SafeRoads v. K.H.

(Alberta SafeRoads - Notice of Administrative Penalty/NAP). KH was issued a roadside sanction for impaired driving. The investigation was triggered by mandatory approved screening (MAS), which was completed using an Alco-Sensor FST (approved screening device). KH failed the first test; however, pursuant to Roadside Sanctions procedure, the recipient had a right to a second test (roadside appeal). Though SafeRoads adjudicators historically ignored violations of process, the Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision (SafeRoads v. Lausen) that essentially agreed with years of defence arguments that the process set out in the legislation must be followed. In KH's case, though the police offered a second test, they failed to (a) issue the roadside sanction and (b) advise KH of the relevant information so that a voluntary decision to participate in the roadside appeal could be made.

Lausen effectively applied decades of common law, criminal jurisprudence, for the proposition that voluntary decision making requires the decision to have the appropriate information in order to make an informed decision. KH's roadside sanctions were cancelled on grounds of procedural non-compliance.

Almost every Alberta criminal lawyer will accept a retainer to do defend a roadside sanctions case; however, not every criminal defence lawyer in Alberta has necessary experience to properly defend one. There are a number of high quality impaired driving and roadside sanctions lawyers to choose from. It is your job to exercise all due diligence prior to hiring your counsel of choice. The best roadside sanctions lawyers will be honest with you about your chance of success. The fact is, in year one of Alberta's roadside sanctions regime, less than 25% of the disputed cases ended successfully. The numbers were not much different in year two. By year three, the numbers were still less than half.  The lesson is, any lawyer who tells you that he or she will beat a roadside sanctions case is, in the opinion of this roadside sanctions lawyer, selling you rusted old Jalopy. The reason the numbers increased in the third year was because the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Appeal released decisions following some obvious, straightforward arguments ignored for years by SafeRoads. In August 2023, the Alberta Government intentionally legislated non-transparency regarding disclosure. Having regard to the entire history of SafeRoads, there are no guarantees that the regime will not return to what it was in its first years.