Legal Insights, Case Trends & Updates from Rory Ziv
Rory Ziv, B.A. (hons), L.L.B., L.L.M.
March 6, 2026
This Week’s Highlights
- Uploading a corrected NAP to the online Portal does not exempt officers from serving a valid NAP on the Recipient.
1. NAP Review
C00441232A Billings Review
This matter concerns a NAP where the initial NAP had the incorrect occurrence date. While Section 3(2) of
PAPR, states that information uploaded to the Portal forms part of the NAP, the Adjudicator found providing a corrected NAP to the portal does not exempt officers from serving a valid NAP on the Recipient.Facts
Around 10:20pm on February 1, 2026, Cst. Bear responded to a possible impaired driver complaint near Mountain View County, Alberta. The investigation led Cst. Bear to issue a NAP to the Recipient for ‘Impaired Operation’ and for exceeding 80mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
On February 4, 2026 the Recipient applied for an oral review of the NAP on the following grounds:
- Sections 4(e)(ii) and 4(f)(ii): that a NAP was not served on the Recipient.
Counsel argued that the NAP initially provided to the Recipient was not valid because it had an incorrect occurrence date. Counsel further submitted that the Recipient had not been served with the corrected NAP.
Police efforts to re-serve the corrected NAP included the following by Cst. Gargallo
- Attending the Recipient’s address on the following day. No one was present so the police attended the Recipient’s uncle’s address, who informed the police that he had not seen the Recipient for years; and
- Attending the address where Recipient was dropped off after investigation, JR Mechanical. A ‘Property rep’ stated that the Recipient does not live there but does work for JR Mechanical.
Cst. Gargallo’s final notes in his report are that he could not locate the Recipient.
After these attempts, Cst. Bear provided a report concluding that the Recipient had lied about their address and that the address he was given a courtesy ride to was his workplace. Cst. Bear went on to conclude that the owner of JR Mechanical told Cst. Gargallo that the Recipient did not have permission to enter after hours.
In response, the Recipient swore an affidavit disputing ever lying about his address. The Recipient provided that the address police had, which was also on his license, is the same address he has lived at for 10 years and remains the same. While the house is undergoing renovations, the Recipient provided that they still go there during the daytime and sometimes in the evenings. The Recipient stated that it would be unreasonable to change his address for a 3-month renovation, so while he is not sleeping there, he is still collecting his mail.
JR, the owner of JR Mechanical, also provided an affidavit confirming that the Recipient works at JR Mechanical and had called him on the night of the occurrence to stay with him, and that he had said yes. JR advised that if the police had contacted him inquiring about the Recipient’s whereabouts he would have been able to answer any questions or accept service of legal documents on his behalf. JR states that the officer spoke with his parents, who reside in a different house on the property, and as such, would not have known the Recipient was staying in JR’s house the night prior.
Officers had also uploaded the corrected NAP to the online Portal.
Ruling
The Adjudicator agreed with Counsel that the police could have easily served the corrected NAP on the recipient but did not make much of an effort in doing so.
They found no evidence that any of the officers even tried calling the Recipient or asked anyone they spoke with for the Recipient’s phone number. Knowing that the Recipient was employed at JR Mechanical, the police could have called them and spoke with JR directly for information rather than a ‘property rep’. Finally, they found no evidence that the police tried mailing the corrected NAP to the recipient at his indicated address.
The Adjudicator also found that while a copy of the corrected NAP was uploaded to the online Portal, which is available to the recipient, but did not accept that this exempted officers from serving a valid NAP just because they uploaded the correct information to the Portal. (see paragraph 19 of decision)
Given that the NAP issued to the Recipient was invalid and that a valid NAP was not subsequently served on the Recipient 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.