About a month ago, reports emerged of a data breach involving digital scans of more than 100 million driver’s licences. IDScan.net provides technology that can capture information and images from a driver’s licence, store them digitally, check for signs of fraud, compare the licence photo with a live photo or selfie, and verify details against supported databases.
Many people encounter ID-scanning technology in hospitality. Bars and entertainment venues use it to verify identity and help stop banned patrons at the door.
In Manitoba, some liquor stores take the process a step further. Customers wait in a locked vestibule while their identification is checked. Only a few people are allowed in at a time; the rest wait outside in −45 weather. Explaining this arrangement to someone who is not from Manitoba is always entertaining. Welcome to Manitoba, if you want alcohol bring your ID and dress for the weather.
IDScan.net also markets its technology to warehouses, shippers and transportation companies to verify driver identity and combat cargo theft. That raises an interesting question about the Air Canada gold heist: was the pickup driver’s ID checked?
Commercial drivers have reason to pay attention to this breach. Reported searches identified approximately 1.1 million Canadian licence records, although that figure is not a confirmed count of affected individuals. On September 21, 2026, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada announced an investigation into IDScan.net’s safeguards and its notifications to affected people.
Choosing to Share Information or Being Required To
If a nightclub requires an ID scan and you do not want to share your information, you can choose another venue or stay home.
ELDs are a different situation. For federally regulated commercial drivers required to maintain RODS, using a certified ELD is a legal requirement, subject to the prescribed exemptions. This is technology drivers must use to do their jobs.
The Canadian ELD Technical Standard includes protections for those drivers’ information. But how is the data protected, and who can access it?
From the Engine to the Dashboard
An ELD receives vehicle information from the engine’s electronic control module (ECM) and other sensors. It combines that information with the driver’s entries to create electronic records of duty status (RODS).
In a cloud-connected system, those records are transmitted to the ELD provider’s servers and stored. The carrier accesses each driver’s records through an online dashboard or similar portal to monitor hours of service, review events and retrieve reports.
An ELD is not intuitive it does not know why a truck moved. The ELD’s only job is to record a driver’s time using the information from the truck. Understanding what those records mean still requires someone who understands hours of service and ELD functionality.
Protection at Each Step
Security depends on the provider’s hardware, software and configuration. We should not assume that every connection is encrypted simply because the device is a certified ELD.
| Step | How data is protected |
| ECM → ELD hardware | The standard requires supported serial or CAN communication. That requirement alone does not establish that this connection is encrypted. |
| ELD hardware → phone or tablet, if used | Protection depends on the provider’s design, including pairing, authentication and encryption. |
| ELD → cloud | Encryption in transit can protect information moving to the provider’s servers. |
| Stored in the cloud | Safeguards can include encryption at rest, access restrictions and monitoring. |
| Cloud → carrier dashboard | HTTPS/TLS protects transmission to the browser. User permissions control access within the dashboard. |
| Downloaded report → carrier’s computer | Protection depends on the file and the carrier’s storage, access and sharing practices. Dashboard encryption does not automatically keep a downloaded PDF or CSV encrypted. |
Producing Records for an Inspector
When a driver is stopped roadside or at a highway inspection station, there are two related processes: showing records on the device display or a compliant printout (PDF RODS) and transferring the standardized electronic output file (CSV).
Technical Standard 4.9.1 Transfer of Electronic Files During Roadside Safety Inspections addresses electronic transfer. Email is mandatory; USB and Bluetooth are additional options where supported. Display and printout requirements are addressed separately in 4.8.1.
Under Federal HOS SOR/2005-313, subsection 98(2), the motor carrier must transmit electronic RODS to the inspector in the format and using a transfer method prescribed by the Technical Standard. If a driver is asked to provide RODS in a different way such as screenshots, do not pay that ticket and call me!
An electronic transfer gives the inspector records that can be examined beyond the device screen and retained as evidence. The inspection period includes the current day and the previous 14 days.
Who Has the Key?
Technical Standard 4.10.1.2 Wireless Data Transfer Through E-Mail requires encryption of the prescribed output file using a public key compliant with the Canadian PKI infrastructure.
PKI (public key infrastructure) is a digital lock-and-key system that protects information so only someone with the corresponding key can read it.
During implementation, provinces and territories were responsible for submitting enforcement officials’ email addresses and enrolling officials in the secure transfer process.
The Federal HOS regulations clearly identify who qualifies as an inspector.
SOR/2005-313, section 1:
inspector means
(a) a person designated under subsection 3(2); or
(b) a peace officer within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code.
Directors section 3:
3 (1) The minister responsible for highway safety in a province may designate a person to exercise in the province the duties and functions of a director for the purposes of these Regulations.
(2) A director may designate inspectors for the purposes of these Regulations.
This ensures only the people “allowed” access to the data and the RODS have it.
Personal Use and Driver Privacy
Personal conveyance is the movement of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for personal use while off-duty. A driver may record time operating a CMV for personal conveyance as off-duty only when the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work by the motor carrier.
