Overview: When Record Mistakes Change Everything

If you’ve received an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) in Alberta, the process can feel overwhelming, and the penalty beyond challenge. But what many drivers don’t realize is that the government must follow strict procedural guidelines, especially when providing documents or records necessary for each IRS. If even one important document is missing, unsigned, illegible, or not properly authenticated, the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) can be cancelled.

What Records Are Required?

The IRS system in Alberta is designed to move quickly. Instead of going through the courts, your case is reviewed online by a SafeRoads Alberta Adjudicator. An Adjudicator’s decision is largely affected by what is, or is not, uploaded in the SafeRoads portal. Because these proceedings do not provide an opportunity for cross-examination, every is based on the documents provided by the government.

The legislation, section 2 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation (SAR), requires the Director of SafeRoads to provide a set of records whenever someone requests a review.

While the specific language of the legislation can be confusing, these core records typically include:

  • A copy of your Notice of Administrative Penalty (s. 2(a));
  • The officer’s report or narrative explaining why the penalty was issued (s. 2(b));
  • Calibration, maintenance, and certification records for any approved testing devices; and
  • Any photographs, videos, or supporting evidence relied upon by the Director.

Exactly which records must be included depends on how and which penalty was issued, whether it was based on an officer’s opinion that someone is impaired, a roadside screening test, a breathalyzer test, a drug evaluation, or a refusal/failure to comply.

Under section 2(c), If an Approved Screening Device (ASD) or ‘breathalyzer’ is the basis for the penalty, SafeRoads must disclose:

  • The expiry date of the last annual maintenance on the device, and
  • The date and expiry of the last calibration performed.

These records confirm that the ASD was properly maintained and accurate at the time of use. If these records are missing, expired, and/or not easily legible, the results may not be legally reliable.

Under section 2(d), where a full breath test is performed at a detachment or police station, the required records include:

  • The subject test record showing the driver’s test results;
  • The maintenance record for the approved instrument;
  • The certificate of the analyst for the alcohol standard;
  • The alcohol standard change form and related printouts;
  • If produced, the certificate of the qualified technician who performed the test; and,
  • If produced, the operational checksheet related to the test.

Under section 2(e), where police rely on an approved drug screening device, the disclosure must include:

  • The expiry date of the last annual maintenance;
  • The results and expiry of the last calibration or quality assurance check;
  • Any printouts from the analysis; and,
  • The expiry date of any test kit, cassette, or cartridge used.

Under section 2(f), for cases involving an evaluating officer or medical testing, the Director must include:

  • The evaluation sheets and any narrative or opinion from the officer;
  • The results of any laboratory testing; and,
  • If blood analysis was conducted, the results of that analysis (s. 2(g)).

Even minor errors can make the entire record incomplete. These are critical records in alcohol or drug-related cases. Missing or incomplete records can prevent the adjudicator from confirming the basis for the IRS.

Lastly, under section 2(h) of SAR, the Director must also provide any other relevant police reports or records relied upon in issuing the penalty. For example, another officer’s notes or reports, or a witness statement. The government has legislated out of a requirement to provide audio or video, but there are rare occasions where that can come into play as well.

All uploaded records also need an accompanying declaration confirming that all uploaded records are true, complete, and unaltered. The specific language of this declaration is as follows:

I confirm that the contents of the report(s), notes or other documents are true, and any photograph(s), audio recording(s), and video(s) attached have not been altered in any material way. This confirmation is based on my personal knowledge except in the case of the notes, reports, photos or videos taken or produced by other officers or other persons acting in their professional capacity in which case the confirmation is based on information and belief from that officer or person that the contents of their documents or records are true and any photograph(s) and video(s) attached have not been altered in any material way.

These records must be properly authenticated through a Supporting Document Declaration (SDD), as required by section 17(2) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation (PAPR). The SDD confirms that the officer or clerk has personally verified that all uploaded materials are true and unaltered copies.

If an SDD is missing, unsigned, or incomplete, those records are treated as not provided, which can render the disclosure invalid and lead to the NAP being cancelled. More information can be found here.

Real Cases: Missing or Incomplete Records Led to Cancelled Suspensions

Our firm has handled numerous cases that illustrate how incomplete or improperly provided records can result in a full cancellation. While there are too many cases to list here, the following three case studies should effectively illustrate the point and give you an idea of this defence applies to your case.

Case 1: Unreadable Calibration Files – The Shulein Case 

In Schulein (Re), the officer relied on two Approved Screening Devices (ASDs) to issue a “Fail” IRS. Defence counsel later discovered that the calibration and maintenance records uploaded to the SafeRoads Alberta portal were “0 bytes” in size and could not be opened.

Under section 2(c) of the SAR, the Director must provide the expiry date of the last annual maintenance and the calibration details for every ASD used. The adjudicator agreed with counsel that these files were required but “not able to be viewed” and therefore were not provided at all.

