The Alberta Court of Appeal has cancelled an administrative penalty issued under the province's SafeRoads regime, finding that the roadside appeal form drivers are required to sign contains language that is either factually inaccurate or imposes a precondition not contemplated by the legislation. The decision in Seward v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2026 ABCA 264, addresses what the court characterized as a fundamental conflict between the form's wording and the statutory promise of a voluntary right to a roadside appeal.
The case arose from a traffic stop in October 2023. After registering a "fail" on an approved screening device, the driver was issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty under section 88.1 of the Traffic Safety Act. He elected to proceed with a roadside appeal and failed again. When he sought review through the SafeRoads administrative process and later judicial review, both the adjudicator and the chambers judge dismissed his arguments. The Court of Appeal reversed.
At issue was language in the roadside appeal form requiring the driver to acknowledge that the result of the second test "will be used to prove my blood alcohol and drug concentration (if any) at the time of driving in any proceeding arising from this event." The court found this statement problematic in two respects. Read as a statement of fact, it is inaccurate and overbroad—the court noted it is easy to imagine circumstances, such as a criminal trial engaging Charter rights, where such a test result would not be admissible. Read as a mandatory consent to unrestricted future use, it imposes a precondition that does not exist in the legislation governing roadside appeals.
The Traffic Safety Act requires that a roadside appeal be voluntary and that the officer advise the driver of the right to voluntarily undergo the appeal test. The court held that the form's language could conceivably deter a recipient from proceeding with an appeal they would otherwise have chosen, either from unwarranted fear of widespread consequences or because they do not want to consent to unrestricted future use of the result. This, the court said, undermines the statutory requirement.
The court noted that the adjudicator's reasons failed to meaningfully engage with the appellant's argument about how the form's language affected his understanding of his right. Instead of remitting the matter for reconsideration, the court exercised its discretion to cancel the penalty outright. It observed that the traffic stop occurred in 2023, the parties had participated in three hearings, and remitting would consume disproportionate time and resources. The court also noted a broader need for resolution because, to its knowledge, the problematic form remains in use.
For business operators who employ drivers or maintain commercial fleets, the decision illustrates how administrative penalty regimes depend on procedural compliance—not just by the regulated party, but by the regulating authority itself. It also demonstrates that administrative decisions can be challenged successfully when the underlying process does not align with the statutory scheme.
If you are interested in how administrative penalty regimes work or how judicial review of regulatory decisions unfolds, Binder University offers resources that explore these areas in depth. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.