When a driver selects authorized personal use, the ELD records a start event. It continues monitoring cumulative personal-use distance, but 4.7.3 Privacy Preserving Provision for Use During Personal Uses of a CMV, restricts event recording to personal-use events, malfunctions and data diagnostics. When personal use ends, an end event is recorded.
Under 4.5.1.3(a)(b), those personal-use start and end events include location fields. The privacy protection is the absence of a regular intermediate location trail during the personal-use period, not the disappearance of every record associated with it. That happens because what the driver does during personal use is considered off duty and nobody’s business.
That distinction matters. So does the distinction between the ELD record and a separate fleet GPS system, which continues collecting location information.
Understanding the Data Matters
Protecting driver information and understanding ELD evidence go together.
Data breaches will remain a risk while stolen information has value. Drivers and carriers should use strong, unique passwords, enable multifactor authentication where available, limit account access and handle downloaded records carefully.
Providers and regulators also have responsibilities. Drivers cannot personally secure a provider’s cloud infrastructure or administer an enforcement PKI system.
Driver privacy matters enough to be addressed in the Technical Standard. The records matter enough to have prescribed formats and protected transfer methods. Understanding both should be a basic expectation of anyone assessing ELD compliance.
How to Handle the Hours of Service Exemption Without ELD Penalties
Transport Canada has given an Hours of Service (HOS) exemption for drivers transporting refined petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, gasoline-ethanol blends, and ethanol) between and through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.
If a carrier and driver have managed to jump through the many many hoops required to use the Refined Petroleum Products Distribution Sector Exemption, specific steps must be taken to manage ELD functionality. I have broken it down so you and your drivers don’t get popped with fines roadside or face failure-to-monitor penalties during an NSC Standard 15 Audit or compliance review.
How the Exemption Changes Driver Hours
The Refined Petroleum Products Distribution Sector Exemption allows a driver to operate 84 hours on-duty in 7 days rather than 70 hours—essentially gaining 14 additional hours in 7 days.
Here is how the driver math breaks down in real life:
The exemption essentially gives carriers one extra full 14-hour work shift per week per driver by eliminating the mid-week downtime enforced by the 70-hour cap.
The ELD Problem: How to Make It Work in the Cab
All great things, but how does it work in the cab of the truck?
A driver using an ELD under the Federal hours of service rules cannot change or select an 84/7 cycle in the ELD software.
Drivers must remain logged into their standard 7/70 cycle and rely on the "Remarks" section of their record of duty status.
Daily Log Remarks
For every day the driver operates under this exemption, they must enter a clear note in the Remarks section of their ELD log stating that the exemption is active.
Example Remark: "Operating under Transport Canada Section 16 Refined Petroleum Exemption."
Managing ELD Violations and Roadside Inspections
Because the ELD software continues to run on standard 70-hour cycle logic, it will trigger automated warnings:
Carrier Monitoring and Dashboard Auditing
It’s not all on the driver, the carrier has extra work as well. Because the ELD will trigger driver violations, those violations will show up directly on the carrier’s ELD management dashboard.
Under the conditions of the exemption, safety personnel must actively manage these records:
If you plan to leverage this exemption do not wait to get your paperwork and processes in order, this exemption expires in just 10 days. Gathering the required Canadian Fuels Association confirmation email, submitting your notice to Transport Canada, pulling updated 12-month driver abstracts, and training your drivers on mandatory ELD log remarks takes time.
Good luck and shoot me a message if you have questions.
CVSA Enforcement Bulletin 2026-02 and Canadian Hours of Service
Finally in 2026 a regulator put something in writing.
An interpretation of ELD violations found roadside and how they are dealt with. The CVSA just released Enforcement Bulletin 2026-02 and I cannot stress how important this is for carriers facing ELD penalties or punitive audit enforcement for ELD internal carrier monitoring.
Up until last week if a carrier had an ELD violation and wanted to plead not guilty and go to court there was no public-facing information explaining what an ELD violation actually was. There has never been an interpretation guide for ELD violations published for industry. Most carriers simply pay the ticket.
How are you supposed to defend yourself when there is no public information explaining what ELD data actually constitutes a violation? Now carriers finally have something to build a case on.
Most ELD violations are dealt with in traffic court. That means it is the driver or the carrier explaining the validity of the violation to a judge who likely has no commercial vehicle training and little familiarity with ELD systems.
The majority of people in the industry do not understand the minutia of ELD data and how it relates to regulation. They know they cannot easily explain why a violation is not a violation to a judge.
The enforcement officer, meanwhile, carries built-in credibility. Judges reasonably assume that if an officer issued a ticket, it must be correct.
Now with Enforcement Bulletin 2026-02 industry finally has something tangible from a regulatory body.
Enforcement Guidance from 2026-02
Inspectors should rely on the driver interview and make every effort to support the OOS violation through motor carrier contacts and the collection of supporting documentation. The goal is to only place drivers OOS who pose an imminent hazard.
