The Hidden Weakness in Alberta’s IRS System

When most people think about fighting an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) in Alberta, they imagine challenging the science behind breath tests or arguing about what really happened at the roadside.

But often, the real battleground isn’t about science or memory at all. It’s about paperwork.

The SafeRoads Alberta program is built on documents: officer notes, calibration certificates, photographs, and Supporting Document Declarations (SDDs). If even one of these records is missing or improperly authenticated, the case against you may collapse.

What Exactly Are Supporting Document Declarations (SDDs)?

An SDD is a form OR an online ‘checkbox’ that every officer must complete when uploading evidence into the SafeRoads portal. By signing the SDD, the officer confirms:

  • The uploaded reports, notes, and media are true copies.
  • Photographs, audio, and video files have not been altered in any material way.
  • The contents are based on the officer’s personal knowledge, or information and belief if from another officer.

There are also complex rules around clerks providing SDD forms and then swearing their own SDD. Either way, this step is not optional. Courts have ruled that SDDs are a mandatory authentication requirement. Without a valid SDD, the records are considered incomplete and incomplete records can mean the IRS penalty must be cancelled.

Real Cases: Where SDD Issues Made the Difference

Our firm has seen time and again that even in serious IRS cases, the outcome often turns on paperwork. When police records are incomplete or SDD forms are mishandled, it can open the door to a successful defence.

Case 1: A Blank SDD

After a roadside stop, police issued an IRS penalty to one of our clients and uploaded their disclosure into the SafeRoads portal. However, the SDD was left blank and unsigned, and the officer also completed the portal authentication incorrectly.

We argued that without proper confirmation, the required records had not truly been provided. The adjudicator agreed, finding that the lack of valid SDD authentication meant the disclosure obligations were not met. As a result, the IRS penalty was cancelled.

Case 2: Script Font Signature

In another case, our client was given an IRS penalty after two roadside “Fail” results. When we examined the disclosure, we discovered that the SDDs were signed with a computer-generated script font instead of a real signature. One form was uploaded without the confirmation box checked, and the next day an identical copy appeared with only a handwritten “X” added in the box.

We argued that these forms did not amount to valid authentication. Without a genuine signature, there was no way to confirm whether the officer had actually verified the calibration photos and records for the roadside devices. The adjudicator agreed, finding the SDDs unreliable and the records “not provided” as required by the law. On that basis, the IRS was cancelled.

Case 3: Demars v Alberta – A Landmark Decision

In Demars v Alberta, our client challenged an IRS penalty after police uploaded calibration photos of the roadside screening device without properly confirming that the images had not been altered. The SDD only contained a generic statement, not the specific confirmation required by law.

In 2022, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ruled that section 17(2) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation creates a mandatory requirement: officers must explicitly confirm that photographs are true and unaltered. Without that confirmation, the records are incomplete and inadmissible.

In 2024, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld that ruling, confirming that strict compliance with section 17(2) is not optional. If records are not properly authenticated, they are deemed “not provided,” and the IRS penalty cannot stand.

This landmark decision has impacted countless IRS cases since, with adjudicators regularly relying on Demars to assess whether SDDs and other disclosure records meet the strict standards required by law. It underscores that SafeRoads cases are often won or lost on the fine print of paperwork.

What the Adjudicators Found Important

In these cases, the adjudicators emphasized:

  • Authentication under section 17(2) is mandatory, not optional.
  • SDD signatures must be genuine and verifiable, not script-font or incomplete.
  • Drivers are entitled to full disclosure and missing or unauthenticated records create unfairness.
  • Even small paperwork errors can determine whether an IRS penalty is cancelled.

Why These Cases Are So Hard to Challenge

Even with these successes, IRS cases remain among the most difficult legal challenges in Alberta. Under the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA), the burden is always on the driver to prove a ground for cancellation.

Adjudicators are instructed to treat the police records as reliable unless clear flaws are identified. Cancellations can be rare, which is why spotting technical flaws can make all the difference. As the cases above show, success is possible when the paperwork itself reveals that the police have not met their strict documentary obligations.

Cutting-Edge Advocacy: Why We Take These Cases On

At Strategic Criminal Defence, we know how overwhelming an IRS penalty can feel. We take these cases on because we believe fairness matters.

In these cases, our advocacy often focuses on:

  • Carefully reviewing every disclosure uploaded.
  • Challenging faulty portal authentications.
  • Arguing that incomplete or unauthenticated records cannot be relied on.
  • Highlighting fairness concerns, since drivers cannot cross-examine officers and must rely on properly authenticated records.

These cases are not easy, but we know that by carefully reviewing every line of disclosure, we can uncover the technical flaws others miss.

What This Means for You

If you’ve received an IRS penalty, it’s easy to feel like there’s no way out. With the right legal team, it may be possible to have your IRS cancelled.

As these cases show, the police can fail to properly authenticate records or follow procedure. These aren’t technicalities but are legal safeguards designed to ensure the process is fair.

At Strategic Criminal Defence, we know how to find these issues and use them to your advantage. You don’t have to navigate the SafeRoads system alone, we are here to protect your rights and challenge unfair penalties.

Charged with an IRS?

Contact us today for a consultation. Every IRS penalty deserves close scrutiny, especially when it is based on paperwork that may be incomplete or improperly authenticated.