Theodore Crljenica

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her ex-spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was limited to the issue of exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a single mother on maternity leave, argued the impoundment caused hardship regarding groceries and medical appointments for her children.

The Tribunal found she had not established exceptional hardship, as she was able to borrow her parents' vehicles and had not exhausted all reasonable alternatives.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded when the appellant's nephew, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by entrusting the vehicle to a licensed friend of the nephew, with the understanding that only the friend would drive.

The Tribunal held that due diligence must relate to the person actually driving at the time of impoundment, not the person to whom the vehicle was entrusted.

The appellant also claimed exceptional hardship due to his mental health issues and inability to visit family, but the Tribunal found he failed to establish that no reasonable alternatives existed or that the impoundment posed a threat to his health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's cousin was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives for transportation to his university classes and employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the inconvenience and financial burden did not meet the strict regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.