SafeRoads v. O.B.

(SafeRoads - Notice of Administrative Penalty/Roadside Sanction). In SafeRoads v. Smit (ABKB 2023 435) an Alberta King's Bench Justice held that the Director of SafeRoads must provide audio/video if it is in possession of the police.  From the date of the Smit decision until August 9th, 2023, many roadside sanctions recipients managed to have their Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) cancelled due to a failure to provide this information. On August 8th, 2023 the Alberta Government fast tracked legislation stipulating that the Director not only was not required to provide video, but was not even required to advise about its existence. This Calgary criminal lawyer has often referred to this as "legislated non-transparency".  

OB's case occurred prior to the legislation of non-transparency an and therefore, OB was lucky to be able to rely on Smit as the basis to have sanctions cancelled. 

It is strange to think that in Canada the Government, its police and law enforcement are permitted by law to keep secret information the could exonerate a roadside sanctions recipient. Effectively, evidence capable of uncovering falsehoods (whether by lies, inadvertence or error) is, as a result of the new legislation, intentionally made unavailable to person's resisting a Notice of Administrative Penalty. 

In the view of this Alberta roadside sanctions lawyer, hiding evidence is not consistent with a law enforcement model that is loyal the truth. Hiding evidence is the antithesis of the search for truth. That SafeRoads is an administrative model should not shield it from fidelity to the truth. The truth about SafeRoads is that truth doesn't matter.