SafeRoads v. C.T.

(Alberta SafeRoads - NAP/Roadside Sanction). Prior to the issuance of this roadside sanction, an Alberta Court of King's Bench Justice held that SafeRoads should provide police camera footage (SafeRoads v. Smit). The justice held that it was unfair to withhold this kind of information from roadside sanctions recipients and the camera footage (and audio) supported the truth finding aspect of the case. Indeed, most ordinary people, using common sense, agree that when police have camera recordings with audio, that information should be provided.

Up until about May 2023 SafeRoads consistently held that police were not required to provide camera footage because it was not necessary. In hundreds of cases sanctioned motorists would claim that the police report was inaccurate and as such, argued that camera footage was capable of resolving the issue in dispute. Up until Smit, adjudicators disagreed to the extent that they consistently sided with police. 

In CT"s case, there was clear disagreement by the motorist with the police version of events. CT was very clear that no opportunity for a roadside appeal (right to a second sample) was ever offered. CT argued that police video would confirm this assertion. 

In this case, the adjudicator cancelled the roadside sanction because of the video was not provided by the Director of SafeRoads. 

If you have been issued a roadside sanction, it is important to keep in mind that you only have 7 days to file your dispute. Do linger. Contact an experienced Alberta Roadside Sanctions lawyer for advice.