Practice Areas
Immediate Roadside Sanction and DUI Services
By hiring an Immediate Roadside Sanction lawyer or DUI lawyer, we will help you understand the implications of your charge, explore your legal options, and assist with your review process or appeal if need be. At Bhardwaj+Co, rest assured our IRS lawyers will not charge you until you win your claim or case.
Defining Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) and Impaired Driving
Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) is part of a program created by the Alberta provincial government, designed to improve street safety and discourage impaired driving (Traffic Safety Act). Starting November 30, 2020, the Immediate Roadside Suspension Program has since been replaced by the Immediate Roadside Sanction Program.
Under the Immediate Roadside Sanction program, police officers in Alberta can pull over a driver under the suspicion of impaired driving, in which case the individual may face driving offences, charges, fines, vehicle seizure, or even driver’s licence suspension. Impaired driving occurs when an individual driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances is no longer capable of operating a car or vehicle.
It should be noted that IRS charges can also apply to individuals who are suspected of impaired driving, even when the driver is not under the influence of drugs. For instance, fatigue or medical conditions that affect driving abilities can also lead to an Immediate Road Sanction.
Difference Between Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) and Driving Under the Influence DUI (DUI) Charges
While an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) charge presents three levels of sanctions and is issued by the provincial government, a Driving Under the Influence Charge (DUI) charge is a criminal or federal offence and points to more severe penalties.
One of the primary differences between the two concerns blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Drivers with BAC of 0.05 to 0.079 will face IRS charges. Those with or exceeding BAC of 0.08 or 80 mg per 100 mL of blood will be charged with DUI. Depending on certain factors however, such as blood alcohol concentration or the implications of an accident, drivers with IRS charges could also face additional DUI charges. This can lead to further fines, penalties, or even jail time.
Since the implementation of the Immediate Roadside Sanction program in 2020, drivers no longer have to attend court to appeal their charges. Instead, affected individuals will receive sanctions and can dispute their charges through a hearing.
Types of Immediate Roadside Sanctions
There are five main types of Immediate Roadside Sanctions, each with varying degrees of severity. Another factor that affects the type of penalty you face also rests on whether or not you are a new driver or are driving for commercial purposes. Depending on the charge, accommodations for your driver’s licence suspension may include allowing you to operate a vehicle with an ignition interlock device.
- IRS 24-Hour
- Occurs when the driver is suspected unfit to drive, due to health complications, physical conditions, or the use of substances, leading to the suspension of your driver’s licence for 24 hours.
- IRS Zero Novice
- Affects novice drivers with a learner’s licence or a Class 5 driver’s licence. A sanction can be issued as long as the individual is found to be under the influence of any substance, regardless of blood alcohol concentration levels.
- IRS Zero Commercial
- Similar to IRS Zero Novice, commercial drivers are prohibited from any degree of substance usage.
- IRS WARN
- Issued when blood alcohol concentration falls between 50 to 80 mg per 100 mL of blood and can also apply to individuals who do not pass sobriety or drug recognition tests.
- IRS FAIL
- Applies to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood or higher. IRS FAIL can also be issued to individuals who are non-compliant with substance testing or do not pass sobriety tests.
Importantly, there are three levels of occurrences for IRS Zero Commercial, IRS WARN and IRS FAIL, which pose progressively more severe penalties with each repeated contravention.
IRS Consequences and Penalties
Once a police officer has issued you with a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP), you will be presented with a list of the minimum fees or periods for each penalty. This includes:
- At least $1,000 fine, plus a 20% victim surcharge
- Minimum 90-day licence suspension, after which there is a 12-month sanction where the driver can only operate the vehicle with an ignition interlock device
- Vehicle seizure for a minimum of 30 days
Related penalties for Immediate Roadside Sanctions can also include greater fines, longer vehicle seizure times or driver’s licence suspension periods, or additional charges. In most cases, the suspension of your driver’s licence takes place immediately and you may need to pay related fees, such as tow fines or costs associated with impounding your vehicle. Moreover, your insurance premium or rates could increase significantly as a result.