For standard false RODS, where it is possible for the inspector to determine when the falsification occurred, and the driver is not over hours at the time of inspection, these false RODS should be cited under § 395.8(e)(1): No driver or motor carrier may make a false report in connection with a duty status., and the driver should be allowed to proceed.
In Canada the comparative violation is:
SOR 2005-313 86(2): No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to enter, and no person shall enter, inaccurate information in a record of duty status or falsify, mutilate, obscure, alter, delete, destroy or deface the records or supporting documents.
If the driver is over the HOS limits at the time of inspection, the driver should be cited under § 395.8(e)(1) and placed OOS until such time as eligibility to drive is re-established.
For drivers whose RODS have been reengineered, reprogrammed or tampered with and the ELD does not accurately record or retain required data, and it is not possible for the inspector to determine when driving occurred, the inspector should cite a § 395.8(e)(2): No driver or motor carrier may disable, deactivate, disengage, jam, or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or reengineer, reprogram, or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain required data. violation and place the driver OOS for 10 consecutive hours.
In Canada the comparative violation:
SOR 2005-313 86(3): No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to, and no person shall, disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or re-engineer, reprogram or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
False RODS where the driver still has available hours should result in a ticket, but the driver is allowed to continue. If the RODS are false and the driver is over their hours, the driver should receive a ticket and be placed out of service until sufficient hours are available to drive again. If the RODS have been tampered with or reprogrammed so the ELD cannot accurately determine driving time, the driver should receive a ticket and be placed out of service for 10 consecutive hours.
Why This Matters in Canada
Finally, after many years, there is an opinion of what constitutes an ELD violation and what to do about it.
There is still no opinion regarding historical violations discovered during a NSC Standard 15 audit or compliance review, but because NSC Standard 15 is currently under review this issue should eventually be addressed.
Here is the problem.
It has taken regulators years to reach this point — just in time for technology to already be moving ahead again. Full telematics systems including ELDs, in-cab cameras and exterior cameras are becoming standard across the industry.
Insurance companies are increasingly demanding this level of data. Recent information from the insurance industry (HUB Insurance 2026 report) stated that adoption and optimization of emerging technology are non-negotiable. Underwriters now expect the use of critical transportation technology systems when negotiating policy terms.
Which raises a reasonable question.
Why are regulators spending years writing interpretations for technology the industry is already moving beyond?
ELDs rely on driver input. A driver must log in, change duty status and make manual entries. Regulators already recognize the weakness of this system — the technical standard itself includes diagnostics and tampering provisions because the data can be manipulated.
Meanwhile the next generation of safety technology already exists. Driver-facing AI cameras, telematics and engine data can identify exactly who is driving and when the vehicle is moving. Systems like DriveWyze already transmit vehicle and carrier information to enforcement agencies for weigh station preclearance.
If autonomous trucks are still years away, the alternative is obvious: automate the driver monitoring systems instead.
So why are regulators spending years writing interpretations for technology that the industry is already preparing to replace?
Regulators had years to educate stakeholders and failed to do so. Instead, enforcement issued thousands of tickets that carriers had little ability to challenge because regulators either did not understand the technology themselves or did not publicly release the limited information they had.
The Canadian Hours of Service Problem
So what is the real problem?
SOR 2005-313 91(1) Out-Of-Service Declaration.
In Canada we do not have an ELD interpretation guide or enforcement direction from regulators. The only reference available is the federal Hours of Service regulation itself.
If we compare SOR 2005-313 to 49 CFR Part 395, we see that SOR 2005-313 section 91(1) (e) addresses false records and (f) addresses tampering, while SOR 2005-313 91(3)(a-e) outlines the out-of-service conditions. The U.S. equivalent is 49 CFR 395.13 Drivers ordered out-of-service.
SOR 2005-313 91(3) An out-of-service declaration applies
(a) for 10 consecutive hours, if the driver contravenes paragraph 4(b) – driving would be likely to jeopardize the safety or health of the public, the driver or the employees of the motor carrier;
(b) for 10 consecutive hours, if the driver contravenes section 12 – 13 and 14 hours in a day
(c) for 8 consecutive hours, if the driver contravenes sections 13 – off-duty time or 39 – north of 60 off duty time;
(d) for 72 consecutive hours, if the driver contravenes section 86 – 86(1) duplicate, 86(2) false and 86(3) tampered;
(e) for the number of hours needed to correct the failure, if the driver fails to comply with the off-duty time requirements of any of sections 14 to 29 and 41 to 54 or of a term or condition of a permit or with the requirements of section 98.
(4) The out-of-service declaration in respect of a driver who contravenes section 86 continues to apply beyond the 72 hours until the driver rectifies the record of duty status, if applicable, and provides it to the director or inspector so that the director or inspector is able to determine whether the driver has complied with these Regulations.
Basically, how it works is the driver receives a ticket for 86(2) or 86(3) and is then placed out-of-service according to 91(1) and 91(3).
The Big Question
Carriers and stakeholders now need to understand how CVSA Enforcement Bulletin 2026-02 will impact enforcement in Canada.
