Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18522/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 Minister of Transportation to downgrade a licence pursuant to subsection 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

Between:

Raymond Anglin

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. David To, Member

Kevin Kovalchuk, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Raymond Anglin, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: May 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Raymond Anglin (the “appellant”) appeals from the May 13, 2025 decision of the Minister of Transportation (the “Minister”) to downgrade his driver’s licence from a commercial Class AZ licence to a Class G licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), after the Minister received a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

2The Minister has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act to impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.

3Section 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 may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

4The Minister takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a heart condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and that this provides sufficient reason to downgrade his licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

5The appellant appeals the downgrade under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant denies that his medical condition interferes with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

6Under s. 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision of the Minister.

ISSUE

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 of the applicable class safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely, a heart condition?

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

9The Minister 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, we find that the Minister has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a heart condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

11We confirm the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s commercial Class AZ driver’s licence to a Class G licence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant suffers from a medical condition

12The evidence presented establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a heart condition.

13The Minister presented numerous medical reports. The appellant’s former family physician, Dr. Beecroft, wrote in a medical report dated September 1, 2006, and in a narrative letter dated November 24, 2006, that the appellant had a pacemaker inserted due to his heart condition, and that his cardiac status had been stable after the pacemaker insertion. Similar annual reports were submitted by the appellant’s physicians between 2006 and 2025.

14The most recent report by the appellant’s family physician, Dr. Scheeres, with revisions dated May 22, 2025, noted that the appellant’s medical condition was “very stable” with “no concerns with medication or pacemaker” and “no concerns with cardiac function.”

15The appellant agrees that he has a pacemaker implanted due to his heart condition.

16We find that the Minister has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a heart condition.

The appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely

17We are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. The appellant’s ventricular assist device (“VAD”) significantly increases the risk of sudden incapacitation, which poses a high risk for road safety when driving a commercial vehicle.

18In this appeal, a primary issue related to safety was whether the appellant has a VAD. In general, a VAD is implanted to assist the heart to pump blood and is a separate device from a pacemaker. As explained above, there is no dispute that the appellant’s pacemaker was inserted in 2006 for his heart condition.

19During his testimony, the appellant denied that he has a VAD or that he had undergone a surgery for this to be implanted. He testified that when he saw his cardiologist, Dr. Pizzale, a year and a half ago, he only had his pacemaker’s batteries changed. The appellant testified he did not have any recent reports from his cardiologist available to demonstrate whether he has a VAD.

20In the medical reports submitted by the Minister, the first time a VAD was noted was in Dr. Scheeres’ amended Cardiovascular Assessment report, dated May 22, 2025. In Section D of this report, Dr. Scheeres checked “Yes” for “Ventricular assist device (VAD)” and checked “Yes” in response to the patient remaining stable for 2 months post implantation. On the report beside the VAD section, Dr. Scheeres handwrote, “Pacemaker for 20 years. No changes.” In an accompanying narrative letter dated May 29, 2025, Dr. Scheeres explained, “… he has a ventricular assist device and has been able for two months post implantation. This is still the case. He has been driving, he should be driving still, and there is no reason for him to have discontinued his license on the basis of this form…” Based on the context, “able” was likely typed in error by Dr. Scheeres and presumably means “stable”.

21We recognize this as a marked change from Dr. Scheeres’ past Cardiovascular Assessment reports for the appellant. None of the prior reports completed by Dr. Scheeres on May 31, 2022, April 3, 2023, and March 27, 2024, mention that the appellant has a VAD.

22Based on the appellant’s testimony that he does not have a VAD or a corresponding recent surgery, and Dr. Scheeres writing about a “pacemaker” that has been stable beside the section on VAD, we considered whether it was possible Dr. Scheeres had conflated the pacemaker and VAD. However, we find that Dr. Scheeres had intentionally noted that the appellant has a VAD, because he not only ticked the box on the May 22, 2025, Cardiovascular Assessment form, but also wrote about the VAD separately in his May 29, 2025, letter.

