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
Shaw (Re) C00379433A, August 28, 2025 an excellent precedent where the Recipient did not know that a demand had been made. The adjudicator makes an important pronouncement that counsel should take note of. At para 12:
“[A] recipient who does not understand what is being read or said to him in the form of an ASD demand cannot have knowledge that a demand was made.”
Counsel should keep this case in their back pocket!
3. Court Watch
Court of Appeal Alert ***
Garnet v Alberta 2025 ABCA 293, NAP cancelled the adjudicator did not properly assess evidence in a care and control case. See para 18:
The adjudicator was entitled and, in fact, required to make credibility findings based on the record.[5] Deference to the role of the adjudicator as the initial fact finder applies in the context of judicial review.[6] However, the reasons in this case fail to explain why she rejected uncontradicted evidence from the appellant that was corroborated by Mr Charles. The reasons do not address what, if any, issues she had with either the reliability or credibility of this evidence. The adjudicator concluded that she was “not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a person who did not drive a vehicle and who did not intend to drive the vehicle would be the one closest to the driver’s side of the vehicle, and upon seeing the police, would enter into the driver’s seat of the vehicle to stay warm and wait for police questioning.” This conclusion is not tethered to evidence; rather, it is based on the adjudicator’s assumption of what someone would do in that situation, fails to address the sworn evidence of the appellant and Mr Charles as described above, and does not account for the impact of an intervening act (the fight) on their movements.
[emphasis added]
4. Lawyer’s Corner
My preference is to prepare written submissions when arguing before an adjudicator. I am not aware of any reason why an oral hearing cannot be supplemented with written material if timelines are followed. Sometimes, a sympathetic or believable client may warrant an oral hearing. In (Re) Nwankwo, August 21, 2025, C00376025A, a NAP was overturned because of a language barrier issue.
At paras 16, “throughout the Review … the Recipient appeared genuine and forthcoming”. At para 22, “it is not clear to me that the Recipient would have understood the legal consequences of not complying without some form of translation.”
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.