Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned whether the adjudicator’s decision to uphold a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) under section 88.1(1)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act was reasonable.

• Mr. Sidhu argued he did not operate the vehicle, relying on his and his father’s sworn evidence, while the adjudicator preferred the evidence of the police and complainant.

• The adjudicator found the complainant’s and police’s evidence more credible, noting the absence of corroborating evidence from Mr. Sidhu, such as taxi records or testimony from friends.

• The adjudicator was entitled to consider unsworn hearsay evidence under section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation and was not bound by judicial rules of evidence.

• The burden was on Mr. Sidhu to satisfy the adjudicator, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not operated the motor vehicle, which the adjudicator found he failed to do.

• The reviewing court held the adjudicator’s decision was reasonable, entitled to deference, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Background and incident details
Jagdev Sidhu sought judicial review of an adjudicator’s decision upholding a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) issued under section 88.1(1)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6. At approximately 11:48 PM on May 21, 2023, Calgary Police Service (CPS) received a complaint about a Calgary United Cab parked on the driveway of a residence in Calgary, Alberta. The complainant observed an individual stumble out of the vehicle’s driver side door and fall to the ground approximately four meters from the vehicle. CPS arrived at the residence about 45 minutes later and found Mr. Sidhu asleep on the driveway, detecting a strong odour of alcohol. Mr. Sidhu’s phone and car keys were on the ground next to him. He was described as too intoxicated to get off the ground, incoherent, and unable to understand what was happening. CPS assisted Mr. Sidhu to the police vehicle. Mr. Sidhu’s wife and father reside at the residence, but Mr. Sidhu was living elsewhere with his sister due to criminal proceedings that prohibited contact with his wife. CPS arrested Mr. Sidhu for impaired driving, outstanding warrants, and breaching release conditions. A search of the vehicle revealed two empty bottles of alcohol on the passenger seat. Mr. Sidhu was “Chartered” and cautioned.

Review and evidence before the adjudicator
On May 25, 2023, Mr. Sidhu requested an oral review of the NAP under section 7 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act, SA 2020, c P-30.8. At the June 12, 2023 review, Mr. Sidhu and his father provided affidavit and oral evidence. Mr. Sidhu relied on section 4(e)(i) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation, Alta Reg 224/2020, which allows for cancellation of a NAP if the recipient did not operate the motor vehicle. Mr. Sidhu testified that he parked his taxi at his father’s residence at about 6:00 PM on May 20, 2023, because parking at his sister’s residence was limited. On May 21, 2023, he attended a party, became intoxicated, and his friends called him a taxi to his father’s address, mistakenly believing he still lived there. Upon being dropped off, he fell onto the driveway. He explained he had his vehicle keys because he wore the same pants on May 20 and 21 and had left his keys in the pocket. Mr. Sidhu’s father testified that he saw Mr. Sidhu’s car parked in the driveway at around 8:00 AM, again at 8:00 or 9:00 PM, and at about 10:00 PM on May 21, 2023.

Adjudicator’s decision and legal framework
On June 20, 2023, the adjudicator issued written reasons confirming the NAP. Mr. Sidhu filed an Originating Application for judicial review on July 18, 2023, seeking to quash the Decision, cancel the NAP, and/or have a different adjudicator conduct a review. The SafeRoads statutory scheme is administrative, not criminal or penal, and the standard of review is reasonableness. Both parties agreed on this standard, as set out in case law and section 24(3) of PAPA.

Court’s analysis and conclusion
The adjudicator preferred the evidence of the police and complainant over that of Mr. Sidhu and his father, citing the consistency between the complainant’s statement and police observations, and the lack of corroborating evidence from Mr. Sidhu. The adjudicator found the keys being next to Mr. Sidhu more consistent with him having driven the vehicle. The adjudicator was entitled to consider the complainant’s unsworn statement as evidence under section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Regulation. The court found the adjudicator’s assessment of credibility and the weight given to evidence were reasonable and entitled to deference. The court concluded that Mr. Sidhu did not meet the burden of establishing he had not operated the vehicle. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the adjudicator’s confirmation of the NAP remains. No specific monetary amount was ordered or awarded; the outcome was the confirmation of the administrative penalty against Mr. Sidhu.