SafeRoads v. J.M.

(Calgary SafeRoads - Impaired Driving, Refusal and At/Over 80). JM was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident that resulted in an investigation for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. Ultimately, police issued a roadside sanction for impaired driving, blood-alcohol at/over the legal limit, along with a rather peculiar allegation that the recipient refused to comply with a breath demand. JG filed for a review of the "notice of administrative penalty" on several grounds, including that the Director of SafeRoads failed to comply with very basic document disclosure requirements as defined by s. 2 of the SafeRoads Regulation. 

While it is both concerning and not unusual that SafeRoads will consistently fail to comply with its minimal disclosure obligations at first instance, it is somewhat unusual for disclosure issues to persist in a manner that there is a violation of the procedural requirements set out in the legislation. I say that it is concerning that SafeRoads consistently fails to comply with disclosure requirements at first instance because the failure to disclose as per the legislation constitutes a valid ground for cancelation of a roadside sanction. Many sanctioned motorists will hire lawyers and file disputes based on the police and the Director failing to provide the appropriate documentation within the 7 day deadline to file a SafeRoads dispute. Most qualified Alberta SafeRoads Lawyers will advise their potential client that the failure to disclose is a ground for cancellation and that it is impossible to succeed on this ground if a dispute is not filed. Fixed with a legitimate argument for cancellation at first instance, many roadside sanction recipient's will apply to the fight the penalty, only to have their s. 2 document defence thwarted up to 4 clear days in advance of their scheduled SafeRoads hearing date. To be clear, while the legislation forces NAP recipient's to file their dispute not later than 7 days after receiving the roadside sanction, the recipient's hearing date will be not later than 21 days after the NAP was received and the Director has up to 4 clear days to file materials in advance a scheduled hearing; meaning that many recipients file their dispute based on an available, quality legal argument only to have that legal argument disappear a short time prior to the hearing. This is concerning because SafeRoads arguably entices recipients to fight cases that are defensible at first instance, only to become indefensible after the date of filing. 

While the Director generally cures document disclosure related issues most of the time, there are still a signficant number of cases where they fail to do so. JM's case is an example where the Director of SafeRoads failed to comply with s. 2 of the legislation and as such, the adjudicator had no alternative in the unique circumstances of JM's case but to cancel roadside sanctions. In short, JM won the case.

This Calgary criminal lawyer and roadside sanctions lawyer warns all roadside sanction recipients to be careful when hiring their lawyer of choice. To that end, be cautious if a lawyer tells you that he or she will win your roadside sanctions and therefore you should hire them to file your dispute because a disclosure defence at first instance may not persist over time. If you are considering hiring an impaired driving lawyer in Alberta for your roadside sanctions case based exclusively on a document, it is very important for you to understand that while the defence at the time of filing exists and is a viable argument for cancellation, that this argument may disappear. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is important of you to question the lawyer about his or her option about the likelihood of the Director meeting its documentary obligations. Finally, there is wisdom in having a backup defence just in case the Director of SafeRoads files materials prior to your hearing date.   The best impaired driving lawyers will give you an honest answer about your chances of winning before you open your wallet.  In the opinion of this Calgary based notice of administrative penalty lawyer, is that the best pre-dispute filing answer when faced with a missing document argument at first instance is that while you have a good defence based on missing documents today, that defence might not exist tomorrow. If you are searching for an impaired driving lawyer in Calgary or its surrounding area, David Chow offers a free initial telephone consultation.