Overview: Challenging an Unfair Process

When our client, Mr. Demars, came to us, he faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction under Alberta’s SafeRoads program. His license had been suspended, his vehicle seized, and he faced steep financial penalties without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

But we discovered something critical: the evidence used against him didn’t meet the basic legal standards required under the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation (PAPR). Our team challenged the process, won at the Court of King’s Bench, and successfully defended that victory before the Court of Appeal of Alberta, a landmark result that now shapes how every SafeRoads case must be handled.

The Issue: Were SafeRoads Photographs Properly Confirmed?

Under Alberta’s SafeRoads system, police officers upload electronic records, including photographs of approved screening devices, through an online portal. Those records are what adjudicators use to decide whether a penalty stands.

The law, specifically section 17(2) of PAPR, says that when photographs are used, the officer must confirm that the images “have not been altered in any material way.”

In Mr. Demars’ case, that never happened. The officer merely declared that their reports were “true,” without confirming the photographs were unaltered. This missing confirmation was not a small oversight, it meant the very foundation of the evidence was defective.

Our Legal Argument

We argued that:

  • The Director of SafeRoads failed to provide complete records, as required by section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA) and section 2 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.
  • The confirmation statement in section 17(2) of PAPR was mandatory, not optional.
  • Without that confirmation, the photographs could not be considered reliable or admissible evidence.

This argument went to the heart of procedural fairness: if the government’s evidence can’t be trusted, Albertans should not lose their licenses or vehicles because of it.

Victory in the Court of King’s Bench

Justice Kubik agreed with us, ruling that the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to interpret the law properly (Demars v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2022 ABKB 620). She emphasized at paragraph 20 that:

[20] …The requirement for both a statutory declaration as to the truth of the contents of the records and the authentication of the photographs must be read as mandatory, separate obligations.

The Court cancelled Mr. Demars’ Notice of Administrative Penalty, holding that SafeRoads Alberta had not provided complete records and that photographs without proper confirmation did not meet the evidentiary threshold.

Appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal

The Director appealed, arguing that the confirmation requirement was only “optional.”

We defended the judgment before a panel of three justices, Justices Hughes, Kirker, and Fagnan, and the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld our win (Demars v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABCA 132).

The Court agreed that:

  • Section 17(2) creates mandatory evidentiary requirements.
  • The officer’s confirmation statement for photographs is not just a formality, but a condition of admissibility.
  • Without it, SafeRoads cannot rely on such documents to impose penalties.

Specifically, in paras 45, 46, and 48, it is stated that:

[45] In our view, the adjudicator’s interpretation of “may” in s 17(2)—while plausible— failed to take into account the text, context, and purpose of the legislative scheme…

[46] The Director’s proposed interpretation that s 17(2) of PAPR is optional and goes only to the weight an adjudicator will place on a record is inconsistent with the legislative scheme. We agree with the chambers judge that the adjudicator failed to consider the context in which these provisions operate − they deal with the evidentiary burden of the Director in a proceeding where the evidence of the Director cannot be tested through cross-examination. Section 17(2) of PAPR is an admissibility requirement and does not merely go to weight…

[48] A signed statement that the content of a record is true is the method by which an officer confirms any report, note or document other than a photograph. But s 17(2) of PAPR creates a separate method for confirming photographs: the officer must sign a statement that the photograph has not been altered in any material way. We agree with the chambers judge that these must be read as mandatory, separate obligations given the nature and purpose of the legislative scheme, and the significant nature of the penalties which can be imposed…

The Court even noted that our victory had a tangible impact on the SafeRoads system itself. After the King’s Bench decision, SafeRoads Alberta completely overhauled its digital portal, adding a new mandatory confirmation step for officers to verify that photographs “have not been altered in any material way.” That change validated the very issue we raised.

Why This Case Matters

This decision has far-reaching consequences for the SafeRoads program and for administrative justice in Alberta. It confirms that:

  • Administrative efficiency cannot replace fairness.
  • The Director of SafeRoads must meet strict evidentiary standards before penalizing Albertans.
  • Citizens deserve a process that is transparent, consistent, and accountable.

In short, the case of Demars now stands as a leading precedent protecting drivers’ rights under Alberta’s Immediate Roadside Sanctions regime. Importantly, the Court of Appeal also awarded our client costs of the appeal, showcasing the significance of our client’s position (Demars v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABCA 188).

Strategic Criminal Defence: Setting New Precedents

The work of our lawyers, Michael Oykhman and Joseph Beller in Demars didn’t just win a case. It changed how SafeRoads Alberta operates. Following our victory, the government completely redesigned its SafeRoads digital portal, adding new mandatory confirmation steps to ensure the integrity of uploaded evidence. This province-wide system change ensures that no driver will again be penalized based on unverified or incomplete records.

Our firm has now argued and won SafeRoads cases at every level of court, helping to shape how this legislation is interpreted and applied. Each success, including Demars, reinforces that fairness must come before convenience, even in administrative justice.

Through persistent, principled advocacy, Strategic Criminal Defence continues to define the standards of fairness that protect every Albertan facing Immediate Roadside Sanctions.

Cutting-Edge Advocacy: Why We Take These Cases On

The Demars case was about more than one man’s licence, it was about protecting the integrity of Alberta’s administrative justice system. Thanks to our advocacy, SafeRoads Alberta can no longer rely on incomplete or unauthenticated records to uphold life-changing penalties.

At Strategic Criminal Defence, we don’t just fight cases. We fight for fairness, accountability, and justice.