Is Transport Canada, the CCMTA and each provincial and territorial jurisdiction planning to adopt the principle that “The goal is to only place drivers OOS who pose an imminent hazard”?
We do not have this language written into Canadian Hours of Service regulations.
However, CVSA represents enforcement agencies from Canada, the United States and Mexico. Canadian regulators and enforcement agencies sit on CVSA committees and participate in the development of these enforcement policies. It is therefore reasonable to assume Canadian regulators were involved in approving this guidance.
This matters because an ELD error is not the same thing as an imminent safety risk.
ELDs are not error-proof. We cannot engineer away poor decision making, inconsistent network connectivity or temporary data transmission failures.
A driver who makes a mistake and is placed out-of-service for 72 hours faces a very different outcome than a driver placed out-of-service for 10 hours.
A Real-World Example
Consider a driver operating in northern Ontario between Wawa → White River → Marathon → Terrace Bay → Nipigon.
There are long stretches of highway in this corridor with weak or no cellular connectivity.
When the driver enters an area with good signal again, the ELD recalculates and updates duty status information. During these periods of low connectivity, the driver must manually keep track workshift time.
Sometimes the math simply does not math and the driver exceeds a duty status limit even if it’s only 10 minutes.
If the driver cannot explain that connectivity gap — where the ELD did not accurately record and retain the required data — will that driver be sitting roadside for 10 hours or 72 hours?
The Bottom Line
Carriers and drivers should carefully review any ELD violation they receive.
For years there has been no publicly available interpretation explaining how ELD data should be enforced.
Now with CVSA Enforcement Bulletin 2026-02, there is finally something tangible that can be used when challenging an ELD penalty.
If you receive an ELD violation roadside, during a compliance review, or through a NSC Standard 15 audit, it may be worth examining whether the enforcement action actually aligns with this guidance.
If you have received an ELD penalty and want a second opinion before deciding whether to challenge it in court, send it to me and I will let you know if it may be worth fighting.
With wildfire season in full swing, many carriers are supporting emergency efforts using special permits. This has raised the question: How do permits interact with ELD requirements?
The short answer: they don’t—at least not easily. The only way to make permits work within the ELD (Electronic Logging Device) environment is by using the Exempt Driver function.
A “Paper Tiger” Exemption
The term paper tiger refers to something that appears powerful or protective on paper but is ineffective in practice. This analogy applies well to how ELD exemptions work under current regulations.
Per regulation, any commercial vehicle over 4,500 kg must have an ELD installed. However, the driver may be exempt from using the ELD under certain conditions, such as when operating under a permit. Because these exemptions are built into the regulations, ELD systems had to incorporate a way for a driver to operate in “exempt” status.
But here's the catch: even in exempt mode, the ELD remains connected to the ECM (Engine Control Module) and continues recording data. If a vehicle is operated without someone logged in to the ELD and connected to the ECM, it generates unidentified driving events. These unidentified driving events can:
This is why using the Exempt Driver function correctly is crucial.
How the Exempt Driver Function Works
All ELD systems include a way to designate drivers as exempt. This allows drivers—such as those operating under an HOS permit—to avoid logging work time electronically during those periods.
Steps to Use the Exempt Function:
Enforcement Considerations
Roadside or Inspection Station:
Drivers stopped roadside or at an inspection station are required to produce RODS for the current day and the 14 previous days Federal HOS Regulation SOR/2005-313 98(1) & (2). While operating under a permit the driver should produce:
If asked, the driver should be able to explain that while the ELD is connected to the ECM, they are operating in Exempt Driver mode. The ELD will display Exempt Driver Status “E” per Technical Standard 4.8.1.3 for inspector confirmation.
Audits or Investigations:
If a driver using an exemption is selected for an HOS review, the carrier should:
Why This Exemption Is A Paper Tiger:
The exemption is only effective while it applies. Once a driver switches from exempt back to regular ELD operation, they are required to enter workshift data for the previous 14 days.
According to Federal HOS Regulation SOR/2005-313 Section 77 (5)(f):
Drivers must enter the number of on-duty and off-duty hours accumulated over the prior 14 days if they weren’t required to keep a log.
And per the Technical Standard 4.3.2.2.4 Indication of Situations Impacting duty-/driving-hour limitations(1), ELDs must allow drivers to indicate:
This is often where confusion or non-compliance happens—hence the “paper tiger” label.
Conclusion
The Exempt Driver function in ELD systems is a critical tool for carriers whose drivers alternate between regular and exempt HOS status. While it requires added effort from both drivers and administrators, it’s the only reliable way to avoid unidentified driving events, audit issues, and penalties.
Understanding and using this feature properly ensures your operation remains compliant—even when working under wildfire-related or other emergency permits.
In the absence of an interpretation guide from Alberta Transportation or Transport Canada, the following reflects my opinion based on the applicable technical standards and the federal Hours of Service Regulation.
