SafeRoads v. S.E.

(Alberta SafeRoads Lawyer - BAC at/over). SE was sanctioned for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol at or exceeding the legal limit. In SE's case, police executed a traffic stop and made a Mandatory Alcohol Screening Demand (MAS). Pursuant to s. 327 of the Criminal Code of Canada police are authorized to force a motorist to mandatorily comply with a breath demand. The condition for making an MAS demand is that the motorist is operating or in care or control of a conveyance and that the police making the demand have an approved screening device in their possession.  For the purpose of roadside sanctions, if a motorist fails a mandatory screening demand, the police must issue a notice of administrative penalty, advise of the right to a roadside appeal in writing or at the very least, make the motorist sufficiently aware of the right.

In just a short number of months prior to SE's roadside sanctions, the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered an important decision with respect to the right to a roadside appeal in Director of SafeRoads v. Lausen, 2023 ABCA 176. This decision was re-affirmed in Director of SafeRoads v. Lawrence, 2023 ABCA 271.  Prior to Lausen, adjudicators routinely dismissed arguments to cancel roadside sanctions in cases where police provided insufficient information about the right to a roadside appeal, in cases where the right was delivered after the recipient made the decision to blow a second time and even in cases where the right was not advised at all. 

In SE's case, police mentioned the right to a second test, but did not properly inform about the right itself. SE asked several questions about the right, and was simply told that a "yes" or "no" answer was all they needed. There was a back-and-forth about the whether to provide a second test, but no information was ultimately provided about the nature of the right itself, so SE declined to try a second time. SE did not demonstrate any meaningful indicia of impairment by alcohol.  As is typical for roadside sanctions cases, police provided very little information by way of notes, reports or other material. 

As a result of the lack of notation by the police about the roadside appeal instructions, the adjudicator concluded that SE met a ground for cancellation on the balance of probabilities.

SafeRoads cases are difficult to win. This is so because the system is gamed heavily in favour of the Director of SafeRoads and police. Notwithstanding that David Chow is of the opinion that SafeRoads has little concern for truth, it is possible to win a roadside sanctions case. David Chow has successfully defended dozens of roadside sanctions cases. Any lawyer that tells you they will beat a roadside sanction or that they win most of the time, is probably not telling you the truth. The truth is, David Chow is an experienced and successful roadside sanctions lawyer who will be honest with you about your case.