur while driving.
45I have heard the appellant’s testimony that he experiences a tick in his neck prior to his seizure, giving him approximately 30 seconds of warning before he loses consciousness. I do not accept that this is sufficient to mitigate the driving risk associated with his seizures. The onset of a seizure while driving may occur in circumstances where 30 seconds is insufficient to safely stop, particularly in traffic, at highway speeds, or while transporting cargo as he has testified to doing.
46I note that the CCMTA Standards describe that seizures must be controlled as a prerequisite to driving, and that the purpose of a seizure-free period elapsing for unprovoked seizures prior to returning to driving where epilepsy is diagnosed is to establish the likelihood that:
i. a therapeutic drug level has been achieved and maintained,
ii. the drug being used will prevent further seizures, and
iii. there are no side effects that may affect the driver’s ability to drive.
47The evidence establishes that the appellant has had three seizures in the past six months, and it has been only two months since the last seizure and approximately two months since the last medication dose change. Although the appellant testifies that he has increased medication adherence and dosage, there is a long history of medication non-compliance, and ongoing non-compliance with the neurologist’s recommendations regarding alcohol consumption. While not bound by the CCMTA standards, I take note that less than half the time has passed that is required to meet the six-month CCMTA Standard. Given the complete incapacitation experienced when having a seizure with the inability to compensate while driving, and the inconsistencies in the appellant’s seizure history, I find that adherence to the neurologist’s recommendations regarding alcohol use and a longer seizure free period are reasonable. In the absence of support from a treating neurologist, I find this insufficient to set aside the suspension.
48I appreciate the hardships that the appellant is experiencing with the loss of his 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.
49As 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
50I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizures, and that condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
51For 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: May 27, 2026
_________________________
Isla McPherson MD
Adjudicator