SafeRoads v. C.R.

(Alberta SafeRoads - Roadside Sanction/Impaired Driving). CR was issued a roadside sanction after returning from recreational softball game and getting involved in a minor accident with another driver who was very aggressive. When police attended they made a roadside demand. There were a number of issues germane to CR's defence, including the roadside appeal, the failure on the part of the investigating police to disclose body camera footage and allegations of abusive conduct by CR against the police. 

On August 9th, 2023 the Alberta Government legislated non-transparency by enacting law permitting police and the Director of SafeRoads to keep secret notes, reports and videos.  This was in response to a Court of King's Bench decision called SafeRoads v. Smit. 

Fortunately for CR, the roadside sanction was issued prior to August 9th. Therefore, CR was able to advantageously utilize the Smit decision. The adjudicator properly held that he was bound by Smit and without considering the other issues advanced by CR, cancelled roadside sanctions. 

Legislation permitting law enforcement to hide information that could potentially corroborates their  allegations or perhaps exonerates an accused/motorist is, in the opinion of this Calgary criminal lawyer, inconsistent with the rule of law and the right to security of the person. Supreme Court decisions that permit Government to trammel on Constitutional rights simply because the law is administrative and not criminal in nature is also concerning (see Goodwin v. British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles).  In the opinion of this defence lawyer, Canada has been sliding the slippery slope since the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Feeney (1997).  The Country forged by the sacrifices of our forefathers, especially since World War II is in peril. Administrative Roadside Sanctions highlight this reality.