The annual CVSA International Roadcheck is May 13–15 2025, and the focus this year is on tires and electronic logging devices (ELDs). If you're operating in Alberta, brace yourself—because I predict the ELD portion of this blitz is going to be an absolute gong show.
Why? Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight has utterly failed to provide direction, interpretation, or training to industry stakeholders and the very inspectors who are tasked with enforcement. I’ve written more than a few blogs about this ongoing ineptitude, and Roadcheck 2025 is about to put it on full display.
The Problem with Alberta’s Approach to ELDs
The ELD regulation was published in 2019, came into force in 2021, and was fully adopted across Canada on January 1, 2023. That means Alberta has had 835 days and counting to provide clear, actionable guidance. And what have they done with that time? Absolutely nothing.
Motor carriers are being penalized roadside and during NSC Standard 15 audits for regulations that Alberta hasn't applied correctly—or consistently. This lack of leadership, guidance, and basic communication is setting the industry up for failure, and during Roadcheck, it amounts to entrapment.
When provinces adopt federal regulations, it's their job to explain what those rules mean to their stakeholders and how they'll be enforced. Alberta's refusal to do this amounts to information hoarding—keeping the industry in the dark so they can issue more penalties. It’s hard to punish an educated industry, and Alberta Transportation knows that.
Let’s break down the key ELD focus areas for Roadcheck 2025, based on the CVSA’s announcement, and what you really need to know.
1. Tampering (The Big One)
Tampering will be a huge issue, especially because Alberta Transportation has failed to pass along critical information. In August 2024, Transport Canada and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) directed provinces that an active data diagnostic event (displayed as a "D" on the ELD) is not a violation—it may resolve on its own once conditions change.
Alberta never told carriers or drivers. Now, during Roadcheck, an inspector may falsely label a diagnostic event as tampering or a disconnected device. This is unacceptable.
2. Driving While Not Logged In
Unidentified driving events are created when a truck moves and no one is logged in, or the driver hasn't Bluetooth-connected to the ECM. This leads to missing mileage and data. Make sure the ELD is paired and connected before moving the vehicle.
3. Odometer Mismatch
There is no regulation that says the ELD mileage must match the truck’s dash odometer. In fact, under the Weights and Measures Act, it’s illegal to alter the truck's odometer. The FMCSA clarified this in 2017: How should the ELD handle the dashboard odometer display not matching the odometer value returned by the ECM? For instance, when the engine is replaced and the value is not synced. If the dashboard odometer display does not match the odometer value returned by the ECM, the ECM odometer value must be identified as the valid value.
4. Improper Edits
Drivers and admins can and should edit to ensure accuracy. For example, if you fuel and then go off-duty but forget to change status, editing that later with a clear annotation is not a violation. Inspectors should be trained to evaluate the context of edits—but in Alberta, don’t count on it.
5. Ghost Drivers & Login Issues
6. Personal Conveyance (PC) Misuse
To legally use PC:
And yes, annotate that you're in PC and state why.
7. Misuse of Adverse Driving Exemption
This isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you regularly use adverse driving to extend your hours, expect scrutiny. It’s for unforeseen events, not bad planning.
8. Off-Duty While Working
If you're working—loading, unloading, waiting at a border, even fueling—you’re on-duty. If your BOL shows a 10:00–12:00 loading time and you’re logged off-duty, you’re going to get nailed. Inspectors can and will ask for documentation to verify your RODS.
9. Malfunctions (Critical Omission)
Shockingly, CVSA’s bulletin didn’t mention ELD malfunctions. If your ELD shows an active malfunction, you must:
Failure to do so? Violation.
10. Daily Vehicle Inspection (pre-trip) location not matching RODS location
This is not a violation this a result of ELD programing. The daily vehicle inspection location is derived from GPS. The ELD location is derived from the Canadian Geo-Location Database which is not always the same. The data is coming from 2 different locations.
The bigger problem of Roadcheck and ELD violations, no room to park!
In Canada Roadcheck 2024 inspectors conducted inspections of 5411 commercial vehicles over 72 hours. The hours of service regulations are very specific regarding what violations a driver would be put out-of-service and not able to drive. If even half the drivers have violations for ELDs there is not enough room at the scales or at a roadside inspection area to park 2500 trucks for 8 to 10 or up to 72 hours until the required time off is taken by the driver to not be out of service.
What You Should Actually Do
According to the CVSA bulletin: Inspectors are available to answer questions about tire maintenance and violations, and to help drivers and motor carriers navigate the hours-of-service regulations in their jurisdictions. Based on the hours of service tickets I have encountered from my clients don’t count on it.
If you’re confused about ELD rules—or worse, get a ticket or out-of-service —call or email me before you accept guilt. I’ll help you review and fight it. Think of me as your friendly neighborhood Fairy RODSmother.
Let’s have a safe, successful Roadcheck 2025.
Recent US litigation against JB Hunt raises questions about the threshold for effective carrier driver oversight. As part of the lawsuit against the carrier and driver it is alleged the carrier did not effectively monitor the driver or correct the driver’s behaviour and this lack of oversight contributed to the collision. This case underscores the complexities of internal monitoring regulations for commercial carriers, especially in the absence of clear regulatory guidance.
