Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Compliance with the legal test for a stay of enforcement pending appeal under RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General).

• Sufficiency of evidence to establish irreparable harm, as required for a stay.

• Timeliness of the judicial review application in relation to the 30-day deadline in section 24(2) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act.

• Consideration of public interest and societal harm from impaired driving in the balance of convenience analysis.

• Availability of alternative remedies, such as the IMPACT program and interlock device, and whether these were pursued.

• Application of statutory provisions under the Traffic Safety Act and Provincial Administrative Penalties Act.

Facts of the case

Jayla Marcy Thompson applied for a stay of enforcement pending appeal after being issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) on June 17, 2023, following a police stop for a possible impaired driver. She provided a breath sample, which resulted in a “fail.” As this was apparently her second occurrence, she was fined $2,400, her vehicle was seized for 30 days, and her license was suspended for 90 days plus an additional 36 months, pursuant to section 88.1(4)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act. Thompson requested a review of the NAP before a SafeRoads adjudicator, which proceeded on July 8, 2024. The adjudicator confirmed the NAP on July 17, 2024.

Thompson sought judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision. The Director of SafeRoads Alberta brought a summary dismissal application, arguing that the judicial review application was outside the 30-day deadline in section 24(2) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act. The chambers justice granted the summary dismissal application, and Thompson appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. No date for the appeal had been set at the time of the stay application. Thompson then sought a stay of enforcement of the $2,400 fine and the license suspension.

Discussion of policy terms and statutory clauses

The penalties imposed were pursuant to the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6, specifically section 88.1(4)(b), which applies to second occurrences. The judicial review process is governed by the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act, SA 2020, c P-30.8, with a 30-day deadline for applications under section 24(2). The test for a stay pending appeal is from RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), requiring demonstration of a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors granting a stay. The Court also referenced Siciliano v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABCA 62, and noted that irreparable harm must be established with clear evidence and is not satisfied by financial hardship alone.

Outcome and reasoning

Justice Jo'Anne Strekaf found that while the threshold for a serious question to be tried is low, Thompson faced serious hurdles in light of Siciliano v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads). The Court was not satisfied that Thompson had established irreparable harm, as her evidence was not corroborated and financial penalties alone do not meet the standard for irreparable harm. In assessing the balance of convenience, the Court noted the public interest in addressing impaired driving and the availability of alternative remedies, such as enrolling in the IMPACT program and installing an interlock device, which Thompson had not pursued. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a stay.

The application for a stay pending appeal was dismissed. The successful party was the Director of SafeRoads Alberta. The total amount ordered in favor of the successful party, in terms of costs or monetary award, could not be determined from the decision.