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
Section 2(h) of the Saferoads Regulations should be used to challenge the non-disclosure of the existence of a relevant record. See the argument below under the lawyer’s corner.
2. SafeRoads Alberta Review
Obscured and Undermined the Right to a roadside appeal “RA”. The officer did everything right except he also said the following when offering the RA, “[if] the result was the same, it would confirm the sample, and this would be additional evidence against her”. This instruction was fatal as it undermined the RA. See (Re) Worku, September 26, 2025, C00391145A at para 18.
If the police do not issue a NAP first and proceed with an RA, they run the risk of cancellation of the NAP unless they can demonstrate that specific details regarding how they explained the nature and purpose of the NAP. (Re) Pagenkppf October 14, 2025 C00395743. paras 13-15.
3. Court Watch
R. v. Rakrha, 2025 ABKB 564 – BIG Decision! Jordan applies to all regulatory offences.
At para 8:
For the following reasons:
(a)The Crown’s appeal is dismissed.
(b)The Decision is upheld, and the judicial stay of proceedings for Mr. Rakhra’s traffic tickets is confirmed.
(c)The Crown’s request for a declaration is granted, with the following declarations issued:
(i)The Jordan framework is currently the sole legal framework for assessing unreasonable delay for all offences that fall under section 11(b) of the Charter, which offences are determined by applying either the “criminal in nature” branch or the “true penal consequences” branch of the Wigglesworth Test.
(ii)Section 11(b) of the Charter applies to all offences under Parts 2 and 3 of POPA, as their processes are criminal in nature, in accordance with the first branch of the Wigglesworth Test.
(iii)The Jordan framework and presumptive ceilings apply to all offences under Parts 2 and 3 POPA, as those offences are covered by section 11(b)Charter protections and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
(d)The transitional provisions in Jordan, as further explained in Cody, apply in these circumstances with necessary modifications, including reading the release of Jordan as the release of these Reasons.
(e)Accordingly, for cases under Part 2 and Part 3 POPA currently in the system, the Jordan framework must be applied flexibly and contextually, based on the transitional provisions in Jordan as further explained in Cody, with due sensitivity to the parties’ reliance on the previous state of the law before the release of these Reasons.
4. Lawyer’s Corner
Here’s a tip courtesy from Rory Ziv
If you are arguing that the blood results taken from a client have not been disclosed pursuant to section 2 (h) of the Saferoads Regulation, argue in the alternative, section 2(g) that the Director must advise you if a sample taken for analysis has or has not been analysed. I enclose a copy of my argument on this point.
Technically, a counterargument could be made that results only need to be provided if they have been analysed, but this is not what the Saferoad cases above say, and more importantly, there is nothing on the record to suggest they have not been analysed. The only person who would have this information (whether the blood results have been analysed) is the police.
Therefore, if they have not been analysed, the police are at least required to provide this information to the Director under section 2(h) (any other relevant records) of the Alta Reg 224/2020.
Authority for this proposition is found in Smith v Director ABKB 435 at para 83, where police were required to advise if a video did exist (video disclosure is legislatively suspended at the moment), but the principle is the same. It is only the police who know, or can know, whether relevant evidence exists or does not exist (like blood results), and this fact must be disclosed. See also Gordey v Director 2023 ABKB 228 at para 51, where the existence or nonexistence of relevant notes must be disclosed.
Likewise, so must the existence or nonexistence of blood results.
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.