SafeRoads v. E.O.

(Alberta SafeRoads - Failure to comply/refusal). While there are many Calgary criminal lawyers and defence lawyers throughout the Province, not all defence lawyers handle roadside sanctions cases. Roadside sanctions can be described as an administrative branch of criminal impaired driving law.  As this Calgary criminal lawyer often emphasizes to clients, Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) is a system largely gamed against the motorist in favour of the Government. Examples of the imbalance include the onus of proof, police evidence deemed under oath, immediate penalization and lack transparency.  Lack of transparency is probably the most concerning issue in SafeRoads. An example of lack of transparency includes the fact that the Government has legislated non-transparency via legislation stipulating that police are not required to provide their notes, reports or electronic media disclosure (such as body worn camera, dash camera and detachment video) and they are not required to report that these materials exist. 

In EO's case, the adjudicator wrote:

Based on the agreed upon evidence, multiple attempts were provided into an ASD during the MAS demand. The Recipient has provided robust evidence as to the samples he was providing and that even though he thought he had passed the test initially, he was not able to register a sufficient sample after that. I note that the police evidence falls short of confirming that the Recipient was trying to thwart the breath testing, and the officer never did provide a demonstration on the ASD to show that it was capable of accepting a sample. Nonetheless, I find it is clear that an ASD was factually implicated in this case and the Sections 2(c)(i) and (ii) records are required. However, in looking at the entirety of the police disclosure, I do not see the maintenance and calibration information for the ASD being used on the Recipient.

Roadside sanctions were cancelled in EO's case based on the failure of the Director to provide the bare minimum calibration and maintenance information relating to the approved screening device (ASD)that was used.  EO made a variety of arguments in support of the request to cancel the NAP but the case was determined on the issue of the Director's failure to comply with its basic informational/documentary obligations. 

David Chow is a Calgary criminal lawyer and an Alberta SafeRoads lawyer.  If you are searching for Calgary criminal lawyers who handle SafeRoads cases, it is recommended that you take advantage of the free consultation that many of these lawyers offer.  Many criminal defence lawyers will offer a free consultation. To take advantage of this, it is recommended that you contact the lawyer only after gathering up all of your documents and after preparing yourself to ask a few questions. Like many criminal defence lawyers in Alberta, David Chow only offers one free consultation, so it is very important to ensure that you are in the best position to take advantage of that.