The accused was issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) after refusing to provide a breath sample during a motor vehicle collision investigation. The case was dismissed because a video was not provided by the police.
In Comeau v. Alberta, 2023 ABKB 722, the defendant was issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) by an RCMP Constable after refusing to provide a breath sample during a motor vehicle collision investigation. An Adjudicator confirmed the NAP, prompting the defendant’s judicial review application.
Rory Ziv challenged the Adjudicator’s decision on two grounds:
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench quashed the Adjudicator’s decision and cancelled the NAP. While the Court found the timing discrepancies did not breach disclosure obligations under the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act and SafeRoads Alberta Regulation, it determined the Director’s failure to inquire about or produce the video violated section 2(h) of the regulation.
The Court established that video evidence in police possession must be disclosed as “relevant and necessary” records under the SafeRoads regime, but limited this obligation to videos actually possessed by police, not third-party videos never obtained by officers.
The NAP was cancelled, and the matter was not remitted back for reconsideration since the breach mandated cancellation under the regulation.