Regulatory Requirements for Carrier Hours of Service Monitoring
The Federal Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) impose several key obligations on carriers:
However, these regulations do not define what constitutes adequate monitoring or what corrective actions are necessary for different violation thresholds, leaving significant room for interpretation.
The JB Hunt Case: A Breakdown of the Allegations
In this case, a JB Hunt driver was involved in a fatal collision in the US while allegedly using his phone on a dating app. This was confirmed with driver facing camera data and phone records. Prior to the collision, two incidents within 6 weeks raised concerns about the driver’s behavior:
The issue in the lawsuit is whether the carrier’s failure to address the previous incidents contributed to the driver’s negligence. This raises a larger question: should a single five-second violation trigger disciplinary action by a carrier?
Industry Standards vs. Regulatory Ambiguity
Carriers receive frequent alerts from electronic logging devices (ELDs) and AI-driven cameras for minor infractions 24 hours a day. Without explicit regulatory guidance, it remains unclear how many brief incremental time violations should warrant carrier intervention. Regulators like Transport Canada, the CCMTA, and Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight have yet to provide an ELD interpretation guide despite the regulation being in effect for four years.
Key considerations include:
Regulatory Harmonization and Compliance Uncertainty
The lack of clear internal monitoring standards complicates enforcement. The Regulations Amending the Contraventions Regulations (SOR/2023-137) propose a $2,000 penalty per driver for a carrier’s failure to monitor. Yet, without concrete guidance, how can regulators fairly assess compliance?
As Transport Canada and the CCMTA work toward inter-provincial regulation harmonization, cases like JB Hunt’s illustrate the pressing need for explicit internal monitoring directives. Incremental time violations are a fact of life in data rich environments like ELDs and driver facing cameras. Clear regulatory guidance is urgently needed and would benefit carriers by ensuring fair enforcement and reducing liability uncertainties.
Conclusion While the JB Hunt case highlights the potential consequences of inadequate monitoring, it also exposes gaps in regulatory clarity. Carriers need definitive guidance on what constitutes effective driver hour of service oversight to ensure compliance and roadway safety. Until such guidance is provided, industry stakeholders remain in a precarious position—balancing operational feasibility with legal risk in an evolving regulatory landscape.
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) in Canada mark a significant step toward potentially shifting liability in commercial trucking. ELDs automatically track driver’s driving and on-duty hours using the data from the Electronic Control Module (ECM) of the vehicle SOR/2005-313 77(1). Flagging violations that could indicate driver fatigue or out-of-service conditions SOR/2005-313 section 91. The Federal Hours of Service SOR/2005-313 87 (1) requires that carriers monitor the driver’s compliance in real-time, using the data from the ELD, with the ultimate goal of preventing out-of-service drivers from operating on public roads. This regulation could be used to impact liability determinations and insurance claims in the event of a collision. By documenting instances where drivers were operating in out-of-service condition, ELDs expose both the driver and the carrier to increased liability and, potentially, significant financial penalties.
Liability and ELD Data in Black Swan Scenarios
The continuous recording and monitoring of driving and on-duty times not only keeps drivers in check but also holds carriers accountable for a driver’s compliance. If a driver is within 30 minutes of a duty status limit or off-duty requirement the ELD alerts the driver and the carrier. The ELD alerts the driver and the carrier if any device or connection issues are detected or any periods of driving time with no driver logged in to the ELD device. This setup ensures that carriers have a real-time mechanism for preventing overworked drivers from being on the road. If an accident occurs while a driver is in an out-of-service condition, both the driver and the carrier are liable because, a driver in an out-of- service condition is not supposed to be driving. A driver in an out-of- service condition is required to immediately stop and not continue driving until the out-of- service condition is resolved. If the driver was following the regulations the driver would not have been in the location of the incident because they would not have been driving.
The Federal Hours of Service SOR/2005-313 section 91 are the out-of- service conditions:
91 (1) (b) driving time or off-duty time requirements.
91 (1) (c) no RODS – fail to produce.
91 (1) (d) duplicate RODS, inaccurate information and falsification.
91 (1) (e) falsified/destroyed RODS or supporting document.
91 (1) (f) ELD that has a disabled, deactivated, disengaged, jammed or otherwise blocked. ELD that has been re-engineered, reprogrammed or otherwise tampered with so that it does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
If a driver is found to be in an out-of-service condition due to tampering, SOR/2005-313 86 (3), the driver is out-of-service until the tampering is corrected, which may be longer than the maximum 72 hours. 91 (4) The out-of-service declaration in respect of a driver who contravenes section 86 continues to apply beyond the 72 hours until the driver rectifies the record of duty status, if applicable, and provides it to the director or inspector so that the director or inspector is able to determine whether the driver has complied with these Regulations.
