Robert Storie v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 8177

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18099/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:

Robert Storie

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Robert Storie, Appellant

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Held by teleconference: January 5, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Robert Storie (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 an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (MCR) from a physician stating 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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles 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 two medical conditions, namely provoked seizure with no structural brain abnormality and seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, and that they are 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 does not deny that he has suffered two seizures, due to alcohol withdrawal and a traumatic brain injury. He denies that either medical condition 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.

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. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

a. Did the appellant suffer from a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

b. Did the appellant suffer from a provoked seizure without a structural brain abnormality?

ii. If so, are either of these conditions 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." The Registrar does not need to prove that both medical conditions exist; proving that one of the conditions exists and is likely to significantly interfere with safe driving will be sufficient to meet the Registrar's burden.

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 seizure due to alcohol withdrawal 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.

11As the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence has been confirmed for one of the medical conditions, it is unnecessary to determine a decision on the remaining medical condition.

ANALYSIS

Did the appellant suffer from a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

12The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

13The Registrar submitted that the appellant first came to their attention when they received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (MCR) dated October 2, 2025, from family physician Dr. M. Dr. M reported the appellant suffered from three medical conditions: alcohol dependence, seizure – cerebral, and seizure – alcohol related. Dr. M added the narrative comments that the appellant had an alcohol related fall on September 12, 2025, resulting in a significant head injury with brain contusions/bleeding and subsequently had two seizures during his admission to hospital. Dr. M documented that the seizures were likely due to alcohol withdrawal and traumatic brain injury.

14Dr. M additionally submitted a consultation note from neurologist Dr. D dated September 30, 2025. Dr. D documented that the appellant had suffered two seizures back-to-back which occurred 24 hrs from his last drink of alcohol. The note documents further that the appellant has a past history of alcohol use disorder and was drinking heavily 8-10 drinks daily up until the day prior to the seizures. She further documents the etiology of the seizures was likely related to alcohol withdrawal and traumatic hemorrhagic contusions.

15Upon receipt of this information, the Registrar suspended the appellant's driver's licence and requested completion of a Seizure and Loss of Consciousness (LOC) form and a Substance Use Assessment form.

16The appellant submitted the Seizure and LOC form and the Substance Use Assessment form completed by Dr. M on November 28, 2025. Dr. M documented the appellant had been diagnosed with severe substance use disorder due to alcohol, suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal and a traumatic brain injury, had abstained from alcohol for less than three months and was receiving ongoing treatment.

17The appellant further submitted a letter from treating psychotherapist Ms. DB dated December 2, 2025. Ms. DB documented she met the appellant on October 14, 2025, had met with him five times and found him to be engaged and committed to improving his health and quality of life.

18The appellant also submitted a narrative letter from treating neurologist Dr. D who indicated the appellant had been treated with an anti-epileptic medication following two seizures which were provoked in the context of alcohol withdrawal and a traumatic brain injury with hemorrhagic contusions. She documented the risk of seizure recurrence was low and she would support reducing driving restrictions to three months if he remains compliant with the anticonvulsant and addictions counseling with ongoing sobriety.

19Upon receipt of these forms the Registrar kept the appellant's driving privileges under suspension and requested confirmation that he remained seizure free and abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year, but that this period could be reduced to six months if a healthcare practitioner confirms successful completion of an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of driving privilege.

20The appellant testified that he had attended several appointments with a neurologist and undergone medical investigations such as a CT scan and EEG and was attending counseling for alcohol use. The appellant did not dispute he had had two seizures or that alcohol withdrawal or his brain injury had been contributing factors. The appellant however testified he did not have any outstanding medical issues, epilepsy has been ruled out, and he does not have any lingering health issues. He testified the larger issue is his alcohol use, and he has done everything he can to address this including attending AA meetings, attending counseling and taking medication.

21Under cross-examination, the appellant testified that on the evening he suffered a traumatic brain injury, he had consumed beer and wine while both cooking dinner and watching television afterwards, and then tripped and fell down the stairs. He was transferred to hospital via ambulance where he received medical care and was then transferred to a larger hospital with more specialized care for further investigations and management. While in hospital he suffered two seizures witnessed by medical personnel. He was admitted to hospital for five days and given alcohol during his recovery to reduce the risk of further alcohol withdrawal seizures. He testified he had been abstinent since that time.

22Under cross-examination, the appellant testified that his last period of abstinence was prior to 2020 and since then he has consumed alcohol regularly, usually beer and wine, approximately 8-10 drinks per day but this may depend on day. Following his seizures he sought out assistance with a counselor which he has found very helpful.

23Medical evidence from two different physicians confirms the appellant has suffered from two seizures, with alcohol withdrawal being a provoking factor in precipitating the seizures. The appellant's testimony supports this medical evidence. Based on the information available, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

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

24I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's medical condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

25The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, in particular Chapters 17.6.3 (Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures) and 15.6.3 (Substance Use Disorder). Chapter 17.6.3 provides that all drivers are eligible for a licence if:

i. The treating physician has confirmed that the cause of the seizure was alcohol withdrawal (i.e., the driver is not epileptic)

ii. They have undergone addiction treatment and have received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor;

iii. And the criteria for licence reinstatement are met in accordance with the Substance Use Disorder Standard (see 15.6.3).

