Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the Director was required to disclose Cst. Slauenwhite’s notes and report under the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA) and SafeRoads Alberta Regulation (SAR).

• Examination of the reasonableness of the Adjudicator’s finding that all records required by PAPA s 12 were provided.

• Consideration of whether the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness was breached during the administrative process.

• Evaluation of the handling of the Applicant’s Charter s 10(b) right to counsel upon arrest.

• Assessment of whether the Adjudicator failed to consider the impact of not informing the Applicant of her Charter rights before the ASD Demand.

• Judicial review focused on the reasonableness of the Adjudicator’s findings and the appropriate remedy for any procedural unfairness.

Facts of the case

On March 17, 2024, Olga Renneberg was involved in a hit and run incident. The RCMP received a 911 call and officers were dispatched at 9:01 p.m. At the scene, police observed a white Oldsmobile that had been struck from the rear and moved about 25 feet. A Honda logo emblem was found on the ground. Wet tire tracks led from the scene to a nearby residence. Cst. Jeha followed the tracks to the garage of the residence and spoke with Renneberg, who answered the door. When informed about the investigation, Renneberg spontaneously admitted, “it was me” that hit the vehicle. She was arrested for failing to stop after an accident. While escorting her to the police vehicle, Cst. Jeha noticed a strong odour of liquor on her breath and that her pants were unzipped. Renneberg admitted to having consumed alcohol at a pub and being on her phone before striking the parked Oldsmobile.

At 9:29 p.m., Cst. Jeha read Renneberg the Approved Screening Device Demand (ASD Demand), to which she replied, “yes.” After several attempts, she provided a breath sample at 9:35 p.m. that produced a “FAIL” result. Based on this, Cst. Jeha formed the opinion that within the preceding three hours, Renneberg operated a motor vehicle while her ability to do so was impaired by alcohol. Other RCMP members, with Renneberg’s permission, opened the garage and examined a vehicle with significant front-end damage, a deployed airbag, and white paint matching the Oldsmobile.

Cst. Jeha confirmed with Cst. Slauenwhite that there would be no criminal investigation for failing to stop after an accident. Renneberg was “unarrested” for Criminal Code violations and advised that her driver’s license would be suspended with administrative penalties. She was served with Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) documents and tickets under the Traffic Safety Act. Renneberg was informed of her right to a Roadside Appeal, which she chose to pursue. At 10:08 p.m., she provided a second breath sample into a different ASD, which again produced a “FAIL” result. Her driver’s license was seized, and she was released.

Proceedings before the adjudicator

At the oral review hearing, Renneberg argued that the Director failed to provide all records required by PAPA s 12, specifically Cst. Slauenwhite’s report and notes, and that her right to procedural fairness was breached. The Adjudicator found that those documents were not required under SAR s 2(h), as there was no evidence Cst. Slauenwhite played a role in the impaired investigation or that his records were necessary for Renneberg to understand the basis of the NAP. The Adjudicator also considered the Charter s 10(b) argument but concluded the circumstances did not rise to the level of egregiousness required to cancel the NAP.

Judicial review and outcome

Renneberg applied for judicial review. The Court considered whether the Adjudicator unreasonably found that all records required by PAPA s 12 were provided and whether the Adjudicator unreasonably found no breach of procedural fairness. The Court held that the Adjudicator’s conclusion regarding disclosure of records was reasonable, as Cst. Jeha’s report was sufficient and Cst. Slauenwhite’s involvement did not require further disclosure under SAR s 2(h). However, the Court found it was unreasonable for the Adjudicator to fail to consider the potential impact of not informing Renneberg of her Charter s 10(b) rights upon arrest, especially before the ASD Demand.

Discussion of policy terms and relevant clauses

The case involved interpretation of PAPA s 12 and SAR s 2(h), which require the Director to provide “relevant records as prescribed in the regulations.” The Court clarified that only records relevant and necessary to determine the basis for issuing the NAP must be disclosed. The Court also discussed the suspension of Charter s 10(b) rights during roadside screening and the need to consider the impact of not informing the Applicant of those rights before the ASD Demand.

Final outcome

The judicial review was allowed in part. The Court dismissed Renneberg’s challenge regarding disclosure of records but quashed the Adjudicator’s decision on the procedural fairness issue. The matter was remitted to the Adjudicator for reconsideration of the impact of not advising Renneberg of her Charter s 10(b) rights before the ASD Demand. The successful party was the Applicant, Olga Renneberg, on the procedural fairness issue, but the total amount ordered in her favor could not be determined from the decision, as the matter was remitted for further consideration and no final monetary award or costs were specified.