23On the issue of the VAD, we prefer the evidence of Dr. Scheeres over that of the appellant, because Dr. Scheeres and his colleagues at the clinic have been treating the appellant for over 20 years; they provide an objective, longitudinal professional opinion on the appellant’s health condition.

24On a balance of probabilities based on the evidence available before us, we find that the appellant does have a VAD.

25The Minister relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”), particularly Standard 3.6.40, in support of its submission that the licence downgrade should be confirmed by the Tribunal. Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister 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, although they are not binding on the Tribunal.

26Section 3.6.40 of the CCMTA Standards provides that a driver who has a left VAD is not eligible for a commercial licence.

27As a licensed physician in Ontario, and as authorized by s. 16 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, Dr. To takes notice of the fact that most individuals who have a VAD have a left VAD, and the implantation of a VAD is a treatment for worsening heart failure symptoms. In this particular case, the appellant likely has a left VAD because the VAD had been implanted for more than two months; in contrast, a right VAD is used temporarily and in emergency heart failure situations.

28Dr. Scheeres, in his May 29, 2025, report, noted the appellant had a heart failure functional class of NYHA II, which relates to slight limitations of physical activity – the appellant’s heart function may be at that functional class because of the effect of a VAD.

29According to CCMTA Chapter 3, heart diseases, including heart failure, result in a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes. Individuals with a left VAD have a severe underlying heart condition as they otherwise would not have a VAD implanted, carrying increased risk of sudden incapacitation. This poses a high risk to road safety, especially in the commercial truck driving field in which the appellant seeks to re-engage, considering the commercial vehicles’ larger size and weight, and the heightened consequences in the case of an accident. Dr. To takes notice of the fact that in the unlikely alternate case that the appellant had a right VAD instead of a left VAD, it would imply that the appellant’s heart function was unstable and therefore also a high risk of sudden incapacitation.

30In the assessment of the appellant’s specific circumstances, the appellant submits that he is safe to drive an AZ commercial vehicle, because he has driven them for over 35 years with a good record, and has driven with a pacemaker for over 20 years without issue.

31The appellant testified he works Monday to Friday, 45 hours a week. His employment involves driving a dump truck with an attached twenty-foot float trailer. The trailer carries a small paver, roller and bobcat. He testified that he only works locally in the Barrie, Ontario area; however, he also testified that he drives the truck regularly to nearby towns often on Highway 400.

32We acknowledge the appellant’s position that he has driven a commercial vehicle safely for many years and the letter from Dr. Scheeres that the appellant has a VAD and has been stable for more than two months post implantation.

33However, we find that the Minister’s evidence from the CCMTA Standards in this case carries more weight than the appellant’s testimony and Dr. Scheeres’ May 29, 2025 letter, because of the rigour of the CCMTA Standards and Dr. Scheeres’ lack of specific support for the appellant’s commercial driving. Further, we find that the appellant’s testimony regarding his lack of a VAD and his driving safety is less plausible because of his inconsistencies regarding his work location, combined with a lack of insight into his medical condition and daily medications when questioned during the hearing.

34While we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, we find that they are persuasive in this case. The CCMTA Standards were recently updated in 2025 to reflect the updated Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines, which are produced by cardiovascular experts and updated periodically in response to the best available evidence regarding advances in investigation and management of cardiovascular diseases. The most current CCMTA Standard 3.6.40 explains that drivers with a left VAD are not eligible for a commercial driver’s licence based on the rationale from the CCS guidelines. The CCS guidelines explain that patients with a left VAD have a <22% annual risk of sudden cardiac incapacitation, which is greater than the standard of 1% risk of sudden cardiac incapacitation for commercial driving. This presents a high risk for road safety.

35Further, as noted earlier in these reasons, in the alternate case that the appellant has a right VAD, it would also present a substantial risk for road safety.

36Based on the evidence available before us in this appeal, we find that the Minister has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a heart condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

Conclusion

37We find that the Minister has met the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

38For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s commercial class driver’s licence.