Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central issue was whether the Adjudicator’s decision that Mr. Stuhldreier failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with an ASD demand during a fair investigation was reasonable.

• The validity of the ASD demands and whether their potential invalidity could serve as a reasonable excuse for refusal were disputed.

• The Adjudicator determined that criminal law principles do not apply to the administrative SafeRoads regime, consistent with prior case law.

• The fairness of the investigation, particularly the impact of arrest, Chartering, and cautioning before the second ASD demand, was not adequately addressed by the Adjudicator.

• The Court found that the Adjudicator failed to fully consider the effect of Charter rights and the procedural fairness of making a second ASD demand after arrest and caution.

• The Adjudicator’s decision was quashed on the issue of fairness and remitted for reconsideration before a new Adjudicator.

Background and incident details

At 2:18 am on January 28, 2023, Constable Alipour of the RCMP observed a truck parked and running in a ditch along Township Road 490 near Sunnybrook, Alberta, facing the wrong direction. He found Joseph Stuhldreier asleep in the driver’s seat. Upon waking him, Constable Alipour suspected alcohol consumption due to Mr. Stuhldreier’s reaction and the smell of alcohol. The officer saw two cans of beer in the truck and, believing impairment, asked Mr. Stuhldreier to turn off the truck and hand over the keys. While retrieving the Approved Screening Device (ASD), Constable Alipour saw Mr. Stuhldreier walking away, but brought him back.

At 2:23 am, Constable Alipour attempted to read the first ASD demand. Mr. Stuhldreier repeatedly interrupted, stating he did not understand and that he was just walking on the road. At 2:25 am, Constable Alipour arrested Mr. Stuhldreier for failing to comply with the first demand, read him his Charter rights, and at 2:33 am, asked if he understood. Mr. Stuhldreier continued to say he did not understand and requested his handcuffs be removed. He confirmed he wished to speak with counsel. At 2:37 am, Constable Alipour read the second ASD demand, and when asked if he understood, Mr. Stuhldreier replied, “No, I was walking on the road.” Constable Dzafovic, who had arrived on scene, attempted to explain the second demand. Constable Alipour then issued the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) on the basis that Mr. Stuhldreier had refused to give a breath sample.

Mr. Stuhldreier sought a review of the NAP by a SafeRoads Adjudicator, swearing an affidavit stating he was not driving and did not understand why a sample was being demanded. The Adjudicator confirmed the NAP in a decision dated February 27, 2023. Mr. Stuhldreier then filed an application for judicial review of the Adjudicator’s decision.

Discussion of policy terms and legal framework

The Court reviewed Alberta’s SafeRoads legislation, specifically s 88.1 of the Traffic Safety Act (TSA) and the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation (SAR). The legislation allows a peace officer to issue a NAP if a driver, knowing a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply with the demand without reasonable excuse. The Adjudicator may cancel a NAP only on the grounds set out in s 4 of SAR or if the procedure was unfair or egregiously unfair. The onus is on the NAP recipient to establish grounds for cancellation on a balance of probabilities.

The Court noted that under the administrative regime, the validity of the ASD demand is not a ground for cancellation of a NAP, as established in Fish v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABKB 213, McWilliam v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2024 ABKB 559, and Morin v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2023 ABKB 200. The administrative process is distinct from the criminal process, and criminal law principles do not automatically apply.

Judicial review and outcome

The parties agreed that the standard of review was reasonableness. The Court found that the Adjudicator’s findings regarding the refusal to comply and the lack of reasonable excuse were reasonable, as the Adjudicator considered the totality of the evidence and concluded that Mr. Stuhldreier understood the purpose of the demand but did not comply. The Adjudicator also found that his belief that he was not required to comply if not operating the vehicle was irrelevant.

However, the Court determined that the Adjudicator failed to adequately address the fairness of the investigation. Specifically, the Adjudicator did not fully consider the effect of arrest, Chartering, and cautioning on the fairness of making a second ASD demand, nor did she grapple with whether these factors rendered the process egregiously unfair. The Court concluded that this failure rendered the decision unreasonable.

Accordingly, Justice L.K. Harris quashed the Adjudicator’s decision on the issue of fairness and remitted the matter for reconsideration before a new Adjudicator with the benefit of these reasons. No specific amount was ordered or awarded, as the matter was sent back for further review rather than a final determination in favor of either party.