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 14, 2026
This Week’s Highlights
Miller
- When NAPs are created officers have the option to indicate that there is no audio-video disclosure available. Where officers fail to indicate this option, there is a presumption that audio-video disclosure is available and must be provided to the Recipient upon review.
Rose
- Civilian employees signing a supporting documents declaration form (SDDF) on behalf of the officer who issued the NAP cannot rely on information or belief obtained from other officers, because civilian employees are not officers.
- Without evidence establishing a civilian employee was involved in an investigation, that civilian employee cannot have the requisite knowledge required to sign the SDDF with regards to audio-video records required under Section 2(1)(g.1) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.
1. NAP Review
Facts
Section 2 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation (‘Regulation’) outlines the records that must be provided to a Recipient upon review of a Notice of Administrative Penalty. Section 2(1)(g.1) requires the Director to provide the Recipient with any audio-visual record made by an officer in the course of issuing a NAP or any transcripts created from said audio-video record. Failure to provide such records where they exist is a failure on the Director’s part to fulfill record disclosure obligations pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Regulation.
Section 2(3) of the Regulation provides that the Director is not required to determine whether a record required to be provided exists or provide confirmation to the Recipient as to whether it exists.
The interaction between these sections creates a circumstance where the Director is not obligated to inform a Recipient that an audio-video record exists where such a record was not provided. This means that in order to rely on Section 2(1)(g.1) to fight a NAP, the Recipient cannot simply rely on the Director to advise them of an audio-video record’s existence. Rather, the existence of the audio-video record must be established in some other manner.
In Miller, the sole concern was whether audio-video records required to be provided to the Recipient upon review existed or not. The Recipient was not provided with any audio-video records for review and argued they were required in the circumstances.
Analysis
The Adjudicator relied on their knowledge of the SafeRoads Portal and provided that when creating a NAP, an officer is provided the option to indicate that there is no audio-video disclosure available. Where an officer selects this option, that information is available on the Portal.
In Miller, there was no indication from the Portal that there was no audio-video disclosure and the officer did not indicate that no audio-video records existed. As such, given the lack of audio-video records before them, the Adjudicator was satisfied the Recipient had proven the audio-video records required to be provided were not. Given that the Director had not fulfilled their complete disclosure obligations the NAP was cancelled.
C00515373A – Rose
Facts
Rose concerns a NAP in which a ‘Supporting Documents Declaration Form’ (SDDF) was not signed by the issuing officer and instead by a ‘C.C.’ indicated to be an employee of Calgary Police Service. This is not in compliance with the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation (PAPR) and thus should not be admitted. Section 17(2) of PAPR provides that:
“officers may confirm reports, notes, or other documents by signing a statement (SDDF) that the content of the report, notes or other document is true based on the officer’s personal knowledge.”
Given that the SDDF is necessary to authenticate any audio-visual record provided pursuant to section 2(1)(g.1), records that were required were not provided to the Recipient.
Analysis
The SDDF before the Adjudicator was signed by C.C. on behalf of Cst. Milne. The upload of the SDDF was accompanied by a declaration which reads:
I confirm that the contents of the report(s), notes or other documents are true, and any photograph(s), audio recording(s), and video(s) attached have not been altered in any material way. The above confirmation is based on my personal knowledge except in the case of the notes, reports, photos or videos taken or produced by other officers or other persons acting in their professional capacity in which case the confirmation is based on information and belief from that officer or person that the contents of their documents or records are true and any photograph(s) and video(s) attached have not been altered in any material away.
There was no indication before the Adjudicator that C.C. is an officer of any sort. The Adjudicator did not accept that the SDDF provided by C.C. provides the procedural safeguards of Cst. Milne, the author of the document, confirming its contents to be true and accurate. They also rejected the claim that C.C.’s confirmation was based on information and belief received by another officer.
There was no evidence available to suggest C.C. was at all involved in the investigation, and as such the Adjudicator was not satisfied that C.C. had personal knowledge of the audio-visual recording. C.C. was also not an officer that could provide confirmation based on information and belief from other officers. As such, the SDDF signed by C.C. is of no effect and not admissible. Given this, a required document under section 2(1)(g.1) was not provided to the Recipient. This established the ground to cancel the NAP.
2. Lawyer’s Corner
Miller
This is an important decision. It prompted me to review two NAP portals that my office recently completed. One included the question “Audio-Visual Record”; the other did not. According to the decision, that question is generated through a drop-down option (para 9).
More concerning, an ordinary member of the public would not know this without the adjudicator’s specialized knowledge. How would they? Fairness dictates that the challenging party should be able to discern this type of information without having to resort to the “specialized training and knowledge” of an adjudicator. See Schwab v Director 2022 ABQB 244 at para 13. Obviously, this outside knowledge favored the Reciepient on this occasion. In other circumstances it may not be.
This writer is not aware of “all the possible questions” being provided to the public through the technical material library at: https://saferoads.alberta.ca/technical-material
Rose
Administrative law is statute-driven. Always look at the statute. This is excellent work by counsel spotting the issue — the law requires an officer to swear a declaration. A non-officer may not. Section 17(2) of the PAPR regulation (217/2020) states:
Confirmations
(2) For the purposes of section 14 of the Act, where any report, notes or other document, other than a notice of administrative penalty, is created, registered, issued, stored, recorded or transmitted by electronic means for any purpose under the Act or this Regulation, an officer may confirm the report, notes or other document by signing a statement that the content of the report, notes or other document is true, or in the case of a photograph that the photograph has not been altered in any material way, based on … [emphasis added]
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.