Jeffrey Campbell

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class AZ driver's licence due to a mental health condition (bipolar disorder).

The Registrar argued the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, relying on a recent hospital admission and internal policies requiring a 6-month period of stability.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant has a mental health condition, the Registrar failed to prove it significantly interfered with his driving ability.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's condition was stable, he had insight into his symptoms, and his treating psychiatrist strongly supported his return to driving.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of his driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act, which was imposed after he failed a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluation.

He argued that his ability to drive was not impaired by drugs and that a foot injury and eye irritation impaired his performance on the DRE.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence supporting his claims and that his own testimony of recent illicit drug use, combined with the DRE officer's observations of impairment, supported the suspension.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her husband took the keys from her closet without her consent while she was caring for their children.

The Tribunal accepted her credible testimony that she had explicitly forbidden him from driving the vehicle and had no reason to expect he would take it.

Applying the definition from Marshall, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant had experienced three seizures with loss of consciousness and was diagnosed with probable epilepsy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition of seizures was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, noting that his condition was still being investigated and he continued to experience auras.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by verbally confirming the driver's licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his contracting business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to independently verify the licence status and that he had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence in verifying his licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take all reasonable steps to confirm the licence status immediately before allowing him to drive.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, specifically the school bus she drove for work.