HALLWAS v ALBERTA (DIRECTOR OF SAFEROADS), 2026 ABKB 551

The Applicant applied for Judicial Review of an Adjudicator’s decision to uphold a Notice of Administrative Penalty issued pursuant to Section 88.1(1)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6.

The Applicant sought to rely on a Supplemental Affidavit that contained evidence that was not before the Adjudicator at first instance. Despite having previously consented to the Supplemental Affidavit being struck, the Applicant still attempted to rely on factual assertions within it.

The Respondent argued that Rule 3.22 generally limits the evidentiary record on Judicial Review to the certified proceedings. Additionally, the Applicant did not obtain permission pursuant to Rule 3.22(d) to provide new evidence, nor did the Supplemental Affidavit satisfy any of the limited exceptions to the Rule relating to bias, procedural unfairness, standing, or an inadequate tribunal record. Instead, the Supplemental Affidavit contained factual assertions that spoke to the merits of the underlying dispute. The Respondent further noted that the Applicant had ample opportunity to present such evidence to the Adjudicator and had provided extensive viva voce evidence during the hearing.

In rejecting the admissibility of the Supplemental Affidavit, Jugnauth J. agreed with the Respondent’s submissions and adopted them as his reasons. Justice Jugnauth noted that the Supplemental Affidavit would have been struck in the absence of the Applicant’s consent.

In the result, the Court dismissed the Judicial Review Application, finding that the Adjudicator’s decision was reasonable.