IRS and DUI Appeal Considerations
According to the provincial government of Alberta, financial or personal struggles cannot be considered valid grounds for appeal. Examples include the inability to pay off a fine or requiring a car for work or certain medical purposes (e.g. for checkups and appointments). Despite this, there are several cases where your appeal can be considered, some of which include the following:
- Proving that you were not driving, or did not intend to drive
- Having a blood alcohol concentration under the limit when driving
- Demonstrating that police action violated The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Demonstrating that proper procedures were not followed when performing tests
- Showing that a sudden medical condition barred you from performing requested tests
- Failure to provide an adequate demand, including an informed explanation
- Proving a lack of complete records from the police
Edmonton DUI Lawyers & Immediate Roadside Sanction Lawyers from Bhardwaj+Co
At Bhardwaj+Co, our team of Immediate Roadside Sanction and DUI defence lawyers can fight any wrongful DUI offences or impaired driving charges that you may be facing. Our Edmonton lawyers are adept in tailoring strategies that are specific to IRS or DUI criminal law in Alberta and your situation. It is critical that you contact us as soon as possible to appeal your Notice of Administrative Penalty within the 7-day timeline.
If however, it has already been more than seven days since your IRS was issued, we are also here to help you challenge the decision. In any case, we are committed to finding possible solutions and collecting the necessary supporting evidence to aid your case. We understand the stressful processes that come with bearing the burden of proof in IRS charges and will not bill you until you win your case.
- Beaumont
- Bon Accord
- Calmar
- Devon
- Edmonton
- Fort Saskatchewan
- Gibbons
- Lacombe
- Leduc
- Morinville
- Spruce Grove
- St. Albert
- Stony Plain
- Strathcona County
- Sturgeon County
- Thorsby
- Warburg
- Toefield
- Wetaskiwin
Don't see your location here? Call us at (780) 222-2386 or contact us to find out if we can service your area!
IRS Appeals
Dejonge Case
Our client was involved in a collision leading to multiple police vehicles attending the scene. Our client who admitted to driving had flipped his car. When arriving at the scene the police noted extensive damage to the vehicle and the interior air bags had deployed. A witness had reported the vehicle had rolled over and 3 males exited the vehicle and made a run for it.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client.
Although the officer made some verbal assertions, more was needed to meet the legislative requirements. The Officer states in her own words that paperwork was only given after the end of the investigation which is incorrect procedure.
Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to her only after the investigation.
Sivan Case
Our client was called In due to a family dispute at home. Family Members were concerned for the well being of our client. Upon stopping the vehicle, the police officers observed glossy eyes, interrupted speech and inability to follow instructions. The police officers had requested our client to do a breathalyzer multiple times but end result there was no reading of the blood. Unfortunately, our client was then charged of REFUSAL. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation based of “refusal.”
Upon being retained, we had reviewed officer notes and disclosure, noticing that none of the ASD machines (breathalyzer equipment) were uploaded as evidence. Under Section 4(e)(iii)/ the officers must provide all complete records of investigation. Without the equipment we would not be able to argue if the equipment was up to date in calibration or if annual maintenance was done or not. This could mean that the reading to not show was not because of a deliberate attempt to avoid blowing.
As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favor, and their penalty was canceled.
Satng Case
Our client was stopped for driving in a farm field who fell into a ditch. Upon stop, the peace officers observed several beer cans in the truck. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Although the officer made some verbal assertions, these alone were insufficient to meet the legislative requirements.
Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to him only at the conclusion of the investigation. He was able to furnish many details that were missing from the primary investigating officer’s narrative. Due to these additional details, the Adjudicator found our client's testimony more credible.
As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favor, and their penalty was cancelled.
Gedlreich case
Our client was stopped in a traffic stop due to a citizen complaint of a possible impaired driver. Upon stopping the vehicle, the police officers observed red glossy eyes, she was sweating and had slurred speech. The police officers had requested our client to do a breathalyzer multiple times but the end result there was no reading of the blood. Unfortunately, our client was then charged of REFUSAL. The peace officer issued them a Notice of Administrative Penalty “NAP” for operating a motor vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration was equal to or over 80 mg% within 2 hours of operation and impaired operation based of “refusal.”
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client.
Although the officer made some verbal assertions, these alone were insufficient to meet the legislative requirements. The Officer states in her own words that paperwork was only given after the end of investigation which is incorrect procedure.
Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to her only at the conclusion of the investigation.
Wurz case
Our client was involved in a hit and hit run collision which lead to multiple phone calls to the Lethbridge police indicating the driver was possibly impaired. The Driver had turned himself into police custody and was then charged with impaired operation.
After being retained, we carefully reviewed the police officer notes had stated that there was video evidence linking the driver to the scene. We argued that the clients right to fairness was breached. This was because there was no physical video evidence provided by the officers in disclosure.
Bruno case
Our client was pulled over by Edmonton police service as they were dispatched to investigate an impaired driver.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client was neither advised nor made aware, of her right to a roadside appeal at the RELEVANT time. Police evidence only showed the recipient receiving the roadside appeal information sheet at the end of the investigation which is improper procedure.
Our client provided honest and detailed evidence, stating that the Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was given to her only at the conclusion of the investigation. She was able to furnish many details that were missing from the primary investigating officer’s narrative. Due to these additional details, the Adjudicator found our client's testimony more credible.
As a result, the Adjudicator ruled in our client’s favour, and their penalty was cancelled.
Laron Case
At around 12:12 a.m, a peace officer responded to a complaint of a possible impaired driver at Ordze Avenue, in Sherwood Park. When the Peace officer arrived at the scene, she located our client in the driver's seat of the vehicle parked in a parking lot while the car was not running.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then had gone to her car and returned with the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did she provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness to the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing after the first breathalyzer test.
Baghdadian Case
Our client was stopped during a routine traffic stop by the Edmonton police service, upon investigation pour client was charged with a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP).
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the police officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client was neither advised nor made aware, of his right to a roadside appeal at the RELEVANT time. We argued based on the merit that it was unclear if the officer conveyed anything at all as officer notes were silent and non-existent, this led to the assumption by law that nothing was conveyed to our client.
Vernon Case
Our client was stopped during a routine traffic stop by the Edmonton police service, upon investigation our client was charged with a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP).
Upon being retained, we noticed that certain mandatory records were not uploaded in police evidence. We argued that the copy of the NAP was not uploaded as only the backside of the NAP was uploaded to the portal. The adjudicator agreed that we did not have access to the NAP which resulted in a drop of charges for our client.
Blakley Case
Officers originally had turned their sirens on for a high-speed car traveling at a rate of 180Km/h. Our client did not stop for the police officers as he fled away from them. Our client was arrested at his house once the car came to a full stop. Air 1 had tracked his car from the sky in order to give directions to the officers.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the police officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to their car and returned with the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did they provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing after the first breathalyzer test.
Degagne Case
Our client was part of a routine traffic stop as officers noticed that there was no license plate displayed on the vehicle in question. The investigation then further led to a mandatory breath sample resulting in a fail reading. A Second test was offered and accepted and resulted in another fail. The officers then gave the paperwork and drove the client home.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to her car and returned the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did she provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing to after the first breathalyzer test.
Singh Case
According to police notes, the officer arrived at the scene of the collision. The officer located the driver, and later identified as the recipient from the collision as he was not in the vehicle. Our client had “appeared a little confused and couldn't answer questions properly” and had “Glossy and watery eyes”. The officer states that our client had a strong odor of “alcohol” from his mouth. A first test was done and had come back as a “fail”. A second test was then offered incorrectly as the officer stated “blow a second time”.
Upon being retained, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by the peace officer along with the physical paperwork given to our client. We argued that no written notice of the roadside appeal was provided to our client. Our client stated and aligned with the officer's narrative that after providing the initial breath sample, the officer had asked if our client wanted to try to blow a second time. Our client had agreed to blow a second time and had ultimately failed that as well. The officer then went to her car and returned the paperwork to our client. Unfortunately, this was the wrong procedure done by the officer. The officer did not inform our client of any information regarding the roadside appeal, nor did they provide our client with enough awareness of that right and unfortunately asking for a second test does not justify an awareness of the appeal. Clients must be fully informed of what they are appealing to after the first breathalyzer test. In this instance the paperwork and information of the appeal was conveyed to our client when he was dropped off.
IRS and DUI FAQs
When could I be issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction?