Tampering: SOR/2005-313 86 (3) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow any person to, and no person shall, disable, deactivate, disengage, jam or otherwise block or degrade a signal transmission or reception, or re-engineer, reprogram or otherwise tamper with an ELD so that the device does not accurately record and retain the data that is required to be recorded and retained.
Scenario 1: Driver Exceeding a Daily Limit
Driver has exceeded a daily limit SOR/2005-313 91 (1) (b) and is in an out-of-service condition at the time of an accident. The fault lies entirely with both the driver and the carrier because SOR/2005-313 87 (2), the carrier is to take immediate action when non-compliance is detected. ELD RODS are real-time information; detection of an out-of-service condition is immediate, and the carrier is obligated to prevent drivers from operating in such a state. In such cases, the insurance company may decline the claim, as the driver should not have been on the road at that time. This shifts the liability from the broke driver to the carrier, who has money, assets and substantial insurance coverage.
Scenario 2: Malfunction, Disconnected ELD and Unidentified Driving Event
If an ELD malfunctions or loses connection to the engine control module (ECM), it triggers a visual and/or audible alarm for both the driver and the carrier. The carrier and the driver are supposed to work together to correct and clear the data diagnostic codes. If the malfunction protocol was not followed or the device is in a chronic malfunction because the ELD is not connected to the ECM or not receiving power that is tampering, SOR/2005-313 86 (3). With data missing or compromised, there is no way to verify the driver’s actual driving time, making it possible for an insurance claim to be denied. A driver that does not log in to the ELD will incur unidentified driving events and will not be able to generate a RODS SOR/2005-313 91(1) (c). The carrier is responsible to assign the driving time to the correct driver, the Technical Standard 3.1.6.
The Canadian Insurance Model
Canada’s insurance models, divided into public (no-fault) and private (tort-based) systems, also influence how ELDs could impact claims. In no-fault provinces, each driver’s insurance typically covers their own costs, limiting cross-claims for damages. However, in tort-based provinces like Alberta, at-fault drivers can be sued for damages, opening the door for high-dollar claims against carriers. In cases where ELDs reveal negligent oversight by the carrier, plaintiffs could target carriers, leading to “nuclear verdicts” similar to those in the United States. “Nuclear verdicts"—verdicts costing over $10 million in damages—are common in American trucking accident cases. Trucking litigation data between 2006 and 2019 showed 26 cases over $1 million from 2006 to 2011. In the last five years of that data set, 300 cases cost over $1 million. A recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform showed that between June 2020 and April 2023, the average award was $27.5 million.
Given the growing availability of data from the ELD and ECM (engine control module), it is possible that insurance companies will begin to request these records as part of claim investigations involving a commercial truck. With such evidence, insurers can make stronger arguments for denying coverage when non-compliance is documented. Historically trucking companies involved in an accident blame the driver, maybe get a shockingly low administrative penalty from the provincial government, get an insurance premium bump and continue on unscathed. How many drivers are in jail compared to company owners and safety officers? Exactly, murderers get convicted using GPS data why not ELD and ECM data?
Case Study: Tracey Morgan Walmart Crash as a Liability Example
The 2014 Tracey Morgan Walmart crash underscores the consequences of driver fatigue and the accountability of carriers in managing compliance. In that case, Walmart’s driver had been on duty for over 23 hours, with minimal sleep before his shift. Although Walmart had telematics data on critical driving events, it did not act on these insights, which could have prevented the accident. The $90 million settlement, influenced by Walmart’s failure to mitigate fatigue risks, exemplifies how data-based liability can result in significant penalties.
Conclusion
The shift to ELD’s in Canadian trucking introduces a new level of accountability, where drivers and carriers could be held to real-time monitoring standards. This technology empowers insurers and regulators to have a seat in the cab with the driver. As ELDs continue to integrate into the regulatory and insurance frameworks, carriers may face increased financial risk if they fail to act on data insights, making comprehensive compliance essential for both safety and business resilience. Insurance companies make money by increasing rates or paying less claims, a real time, certified record of non-compliance is probably enough evidence to deny a claim.The federal and provincial governments do a terrible job of monitoring or enforcing anything when it comes to commercial vehicle safety. If the governments are not going to do their jobs, then the insurance companies will have to do it.
If you smash up your vehicle driving drunk your insurance company is not going to pay for your new car. In commercial policies these are called exclusions, check out my next week blog where I explain exclusions and why insurance companies won’t have to pay.
Introduction:
Increasingly, carriers utilizing Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) face challenges with unidentified driving events that can lead to violations during audits and investigations. However, by leveraging the exempt driver functionality within the ELD system, carriers may mitigate those unidentified driving events.
