Legal Insights, Case Trends & Updates from Rory Ziv
Rory Ziv, B.A. (hons), L.L.B., L.L.M.
March 13, 2026
This Week’s Highlights
- Ambiguities and lack of detail in officer narratives regarding content and timing of roadside appeal advice may result in an Adjudicator being unable to conclude that the statutory requirements for advising a Recipient of a roadside appeal have been met.
1. NAP Review
Young-Dekelver (Re), 2026 ABSRA 349 (CanLII)
This matter concerns the review of a NAP where the Recipient says they were not informed of the right to a roadside appeal, and the officer says they were. The Adjudicator agreed with the Recipient on the basis of ambiguity regarding the timeline of events making it impossible to determine when the Recipient was informed.
Facts
On January 27, 2026, Cst. Ling conducted a traffic stop on the Recipient on Highway 16A, at or near Parkland County, Alberta. The ensuing investigation resulted in Cst. Ling issuing a NAP to the recipient for impaired operation.
Cst. Ling’s narrative reads as follows:
“Vehicle observed travelling on black gold drive towards rolleyview road with a headlamp defect. Member conducted a road side stop. Notified the driver of the reason for the stop and read MAS demand. Result fail and road side appeal denied by the driver. Vehicle seized and towed for 30 days. APIS completed.”
While it appears as if the Recipient was offered and declined the roadside appeal, the Recipient remained adamant that he was never offered a second test.
Ruling
On January 27, 2026, Cst. Ling conducted a traffic stop on the Recipient on Highway 16A, at or near Parkland County, Alberta. The ensuing investigation resulted in Cst. Ling issuing a NAP to the recipient for impaired operation.
Cst. Ling’s narrative reads as follows:
“Vehicle observed travelling on black gold drive towards rolleyview road with a headlamp defect. Member conducted a road side stop. Notified the driver of the reason for the stop and read MAS demand. Result fail and road side appeal denied by the driver. Vehicle seized and towed for 30 days. APIS completed.”
While it appears as if the Recipient was offered and declined the roadside appeal, the Recipient remained adamant that he was never offered a second test.
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.