- The difference between a divorce and an annulment - April 15, 2024
- Hidden costs to be aware of when buying a house - April 3, 2024
- The rules about legally transporting a firearm in Canada - April 1, 2024
By LegalMatters Staff • When the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta heard the case of Smit v. Alberta Director of SafeRoads in July, the judge recommended changes to a portion of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.
The case involved a woman who was appealing a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) issued against her in 2021 that disqualified her from driving in Alberta. She was also fined $1,200.
Her appeal was based on four grounds. She argued that she should have been provided with the audio and video recordings from the police vehicle. She cited s.2(h) of the SafeRoads legislation, which states, “the director shall provide … any other relevant records and representations of the officer who issued the notice of administrative penalty … that are in the opinion of the Director relevant and necessary to determine the basis for issuing the notice of administrative penalty.”
The adjudicator who heard her appeal deemed the tapes were not relevant or necessary, but the judge disagreed.
“The importance of video-recorded evidence has been emphasized in the administrative context … at the risk of relying on an overused cliché, if a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is an appropriately described video worth?” Justice Nathan J. Whitling wrote.
Perhaps in response to that ruling, the province added a subsection to the Saferoads regulation, stating that there is no obligation on the part of the director to hand over video and audio tapes.
“The government is not adhering to the direction set down by the court,” says Calgary criminal lawyer Vince Semenuk. “All this additional clause does is entrench unfair legislation and make it more difficult for those facing a NAP to find justice.”
While the Alberta government has boasted that the SafeRoads process can deal with appeals in just 30 days, Semenuk says the accused’s fundamental right to a fair and full defence is being ignored.
“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply in this administrative system. While you are free to argue Charter issues at your review, they will rarely, if ever, be successful,” he says.
“This is not how justice should be carried out in Canada,” Semenuk adds. “The right to the presumption of innocence and judicial process is in peril with the SafeRoads legislation in its current form.”
