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
IRS Lawyers, please note: The Alta Regulation 224/2020 section 2.1 is set to expire on 31, 2025. If this section is not renewed, then the Director will be required to provide video, audio recordings and photographs.
2. SafeRoads Alberta Review
July 25, 2025
C. Typair v Director, C0036905, in this case, the calibration sticker had to have calibration dates on it and no expiry date. The adjudicator refused to infer the expiry date following Korecki (QB).
Nothing unusual about this case, except why does a preprinted sticker have two calibration dates and no expiry date? This is strange. The adjudicator follows Korecki (QB), “there is no reason why the adjudicator should have to infer a fact … especially in light of the legislation specifically stating that it is to be provided …”
J. Martin v Director, C00368830A, in this case, the officer says he gave the NAP for review and then advised of the RA and the RA was done, which resulted in a fail. The Recipient and another witness say the RA was done before the NAP was issued. No evidence was provided by the officer regarding the fullness of the RA process. The Recipient did the RA because he believed he would not be charged criminally, not because a NAP was issued. The evidence of the Recipient was preferred to that of the officer.
Russel v Director, C00366682A, the Recipient was not provided with the required records under s 2(h) of the Alta Reg 224/2020. The officer (#1) who observed the driving pattern did not provide notes, although he relayed that information to officer #2, who used that information to form grounds. Strict application of Gordey v. Director, 2023 ABKB 228.
3. Court Watch
Montpetit v Director 2025 ABCA 154
Can a reviewing Justice allow consideration of new issues not raised before an adjudicator? The answer is yes, but usually only in exceptional circumstances. The discretion to hear a new issue is concerned with “whether it would be inappropriate to do so”.
Factors to consider are listed in paragraphs 10, 11 of the decision. A rereview was not allowed because the opposing party would have been unfairly prejudiced because of an insufficient record in the circumstances.
Kanzasha v Director 2025 ABQB 428
A lot is going on in this decision. Photos of ASDs were provided, but no notes that confirmed the ASDs were the ones used (para20). The photos were a sufficient substitute so that 2(h) was not violated—decision reasonable (paras 34, 47, 49).
The second issue was the validity of the RA. Nice summary of how evidentiary assessments must be conducted (para 42).
4. Lawyer’s Corner
The Director is required to provide their materials no later than 4 days before the review. Anything provided inside that date cannot be used. See Saferoads Alberta terms and conditions section 19(a) and Ho (Re) C0053706A at para 15.
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.