This Week’s Highlights
- Legislative Scheme and Important Precedent-Setting Cases
- SafeRoads Alberta: Appeal outcomes & procedural trends
- Court Watch: Noteworthy Alberta court rulings
- Lawyer’s Corner: Practical tips & legal strategies
1. Legislative Scheme
A) Alert: Section 2.1 of Alta Reg 224/2020 has been extended for another year—new expiry date July 31, 2026.
B) Remember while legislation may prevail over the common law, “it must be presumed that a legislature does not intend to change existing common law rules in the absence of a clear provision to that effect” (Basque, at para. 40, quoting Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 521, at para. 56)
2. SafeRoads Alberta Review
Wiebe (Re), 2025 ABSRA 1786, in this case, the NAP was cancelled because the Officer failed to advise the Recipient in writing of the right to a roadside appeal pursuant to section 4(f)(viii) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.
Without evidence of Cst. White providing the NAP to the Recipient to read for herself and failing to state he provided her with the full particulars of the contents of the NAP verbally, including the full extent of the driver’s licence suspension and the fine, I am not satisfied Cst. White complied with the findings in both the decisions of Lawrence and Lausen, where it was ultimately found that, in following the legislative scheme, the information regarding the NAP and the right to a roadside appeal must be provided prior to the decision to undertake a roadside appeal.
3. Court Watch
Ross v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2025 ABKB 509, NAP upheld after the Court determined the Director is only required to disclose that which is relevant and necessary to determine the NAP.
In this case, the Adjudicator determined that, notwithstanding non-disclosure of the recording, the Applicant was not prejudiced or unable to make a proper defence against the NAP. The Applicant was given fair notice of the issues facing him and was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those issues before an unbiased adjudicator. That decision was reasonable. Further, non-disclosure of audio and/or video recordings did not result in procedural unfairness to the Applicant at the NAP hearing. The Adjudicator did not have access to or rely on any audio and/or video recording during the NAP review, nor did the Director seek to rely on such evidence in the face of non-disclosure to the Applicant: Babyn at para 55.
NEXT WEEK: R v Emereuwa, 2025 SKCA 83, which concerns itself with the mens rea for failing to comply with a breath demand.
4. Lawyer’s Corner
My preference is to prepare written submissions when arguing before an adjudicator. I am not aware of any reason why an oral hearing cannot be supplemented with written material if timelines are followed. Sometimes, a sympathetic or believable client may warrant an oral hearing. In (Re) Nwankwo, August 21, 2025, C00376025A, a NAP was overturned because of a language barrier issue.
At paras 16, “throughout the Review … the Recipient appeared genuine and forthcoming”. At para 22, “it is not clear to me that the Recipient would have understood the legal consequences of not complying without some form of translation.”
Bonus Resources
- SafeRoads Alberta Portal: https://saferoads.alberta.ca
- Alberta Government – Impaired Driving Laws: https://www.alberta.ca/impaired-driving
- CanLII: Key Impaired Driving Cases in Alberta: https://www.canlii.org
Get in Touch
Have a case, ruling, or resource to share?
Featured Firm
Rory Ziv and Ziv Law Group are Alberta’s trusted impaired driving lawyers, focused on defending Immediate Roadside Sanctions (IRS) and criminal impaired charges across the province. Known for their deep understanding of both administrative and criminal impaired driving law, they deliver rigorous defence strategies and timely appeal filings.