26Chapter 15 describes substance use disorders in general and the concerns with driving safely with respect to those conditions. Specifically Standard 15.6.3 states that drivers who are under the influence of alcohol would be eligible for a licence if they:

i. Meet the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.

ii. Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

iii. The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.

iv. Where required a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

27The CCMTA Standards indicate that seizures, such as the type of seizure the appellant is reported to have suffered, cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving and 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.

28The Registrar submitted that a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal and a seizure related to a traumatic brain injury can and will interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle and the Registrar did take the correct action in suspending the appellant's driver's licence. The Registrar submits that while the appellant has begun receiving treatment for the alcohol use, there is no indication that he has completed a treatment program or that six months of abstinence have been met. The Registrar submitted that their decision is reasonable and in line with the national medical standards, and on the balance of probabilities, the medical evidence supports that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely

29Section 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 are not bound by them.

30Under cross-examination, the appellant questioned the Registrar, stating that he had been attending addiction counseling and questioned why that was not considered an alcohol treatment program. The Registrar clarified that their concern was that there was no indication that a treatment program had been completed.

31The appellant argued that he does not have a medical condition that will impair his ability to drive safely. The appellant testified as to the hardships of not having a driver's licence which is required in order to run his business and look after his family. He testified that he is prepared to comply with any conditions that may assist with reinstating his licence.

32The appellant testified that he has attended regular meetings with psychotherapist Ms. DB who has been very helpful, and counseling has been a positive experience.

33Under cross-examination, the appellant reported that he continues to take anti-seizure medication prescribed by Dr. D. He has an outstanding MRI appointment following which he will see Dr. D again. He receives support for his alcohol use from Dr. M who prescribes naltrexone. He sees psychotherapist Ms. DB every week or two for counseling. He testified his treatment for alcohol use disorder provided by Dr. M and Ms. DB is ongoing with no end date planned for the medication or psychotherapy. Due to the benefits he has noted, he plans to continue with Ms. DB for a year or more.

34I considered the appellant's position that his medical condition will not impact his ability to drive safely. However, this is weighed against the scientific research that alcohol impairs a driver's judgement, reflex control, alertness and coordination which can impair driving performance, as well as that generalized tonic-clonic seizures can result in complete incapacitation without the ability to compensate.

35While I acknowledge that Dr. D supports a reduction of the driving restriction to three months, her recommendation is expressly conditional upon the appellant's compliance with taking his anti-convulsant, participating in addictions counseling and sustained sobriety. At the time of the hearing, the medical evidence establishes less than three months of sobriety, and no support for early reinstatement from either Dr. M or Ms. DB, who are providing the pharmacological and psychological support for the appellant's alcohol use disorder.

36I accept that Dr. D's opinion is relevant to the appellant's seizure due to his traumatic brain injury and that management of further risk of seizure from traumatic brain injury is through adherence to anti-convulsant medication, which she prescribes. However, I do not find Dr. D's recommendation persuasive or relevant with respect to the appellant's risk of alcohol-withdrawal seizure. The management of that risk rests with Dr. M and Ms. DB, who are treating the appellant's alcohol use disorder through naltrexone therapy and addictions counseling, and they have not provided any comments at all regarding reinstatement of the appellant's driver's licence.

37While I commend the appellant for his commitment to sobriety, I have considered that there is a several year history of heavy alcohol consumption. I also further considered that substance use disorders are chronic relapsing disorders that often require long term pharmacological and psychosocial interventions to prevent relapse. For these reasons, I agree with the CCMTA Standards that require both a demonstrated period of abstinence and a treatment program be completed to consider early reinstatement. The appellant has attended appointments with Ms. DB, but only submitted medical evidence of attending five appointments and testified as to several cancelations, including Ms. DB being away for two weeks in December, and upcoming family commitments requiring cancelations on his behalf. I also acknowledge that the appellant has been abstinent for only one quarter of the time that is required under the CCMTA Standards.

38The CCMTA Standards indicate that seizures must be controlled as a prerequisite to driving and the purpose of a seizure free period for a provoked seizure is to establish that the likelihood that the provoking factor has been successfully treated or stabilized. As alcohol use is the provoking factor in this scenario, I am concerned that the process of changing a habit of many years can be very difficult; the appellant has not completed a treatment program, and the appellant does not have support from his addiction counselor for reinstatement of his driver's licence. Given the complete incapacitation experienced when having a seizure, I accept and apply the CCMTA guidance that having a period of stability of the provoking factor of a seizure is reasonable, and at only a quarter of the recommended period of abstinence passing, I find this to be a relatively short period of time, and insufficient to set aside the suspension in the absence of support from a healthcare provider treating his alcohol use disorder.

39Although not bound by the CCMTA Standards, the Tribunal may consider them when making the decision for the reason that these Standards are the result of a lengthy and intensive process to provide medical standards based on the best evidence available and with a focus on functional ability to drive rather than exclusively on medical diagnoses. While each appeal including this one must be judged on its own merits, I am persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards here. My review of the evidence shows that the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA Standards have not been met.

40As 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

41I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, and that condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

42As the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence has been confirmed for seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, it is unnecessary to determine a decision on the remaining medical condition.

ORDER

43For 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.