A driver can be issued an Immediate Roadside Sanction at or after the time of driving. This means that even if you were to cease operating a vehicle, you could still face an IRS charge if your blood alcohol concentration exceeds the legal limit. Importantly, an IRS could also apply to you if you fail to comply with drug or alcohol tests, despite the absence of proof that your BAC has exceeded the limit.
What is a Notice of Administrative Penalty?
Upon issuing an Immediate Roadside Sanction, you will receive a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP), which outlines your penalties. These include minimum time periods or fees for your licence suspension, fine, and seizure of your vehicle.
Can I get a second test?
Once a police officer has stopped you and provided you with a NAP, you are entitled at the time to an opportunity for a second test or breath sample. Depending on the circumstance, a second test can drastically affect whether or not the NAP is effective or not. For instance, your NAP could be cancelled or reduced if second test results show the absence of drugs or an intake lower than the limit. Moreover, individuals can seek to take a sample using another Approved Screening Device (ASD) to limit the possibilities of contaminated devices or inaccurate readings.
How do I apply for an Immediate Roadside Appeal?
As soon as you receive your NAP, you can appeal, dispute, or request for a review (written or oral) for your Immediate Roadside Sanction through SafeRoads Alberta through an online portal. You may also choose to enlist the help of a representative or a lawyer to appeal on your behalf. Next, you will schedule a date for the review and will receive a request to submit any supporting documents two days prior to the review. Note that SafeRoads will not accept documents submitted outside of the portal for review.
What should I prepare for my appeal?
For your IRS appeal, it is helpful to note down in as much detail as possible what happened at the time you were stopped. It is recommended that you compile a list of relevant documents, photos, texts, and witnesses that were present during the event. It is also crucial that you do not pay the fine stated in your NAP, as doing so means you have accepted the charge and are unable to appeal.
How many days do I have to appeal an IRS or DUI charge?
Upon receiving your Notice of Administrative Penalty or sanction, you have 7 days to appeal the charge. Note that the number of days you have to appeal is not limited to business days. As such, it is crucial to appeal, dispute, or request a review within this period to restore your driving privileges or driver’s licence status. Failure to do so can lead to greater penalties should repeat occurrences ever take place in the future. In such a situation, you can seek to hire IRS or DUI lawyers after the seven-day period to understand your legal options.
What is an ignition interlock device?
Depending on the type of IRS received, under the Ignition Interlock Program, drivers could still operate a vehicle after the suspension of their driver’s licence. Drivers who have an ignition interlock device are required to take a breath sample prior to driving. If the blood alcohol or drug concentration exceeds a a limit, the vehicle will be prevented from operating. Note that drivers participating in this program are expected to pay for the installation of the device, along with any associated costs.
Is it possible to receive an IRS and a DUI charge?
In certain circumstances, drivers could be charged with both an Immediate Roadside Sanction and a Driving Under the Influence offence. This can happen in cases where the blood alcohol concentration exceeds 80 mg per 100 mL or for instance, when a driver is found to be guilty of a hit-and-run accident. However, typically, only one of the two will apply after a decision has been made or a conviction.
Why Choose Edmonton IRS lawyers from Bhardwaj+Co?
If you require assistance navigating complex legal terms, our experienced Edmonton IRS lawyers from Bhardwaj+Co can help you weigh your options and find the next most appropriate steps to take. Rest assured that you will not have to pay any fees until you win your case. Our law group can analyze any grounds for appeal, help you collect or gather the necessary evidence, and identify wrongful decisions or violations.
Get in Touch
Consultation
A one-hour session where a Bhardwaj+Co lawyer hears the details of your case and explains your options. The consultation is for you to decide whether or not to hire Bhardwaj+Co if you feel our values and ideas align.
Strategize
This meeting with your Bhardwaj+Co lawyer is to develop a customized legal strategy based on specific issues within your case.
Take Action
Your lawyer will develop an actionable plan, based on your situation and experience, that best suits your interests. At Bhardwaj+Co, we take our time with each client to ensure their needs and case are clearly understood.
Get in Touch
Get in Touch
Book NowHours
Monday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Tuesday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Wednesday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Thursday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed
*Closed on Statutory Holidays
Monday: 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Tuesday: 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Wednesday: 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Thursday: 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Friday: 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed
*Closed on Statutory Holidays