Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Rame Zeid sought judicial review of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' December 23, 2025 decision sustaining an Immediate Roadside Suspension after he refused to provide a breath sample on November 22, 2025.
• Central to the reasonableness challenge was whether the Registrar was required to identify the specific Criminal Code provision under which the breath demand was made.
• Zeid also argued the refusal to comply with the demand was not established on the evidentiary record, relying on conflicting accounts between his affidavit and the officer's sworn report.
• Criminal law protections under sections 320.27 and 320.28 of the Criminal Code — including Charter rights — were held not to be imported into the administrative review regime.
• Procedural fairness arguments centred on the alleged failure to disclose ASD calibration records, the officer's qualifications, and the specific wording of the demand card.
• Documents related to ASD reliability were not in the Registrar's possession and were of limited relevance in a refusal-based suspension.

Facts of the case

On November 22, 2025, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer observed a vehicle drifting toward the center lane and failing to maintain a consistent speed. After pulling the vehicle over, the officer noted a strong odour of alcohol while speaking with the driver, Rame Zeid, and also observed slurred speech and watery eyes. The officer read Zeid a demand for a breath sample using an Approved Screening Device (ASD), explained the process, and presented the device. Zeid declined to provide a breath sample. When advised that refusal would result in an immediate licence suspension and vehicle impoundment, Zeid confirmed he would not comply. Zeid was subsequently served with an Immediate Roadside Suspension.

On November 24, 2025, the officer forwarded to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a sworn affidavit attaching copies of Zeid's driver's licence, the Immediate Roadside Suspension document, the notice of vehicle impoundment, and the occurrence report. Zeid applied for a review of the suspension on November 28, 2025, and requested an oral hearing. He received disclosure of all documents in the Registrar's possession two weeks before the hearing. A few days before the hearing, Zeid filed his own affidavit — confirming he had been pulled over and that the officer asked for a breath sample — along with a signed statement from his passenger, who said she observed no signs of impairment and did not witness Zeid refuse the breath sample. On December 17, 2025, Zeid, represented by counsel, attended a virtual hearing before the Appeals Manager. On December 23, 2025, the Appeals Manager issued a decision dismissing the appeal and upholding the Immediate Roadside Suspension. Zeid then brought this Application for Judicial Review before the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick.

Statutory provisions at issue

The suspension was issued under paragraph 310.06(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSNB 1973, c M-17 (MVA), which authorizes a peace officer to impose an Immediate Roadside Suspension where the officer has reason to believe a person had alcohol in their body and refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand under section 320.27 or 320.28 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Under the administrative review framework in section 310.07 of the MVA, the Registrar must sustain the suspension unless satisfied that: (1) the applicant was not the driver, or (2) the applicant did not fail or refuse to comply with such a demand. The evidentiary record to be considered by the Registrar on review is identified in subsection 310.07(6) of the MVA.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court applied the reasonableness standard as governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, which establishes reasonableness as the presumptive standard of review for administrative decisions. Under this framework, a decision is reasonable if it is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, justified in relation to the facts and law constraining the decision maker, and bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

On the question of whether the Registrar was required to identify the specific Criminal Code provision under which the demand was made, the Court rejected Zeid's argument. It confirmed, consistent with Jason Savoie v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 NBKB 83, and Trevor Colin Chmura v The Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 NBKB 72, that criminal law requirements — including Charter protections tied to sections 320.27 and 320.28 of the Criminal Code — are not imported into the administrative regime. The Court further noted that the immediacy requirement discussed in R v Breault, 2023 SCC 9, is anchored in Charter rights under subsection 10(b) and sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, and therefore does not apply in this context. The Registrar was only required to determine whether Zeid was the driver and whether he failed or refused to comply with a demand — the two statutory criteria under subsection 310.07(8) of the MVA.

On the refusal issue, the Court found the evidentiary record before the Registrar adequately supported the conclusion that a demand was made and refused. The officer's sworn notes stated that he read the ASD demand, presented the device, explained how to provide a sample, and that Zeid explicitly stated he would not blow. Zeid's own affidavit acknowledged that the officer asked him to blow into a roadside device, which the Registrar reasonably relied upon in concluding that a refusal occurred. The passenger's witness statement was reasonably dismissed because the critical exchange between Zeid and the officer took place in and around the police vehicle, outside the passenger's direct observation. The Court also found that the undated flat tire photograph, even if considered, would not have invalidated the officer's observations giving rise to grounds to believe Zeid had alcohol in his body.

On procedural fairness, the Court applied the standard set out in Tyler Anthony Tower v The Attorney General of New Brunswick and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 NBKB 216, which recognizes that the Registrar owes applicants a broad duty of procedural fairness in Immediate Roadside Suspension appeals. This duty includes reasonable notice of the hearing, timely disclosure of all documents in the Registrar's possession, the right to present evidence and make submissions, and a written decision within the required timeframe. The Court found all these components were met: Zeid received notice of the hearing, full disclosure of documents in the Registrar's possession, an opportunity to file affidavit evidence and make submissions, and a written decision within seven days of the hearing. As to the ASD-related documents Zeid sought — including calibration records, the officer's qualifications, and dry-gas alcohol standards — these were not in the Registrar's possession and were of limited relevance given that the suspension arose from a refusal, not a failed breath test. As confirmed in Chmura, the Registrar has no obligation or power to compel the production of further documents beyond those received. The absence of the specific demand card wording did not give rise to a procedural fairness concern, as the MVA does not require its production.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court upheld the Registrar's Decision as both reasonable and procedurally fair, dismissing Zeid's Application for Judicial Review in its entirety. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles prevailed, with the application dismissed and costs of $1,000 ordered payable by Zeid to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.