As the adjudicator wrote:

[11] Considering the evidence, it is clear Cst. O’Hara relied on the ASD ‘Fail’ result to support the basis of the BAC-Over NAP. As the Recipient provided a roadside appeal sample and that sample is a confirmation of the initial screening breath sample, I find both ASDs used by Cst. O’Hara were factually implicated and the calibration and maintenance information for both ASDs are required records.

The decision went on to state:

[12]… I agree with Counsel and J.K. that the files were not able to be opened such that I could see an image and that the size of each file was ‘0 bytes.’ Therefore, while I acknowledge the officer uploaded documents purported to show the calibration and maintenance records for the ASDs used for the initial impairment screening test and the roadside appeal test, I am unable to confirm the documents contained that information.

Ultimately, the adjudicator found that because the calibration and maintenance records were unreadable, they were “not provided in accordance with section 12 of PAPA.” The IRS was cancelled in full under section 4(f)(iii) of the Regulation.

Case 2: Missing Officer Notes – The Leighton Case

In Leighton (Re), the driver was issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) for refusing to provide a breath sample after police responded to a serious firearm-related incident. The evidence showed multiple officers were clearly present at the scene, yet only the issuing officer’s notes were disclosed, and those notes repeatedly referred to “police” in general terms without identifying who performed key parts of the investigation.

The driver provided a detailed affidavit explaining that at least two officers were involved: one made the breath demand, and another remarked that they had enough for a refusal. The adjudicator accepted that evidence and noted it was

[15] … largely unusual for only one officer to respond to a very serious complaint involving a firearm without backup.

[16] … Considering the subjective nature of what constitutes a Refusal, it is imperative for all the report of the officers involved in the investigation to be provided as it aids the Recipient in understanding the basis of the NAP with the aim of effectively challenging or refuting the grounds on which the NAP was issued.

The adjudicator concluded that “all the reports of the officers involved in the investigation have not been provided,” finding that the Director failed to meet the disclosure obligations under section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA). Without the missing officer’s report, the disclosure was incomplete, and the NAP was cancelled in full.

Case 3: Missing Calibration Dates – The Deol Case

In Deol (Re), the driver was issued an IRS for Impaired Operation after a two-vehicle collision in Calgary. Two Approved Screening Devices (ASDs) were used in testing, one at the roadside and one later at the police detachment for the appeal sample. Defence counsel identified that one of the devices, ASD #211593, had a calibration tag missing both the date of last calibration and the calibration expiry date. Those records are mandatory under section 2(c)(ii) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.

The adjudicator found that both devices were “factually implicated” because the second test confirmed the first, meaning calibration records were required for each. The adjudicator stated:

[10] There are two photos of two different ASDs with their respective tags submitted in evidence… All of the relevant records for ASD #048859 are clear and present on the tag. However, the dates of the last calibration and the calibration expiry for ASD #211593 are missing from that device’s tag. I note that these dates are not otherwise provided anywhere else in the police evidence

[11] I find that both ASDs are factually implicated in this case as the roadside appeal test confirms the result of the initial impairment-screening test. Therefore, I find the records under Section 2(c)(ii) for both ASDs are required records. As the records under Section 2(c)(ii) for ASD #211593 are missing, I find the required records have not been provided in accordance with Section 12 of PAPA.

Because the calibration information was missing, the adjudicator concluded that the Director failed to provide complete records under section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act, and the IRS was cancelled in full.

Why These Cases Matter

These decisions show that IRS Alberta cases aren’t always about the breath test or what happened at the roadside, they often turn on whether the government followed its own rules on paperwork. SafeRoads Alberta is a document-based system. If the required records under section 2 of SAR are missing, unreadable, or unauthenticated, the case is incomplete and the suspension must be cancelled.

Drivers can’t properly defend themselves if calibration files can’t be opened, if officers’ notes are missing, or if penalties are issued to the wrong person. Adjudicators have consistently said that SafeRoads’ efficiency cannot come at the expense of accuracy or disclosure.

For clients, this means that success isn’t about luck, it’s about attention to detail. A strong defence looks beyond the obvious and checks every form, certificate, and upload for compliance. When those details are wrong, the law provides a clear remedy: the IRS must be cancelled.

Strategic Criminal Defence: Setting New Precedents

At Strategic Criminal Defence, we’ve built a reputation for identifying the technical issues that others overlook. Many IRS Alberta cases are lost because key documents are accepted at face value. We go deeper, checking every Supporting Document Declaration, calibration certificate, and uploaded record to ensure the government has met its legal obligations under the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation.

Our team has been behind several of the most important recent SafeRoads decisions, helping shape how adjudicators interpret the law on incomplete or missing records. These outcomes don’t happen by chance. They come from a disciplined, evidence-based approach that demands accountability and ensures fairness for drivers caught in a system designed to move quickly.

If you’ve received an Immediate Roadside Sanction or Notice of Administrative Penalty, it’s critical to act fast and have your records reviewed by a team that understands how to find, and use, the details that matter. Contact Strategic Criminal Defence today for a consultation. A small oversight in the government’s paperwork could make all the difference in your case.