Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18391/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:

Eric Stratton

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Kailey Minnings, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Eric Stratton, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD: May 14, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Eric Stratton (the “appellant”) appeals from 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 a report from a treating health care provider 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 safely 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 alcohol use disorder, 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 acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder but 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 alcohol use disorder?

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 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.

ANALYSIS

Background

10On April 23, 2025, the appellant’s family physician Dr. Bell completed a solicited Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form and sent it to the Registrar, indicating that the appellant had a moderate substance use disorder, has completed a treatment program and has not abstained from alcohol.

11The Registrar sent the appellant a letter dated May 8, 2025 indicating that his case was approved and that he would be required to file a further SUA by October 3, 2025.

12On August 10, 2025, Dr. Bell completed another SUA as requested. On this form, she indicated that the appellant had a severe substance use disorder instead of moderate; that the appellant has not abstained from alcohol; and that he has completed a treatment program.

13In response, on August 27, 2025, the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his licence was suspended due to alcohol use disorder, and that in order to be considered for licence reinstatement, he would need to show confirmation that he has remained abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year. The letter stated that this period may be reduced to six months if his healthcare practitioner confirms that he has successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of his driving privilege. This is the suspension being appealed.

Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

14The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

15The Registrar’s position is supported by the following medical reports:

i. An April 23, 2025 SUA form from Dr. Bell which indicates that the appellant has a moderate substance use disorder – alcohol, that he has completed a supervised treatment program, and that he has not abstained from alcohol.

ii. An August 10, 2025 SUA form from Dr. Bell which indicates that the appellant has severe substance use disorder – alcohol, that he has completed a supervised treatment program, and that he has not abstained from alcohol.

iii. A September 11, 2025 narrative letter from Dr. Bell which indicates that the appellant has completed an outpatient program for severe alcohol use disorder, that he has demonstrated the ability to be sober for 6 months, but has returned to consuming alcohol in smaller and controlled quantities. The letter goes on to say that the appellant has been driving successfully with an ignition interlock device. The doctor writes, “I have no concerns with his driving safety.”

16The appellant acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder, and there is no dispute in this regard. He testified that he completed an outpatient treatment program and continues to see an addiction counsellor twice monthly and attend an online addictions group for this condition.

17Both the appellant and the Registrar agree that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder. I find the available medical evidence from Dr. Bell supports this.

18I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

19I 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.

20The Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that alcohol use can significantly interfere with and impair the functions necessary for driving; that alcohol is a depressant drug which slows down the brain and body; and that chronic and/or uncontrolled alcohol use can place an individual at high risk for withdrawal symptoms including seizure, which causes sudden loss of consciousness.

21The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), Chapter 15.6.3, which states that all drivers suffering from substance use disorder, including alcohol, may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained for twelve months. It also states that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

22Section 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.

23The Registrar’s representative explained that the Registrar also relies on an internal policy, which stipulates that persons suffering from severe alcohol use disorder must be abstinent from alcohol for a minimum of six months in order to be considered for earlier re-licensing.

24The appellant’s position is that his alcohol use disorder does not interfere with his ability to drive safely, as he has gone through treatment programs and counselling and is more aware and in control of his alcohol intake.

25The appellant was forthcoming that in April of 2025, while he was “in the grips of addiction”, he had backed his car out of his driveway to complete some yard work while under the influence of alcohol and hit a parked vehicle. He was charged for driving under the influence. He acknowledged that this was a serious mistake which he regrets.

26After he was charged, he was required to drive with an interlock device from July until September 2025 and to complete the “Back on Track” program and the SOAR Community Services addiction day program.

27The appellant testified that he remained abstinent from alcohol for a six-month period from April until October of 2025, when he returned to drinking alcohol in controlled amounts. He stated that he decided to begin drinking alcohol again as it was his understanding that once the interlock device was removed, he had successfully completed all the steps required by the Registrar.

28The appellant testified that he now consumes, on average, 1-2 alcoholic drinks over the course of a weekend and occasionally during the week. He testified that 6 beers or a bottle of wine last him a few days. He indicated that he considers this to be an “acceptable level” of alcohol and is consistent with his goals for alcohol use.

29The appellant pointed to the September 11, 2025 narrative letter from his family physician, Dr. Bell, to support his position. On that letter, the physician wrote that she was aware that the appellant has returned to consuming alcohol in smaller and controlled quantities and she wrote, “I have no concerns with his driving safety.”

30I acknowledge that the appellant has put forth significant efforts in addressing his alcohol use disorder. However, it is concerning that the appellant continues to drink alcohol despite a severe alcohol use disorder. More concerning is the evidence of driving under the influence in April of 2025 and, on review of the appellant’s extended driver record submitted by the Registrar, I note that there is also a prior offence of driving with blood alcohol content in excess of 0.08 in 2023.

31Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards and every case must be considered on its own merits, I find the CCMTA Standards reasonable and have considered them here. Chapter 15.6.3 states that all drivers suffering from substance use disorder, including alcohol, may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained for twelve months, and that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a rehabilitation program.

32Although the appellant has a physician’s endorsement supporting a return to driving, that endorsement is approximately 8 months old at the time of the hearing. The endorsement does not satisfy the central requirements of the CCMTA standards, which is sustained remission or abstinence. Currently, there is no period of abstinence, and while the appellant testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol for a six-month period from April until October 2025, that is contradicted in the August 10, 2025 SUA and the September 11, 2025 letter from Dr. Bell, which both indicate that the appellant was not abstinent.

33I accept the Registrar’s submission that a period of abstinence from alcohol is a reasonable requirement in the interest of public road safety.

34I 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

35I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

36For 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.