Our client was issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction (“IRS: Warn”) after allegedly blowing a “Caution” during a Checkstop on Highway 10 near Drumheller, Alberta. According to the officer, two different Approved Screening Devices (ASDs) were used, and both formed part of the basis for the sanction. However, a review of the evidence revealed that the required calibration and maintenance records for the first ASD (ASD1) were completely missing.

We challenged the validity of the IRS by arguing that the Director had failed to provide complete records, as required under section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act and section 2 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation. Specifically, we highlighted that while calibration and expiry dates were included for the second device (ASD2), no such information was provided for ASD1, the device that initially registered the “Caution” reading and formed the basis for the penalty.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that the Director failed to provide required information about ASD1’s calibration and maintenance status. As a result, the adjudicator ruled that our client had established the necessary ground for cancellation under section 4(d)(iii) of the Regulation.

The IRS: Warn was cancelled in full, and our client’s driving record remains clear. This case reinforces the importance of holding police and administrative authorities to their statutory obligations—and demonstrates how missing technical details can result in a successful challenge.

Our client was issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction (“IRS: Fail”) after police alleged he had operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. However, after a comprehensive review of the disclosure, it became clear that the roadside sanction had not been issued in accordance with the legal requirements under the Traffic Safety Act and the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act.

We filed written submissions and an affidavit detailing the key procedural flaws in how the roadside appeal process was administered. Relying on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Lausen, we argued that our client was not properly informed, either verbally or in writing, of his right to a voluntary roadside appeal prior to undergoing the second breath test. Critically, the adjudicator agreed that:

• The Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP), which contains information about the right to a roadside appeal, was not served until after the second test was conducted;
• The roadside appeal form was only provided after our client had already undergone the second test while still in handcuffs;
• There was insufficient evidence that the police officer explained the voluntary nature or purpose of the second test.
  
  

The adjudicator concluded that our client was not advised in writing and was unaware of his right to a roadside appeal at the time it mattered, a clear violation of the procedural safeguards designed to ensure fairness in roadside sanctions.

As a result, the IRS: Fail was cancelled in full, and our client’s driving privileges were restored. This case serves as a reminder that even in cases involving roadside suspensions, procedural fairness is not optional—and that rigorous advocacy can make all the difference.

Our client was issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) after a motor vehicle incident near Airdrie, Alberta. The peace officer alleged that our client failed or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made under sections 320.27 or 320.28 of the Criminal Code. As a result, a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was issued under section 88.1(1) of the Traffic Safety Act.

Our client immediately exercised his right to challenge the administrative sanction and retained our office to apply for a review under the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA).

Key Arguments and Outcome:

During the written review process, we advanced two principal arguments under Section 4 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation:

1. Incomplete Disclosure of Required Records
2. Failure/Refusal Not Made Out on the Evidence
   
   

Ultimately, the Adjudicator agreed with our first submission and found that the Director failed to provide a critical piece of required evidence—the legible service expiry date for the Approved Screening Device (ASD) used at roadside. Although the police uploaded a photo of the device and its sticker, the image was blurry and the expiry date illegible, making it impossible to determine whether the device was in proper service at the time of the test.

Crucially, we also established that our client made bona fide efforts to comply with the breath demand. The ASD registered sufficient flow before returning an error due to cold temperature. This brought the legitimacy of the device—and the need for its service record—squarely into question. The Adjudicator accepted our position that the missing maintenance record was a material omission, and ruled in our favour without needing to consider further grounds.

Result: The IRS: Fail was cancelled in full pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act.

This decision demonstrates the importance of rigorous attention to evidentiary disclosure requirements and how technical non-compliance by enforcement authorities can form the basis for a successful defence—even in cases involving a failed or refused breath demand. Our firm continues to lead in challenging arbitrary and unfair roadside sanctions across Alberta.

Our client was issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction (“IRS: Fail”) after a traffic stop conducted by the Calgary Police Service in April 2025. The officer alleged that our client had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit within two hours of operating a motor vehicle, resulting in a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) under Alberta’s Immediate Roadside Sanctions program.

We challenged the validity of the sanction on the basis that our client was not properly informed of his right to a roadside appeal at the relevant time, as required by law.

After a written review hearing, the adjudicator agreed with our submissions and determined that the officer had failed to provide sufficient and timely written notice of the right to a roadside appeal. Specifically, the officer did not issue the NAP prior to offering the second test, depriving our client of the opportunity to meaningfully exercise his statutory right to appeal the initial breath test result. The adjudicator concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, our client was not properly advised of this right and therefore could not make an informed decision.

As a result, the IRS: Fail sanction was cancelled in full.

Even in administrative sanction regimes like SafeRoads Alberta, police must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards. A failure to do so can result in the complete cancellation of the penalty.