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)
C) Note a new affidavit has been added to the SafeRoads Technical Materials Library; an affidavit that Pauline Wong swore to on August 22, 2025, describing the mechanism of the APIS portal (which has also been renamed).
2. SafeRoads Alberta Review
J. Worku v Director, C00391145A
This matter concerns a NAP issued under 88.1(1)(a) of the TSA for impaired operation. The recipient applied for an oral review of the NAP, which raised grounds:
- 4(e)(iii): the Director did not provide complete records as required by Section 12 of PAPA; and
- 4(e)(v): the officer didn’t advise the recipient in writing of the right to a roadside appeal, and the recipient was unaware of that right.
Of note is that the officer notified the Recipient, in regards to the Roadside Appeal, that “if the second test was lower, the sanction would be cancelled, and he would proceed with the new BAC value. If she provided a second sample and the result was the same, it would confirm the sample, and this would be additional evidence against her.”
At the time, the Recipient was under investigation for impaired driving both criminally and through the administrative process. The Recipient was deterred from taking the Roadside Appeal because they believed blowing a failure would lead to more evidence against them in the criminal matter. While normally the service of a NAP is considered enough to sever the administrative process from a criminal one, the adjudicator found that the officer’s informing the Recipient that results of the Roadside Appeal can be used as additional evidence goes against its intended purpose, and that this undermined the Recipient’s awareness of the Roadside Appeal.
As a result, the adjudicator found that the ground had been established and the NAP was cancelled.
3. Court Watch
Follwell v Ontario (Transportation), 2025 ONCA 670 (CanLII)
In this case, an individual pled guilty to impaired driving in New York State in December 2022, which resulted in a conditional discharge.
In February 2023, the individual was notified by Ontario’s Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles that their license was suspended for one year pursuant to 41(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act. Further, 41(1)(d) was found to apply because Ontario and new York State were entered into a reciprocal agreement under s. 40 of the Act.
The individual then brought an application to quash the license suspension.
[4] The application judge dismissed the application. She interpreted s. 41(1)(d) of the Act as suspending a person’s licence if they are convicted of an offence designated in a reciprocal agreement with another jurisdiction. She found that the appellant had been convicted of an offence as a result of the Incident and the offence was designated in the reciprocal agreement with New York State. Thus, she concluded, the suspension occurred by operation of law and could not be attacked for allegedly breaching the principles of natural justice. The application judge also considered and rejected each of the appellant’s submissions that the suspension violated his Charter rights.
[5] A central issue below, and again on appeal, is the appellant’s contention that his guilty plea and conditional discharge in the state of New York did not amount to a conviction. The application judge noted that whether it amounted to a conviction was a question of foreign law and that the appellant had failed to submit expert evidence on the matter that met the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. She also observed that the official New York State documents provided to the Ministry of Transportation stated that the appellant had been “convicted” in New York State of a traffic violation covered by the reciprocal agreement.
The Ontario Court of Appeal endorsed the application judge’s decision and reasons for said decision.
4. Lawyer’s Corner
Here’s a tip courtesy of Alan Pearce.
In the event that you are conducting a review and the information provided by the police is deficient, consider trying to move the review date up. Per SafeRoads policies, the police can only submit additional materials up to four days prior to the review. So by moving the review date forward, you are shrinking the amount of time the police have to correct informational deficiencies.
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.