This Week’s Highlights
- Unreasonable Decision by an Adjudicator not sent for Rehearing
1. NAP Review
Garcia-Ahmadi v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2026 ABKB 87 (CanLII)
This matter concerns a judicial review of a Saferoads decision. Both parties agreed the decision was unreasonable. The Applicant provided argument at the judicial review as to why the decision was flawed. The Director remained silent as to “why” the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable – just that it was.
Facts
At the time of the incident, the Applicant was found passed out in their car and appeared visibly intoxicated upon being woken up. The officer issued a NAP for impaired driving and asked if the Applicant wanted to provide a breath sample to ‘prove their innocence’, which the Applicant declined. The Applicant was not provided with a copy of the NAP until after this conversation, at which point the NAP was read to him.
The Applicant’s position at the initial hearing was that the Applicant was unaware of the right to a roadside appeal and that the officer did not advise the Applicant in writing of the right to a roadside appeal under section 88.11.
The Adjudicator found that the right to a roadside appeal had been properly provided to the Applicant because “even though it was first offered to him prior to the issuance of the NAP, any defect in that procedure was cured when the officer read the NAP to him later.”
At the judicial review the Director conceded that this decision of the adjudicator was unreasonable but did not state why it took this position. The director argued that a new adjudicator would have different grounds for confirming the right to a roadside appeal was not contravened.
The Director’s position never stated why they agreed the decision was unreasonable.
Both parties held the position that if it is inevitable that the NAP will be cancelled, the matter should not be reheard.
Ruling
The court’s view was that since the issue of why the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable could not be precisely defined (just a concession by the Director that the decision was unreasonable) it was not appropriate to send the matter for re-review (see paras 24, 26).The NAP was cancelled.
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? Contact Us Online
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.