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
Here is one you may never see again: Davis (Re), July 22, 2025, C00316934A, NAP not served.
In this case, the motorist was stopped and a breath sample was demanded. After the officer told him to quit “messing around” by failing to provide a suitable sample, the motorist drove off without the police officer’s permission and before the officer could serve him the NAP.
The officer issued a NAP but did not serve the Recipient. The NAP was overturned after a late appeal was granted because the NAP was not served, and there were other modes of service available.
3. Court Watch
R. v. Thompson, 2025 ABCA 262, self-represented person applying for a stay pending appeal. While the application is not granted, the court did say at paras 11 and 12:
The applicant argues that the harm caused to her personally by the penalties “far outweighs any inconvenience to SafeRoads Alberta.” Courts are concerned about the public interest at the balance of convenience, and certainly judicial notice has been taken of the substantial risks and societal harm associated with impaired driving.
What needs to be weighed is whether the licensee has taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk to the public while legal rights are exercised. One of the considerations is that the respondent has indicated that the applicant could enroll in the IMPACT programme and install an interlock device in her vehicle, and could apply, once she has done that, to the Registrar to set aside her suspension. There are these steps that can be taken. There is no evidence that the applicant has pursued that option.
I am concerned that the IMPACT course may not be accessible without undue delay. If an interlock device alleviates the court’s concern, can it be voluntarily installed? What other things could be done to mitigate risk? Weekly alcohol test? How would it be monitored and by whom? Perhaps the Director through Saferoads’ lawyers?
Rennenberg v Director, 2025 ABKC 386 (Judicial Review allowed in part, J. Leonard)
A police officer was investigating a hit-and-run. He knocked on a residential door where he suspected the driver might be. An occupant of the home opened the door, and the officer explained to him why he was at the door (that he was investigating a hit-and-run). The occupant said, “It was me”.
The ruling on this point at paras 33 and 34 was:
The Adjudicator reasonably found that Cst. Jeha was engaged in parallel criminal and regulatory investigations. However, the Adjudicator did not consider whether Cst. Jeha followed the requirements of both paths: Ricard v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABKB 470 at para 15, citing Fish v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABKB 213 at para 49. The Adjudicator made a finding that Cst. Jeha did not inform the Applicant of her Charter s 10(b) rights immediately upon arrest. However, they did not consider that the duty to inform the Applicant of that right was a requirement of the criminal investigation.
The Adjudicator reasonably found that the Applicant was not advised of her Charter 10(b) rights at any point. However, the Adjudicator did not grapple with the potential impact of not being advised of that right or whether it resulted in egregious unfairness. The Adjudicator did not consider whether Cst. Jeha could have informed the Applicant of her Charter s 10(b) rights at any point between the arrest and the ASD Demand. They did not consider whether Cst. Jeha relied on the Applicant’s admission to form his grounds for the ASD Demand, or if he did rely on that admission, whether it was unfair for him to have done so. Nor did they consider whether Cst. Jeha’s grounds were objectively reasonable without the admission. The Adjudicator’s failure to grapple with these issues makes the decision unreasonable.
4. Lawyer’s Corner
What happens if your client is served an NAP and the officer does not upload the NAP to the portal (notify Saferoads within 7 days)? There appears to be legislative silence on this issue.
I would appreciate any feedback on this issue.
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.