Legal Insights, Case Trends & Updates from Ziv Law Group
[A CanLIIDocs citation will be assigned by CanLII and displayed here]
Rory Ziv, B.A. (hons), L.L.B., L.L.M.
Brett Leon Van Damme, B.A., J.D
September 2, 2026
This Week’s Highlights
- New legislation came into force on September 1, 2026 regarding the Director’s requirement to disclose video or audio recordings to a Recipient upon review. The important aspects of the regulation are:
- 1. A video can include a transcript of a video and not the video itself. (See Reg 52/2026, s 3(ii).); and
- 2. The Director is not required to tell you if a video exists. (See Reg 52/2026, s 3(iii).)
- Section 87.1(2) of the Traffic Safety Act defines a category of vehicles that are not to be considered motor vehicles pursuant to the Traffic Safety Act, pursuant to the following requirements:
- They are only operated by one person and only carrying that one person; and
- They do not exceed a maximum speed of 30km/h during operation.
The types of vehicles this exception applies to include:
- Electric scooters;
- Electric bicycles;
- Electric personal assistive mobility devices; and
- Other vehicles prescribed by regulation.
1. Legislative Scheme
Videos must be disclosed again, with some exceptions
You may recall that in Smit v Director, 2023 ABKB 435 the court concluded at para 83:
…it is my view that the common law principles of fairness require the disclosure of any existing video or audio recordings to applicants seeking license suspension reviews before SafeRoads Adjudicators, or advice that no such recordings exist. Such proceedings engage important interests, and turn upon individual responsibility for the commission of criminal conduct. Given that the use of such evidence aids in the search for truth, enhances the acceptability of administrative action, and costs little to produce, share, and review, its exclusion from SafeRoads adjudications is unfair.
[emphasis added]
Because of this ruling, Alberta legislatively modified the disclosure requirements as follows:
Alta Reg 224/2020
Exception
2.1(1) For greater certainty, notwithstanding section 2(h), the Director is not required to
(a) provide photographs, video or audio recordings, or any transcript created from video or audio recordings, if any, to a recipient, or
(b) confirm whether or not any records exist except those provided by the Director under section 2.
(2) This section expires on August 31, 2026
AR 111/2023 s3; 116/2023; 182/2025
[emphasis added]
A new regulation came into force on September 1, 2026 (attached at the end of the newsletter). The important aspects of the regulation are as follows:
- A video can include a transcript of the video and not the video itself (See Reg 52/2026, s 3(ii).)
The Director is not required to tell you if a video exists. (See Reg 52/2026, s. 3(3).)
2. Lawyer’s Corner
So, in Smit, the Court held that a video must be provided if one exists. The legislature responded by suspending the video disclosure requirement. That suspension has expired.
The new legislation seems to have been written with the purpose of allowing for the non-disclosure of a video if a police officer remains silent as to the existence or non-existence of a video.
My initial thoughts are that this drafting has a ‘bad faith’ feeling to it. Regardless, what if your client swears that he was being video recorded because he saw it and/or the police officer told him the same?
If you can demonstrate that a video does exist, is the Director at fault for not providing you with a video?
These are issues that are going to be litigated.
3. NAP Review
C00505024A – D. Hill
This review concerns itself with how the ‘Immediate Roadside Sanction’ (IRS) program applies to electronic bikes (e-bikes).
Facts
On August 5, 2026 around 11:20pm, Cst. Rinke, a Calgary Police Service peace officer, was dispatched to a traffic complaint regarding an e-bike doing wheelies up and down the transit line at the intersection of 7 Ave, and 4 Street SW, Calgary AB. Cst. Rinke’s investigation resulted in the issuance of a ‘Notice of Administrative Penalty’ (NAP) on the following grounds under sections 88(1)(1)(a) and (b) of the Traffic Safety Act (TSA):
- 88(1)(1)(a): the Recipient operated a motor vehicle while the Recipient’s ability to do so was impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug (“Impaired Operation”); and
- 88(1)(1)(b): the Recipient had within 2 hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) that is equal to or exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (mg%) (“BAC-Over)”
One ground for cancellation of the NAP set out in this review was that the recipient did not operate a motor vehicle under 4(e)(i) & 4(f)(i) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulations.
Counsel argued that an e-bike does not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” pursuant to 87.1(2)(a) of the TSA, which excludes an e-bike from the definition of “motor vehicle” where it is operated by one person, carries only that person, and does not exceed 30km/h at time of operation. Counsel submits there is no evidence that more than one person was on the e-bike or that it exceeded 30 km/h. The allegation that the operator was performing wheelies does not establish the bike exceeded a speed of 30km/h.
The Recipient provided an affidavit of which the relevant portions are:
- He has since learned from counsel that the e-bike he was riding is not classified as a motor vehicle per the TSA;
- To the best of the Recipient’s knowledge, the e-bike was purchased at a bike store and is not a motorcycle.
- He does not dispute operating an e-bike that day, but did not exceed 30km/h;
Analysis
In determining the nature of the vehicle, the Adjudicator referred to section 87.1(2)(a) which provides:
87.1(2) In this section and sections 88, 88.01, 88.02, 88.03, 88.1 and 88.11,
(a) “motor vehicle” does not include an electric scooter, electric bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device or other vehicle prescribed by regulation:
(i) operated by one person and carrying only that person, and
(ii) not exceeding 30 kilometres per hour at the time of operation;
In this instance, the Adjudicator found the Recipient’s e-bike to fall under this exemption.
The Adjudicator found there to be insufficient evidence in this case to establish that anyone other than the alleged operator was riding or being carried on the e-bike. Likewise, they found insufficient evidence to establish that the e-bike exceeded a speed of 30km/h at any time during the alleged operation.
As such, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Recipient had established they were not actually driving a motor vehicle on a balance of probabilities. Having established this ground to cancel, the Adjudicator cancelled the NAP.
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.