Understanding the Exempt Driver Functionality:
All ELD systems come equipped with an exempt driver function, allowing carriers to configure accounts for drivers who may be exempt from ELD usage. For instance, drivers operating under the short-haul exemption within 160 km of their home terminal can be designated as exempt. This designation enables the sharing of ELD-equipped commercial motor vehicles between exempt and non-exempt drivers seamlessly. The Technical Standard. 3.1.3 Configuration of user account exempt from using an ELD: As specified in 4.3.3.1.2 of the Technical Standard, an ELD must allow a motor carrier to configure an ELD for a driver who may be exempt from the use of an ELD. An example of an exempt driver would be a driver driving under the short-haul exemption under current HOS regulations (i.e. specified in regulation as within a radius of 160 km of the home terminal). Even though exempt drivers do not have to use an ELD, an ELD equipped CMV may be shared between exempt and non-exempt drivers and motor carriers can use this allowed configuration to avoid issues with unidentified driver data diagnostics errors.
Implementation and Training:
Drivers and administrators must be trained on how to utilize the exempt functionality in real-world scenarios. Administrators need to activate the exempt function when creating driver accounts, customizing it for specific drivers even if only a few will be using the exemption.
Compliance and Monitoring:
Drivers using the exempt functionality are not exempt from federal Hours of Service regulations but are excused from using a ELD to record the driver’s time. However, they still need to maintain alternative time records that meet regulatory criteria. Drivers must verify their exempt status periodically, as the ELD does not automatically maintain this status.
Challenges of the Exempt Driver Function:
Transitioning from exempt to non-exempt status can pose challenges, especially when the exemption ends, and ELD usage becomes mandatory. Drivers are required to enter time from paper logs or alternative records.
The Technical Standard 4.3.2.2.4 Indication of Situations Impacting duty-/driving-hour limitations: c) An ELD must provide the means to indicate additional hours that were not recorded for the current motor carrier during the current day or the required previous days specified in current HOS regulations:
(1) When this function is selected, the ELD must prompt the user to select one of the following
options:
i. Option 1: additional hours already recorded and reported in a RODS for another motor carrier.
ii. Option 2: additional hours not recorded since the driver was not required to keep a RODS immediately before the beginning of the day.
Conclusion:
The exempt driver functionality within ELD systems offers a valuable tool for carriers with drivers alternating between exempt and non-exempt status. While managing this transition may require additional effort from both drivers and administrators, the benefits of leveraging the exempt driver function for seamless operations and compliance monitoring cannot be overlooked. By understanding, training, and effectively implementing the exempt driver functionality, carriers may avoid unidentified driving events and avoid administrative penalties.
This is a quote from the Transportation and Economic Corridors Annual Report 2022-2023, “Innovation is core to TEC’s mandate. In 2022 ‑ 23, TEC delivered on a range of cutting-edge initiatives.” Cutting edge initiatives and you have professional auditors doing data entry because the computer system doesn’t accept time to the second? Really?
Why is Alberta Transportation paying professional auditors to do hours of manual data entry? I can tell you why!
Professional auditors, who command professional wages due to their extensive experience and education, are currently dedicating hours and hours to manual data entry tasks, highlighting the inefficiency of the current process.
The current system ARC (assessment of regulatory compliance) is designed to accept time entries only in 15 minute increments of an hour (8.25, 8.50, 8.75), which is completely unfeasible and inefficient process in 2024. ELDs (Electronic Logging Devices) record a driver's time in real-time by the second using data from the truck engine (ECM). Auditors are required to look up converted time information from a paper chart and then enter the data into ARC. In 2024 there exists a more advanced and streamlined solution that should be implemented.
During hours of service reviews, a 30-day sample of drivers RODS (Record of Duty Status) is reviewed and recorded. However, the existing computer program, ARC (Assessment of Regulatory Compliance) was not created to handle time by the second. The ARC system requires auditors to refer to a Conversion Chart in the ARC help manual to translate minutes into the appropriate decimal value for data entry. This cumbersome process not only consumes investigative resources but also contradicts the efficiency goals that technology is meant to enable.
Below is taken from the ARC help manual used by Investigator’s and Third Party Auditors (TPA).
All “Hours” fields in the New ARC take time in decimals of an hour only. For proper calculations please ensure the appropriate decimal of an hour is entered in New ARC.
Conversion Chart
Find the minutes you need to enter under the “Minutes” column and beside it in the right side column is the appropriate decimal conversion. Add this decimal conversion to the total full hours and you will have the appropriate time in decimals of an hour to enter in your field.
Consider this - a standard 5-driver audit sample can lead to 450–900 minutes or 7.5–15 hours simply being spent on manual data entry. These 7.5 – 15 hours represents just entering time, if a violation is detected a descriptive narrative of the violation is also required. If every calendar day has a violation, which happens all the time, that is a significant waste of resources. ELD systems generate a CSV files in Excel format that contain all the relevant information needed by Investigators and Third Party Auditors.
It is evident that there is a clear need to modernize and integrate ELD systems into the audit process to streamline operations, improve accuracy, and save valuable time and resources. By transitioning to a more technology-driven approach, the Transportation and Economic Corridors sector can enhance efficiency, reduce errors, and ultimately improve overall regulatory compliance.
Transportation and Economic Corridors could have been a leader in technology based solutions but, shortsightedness in leadership will keep Alberta auditors using a abacus. It is crucial that leadership drive progress and innovation within critical sectors like transportation auditing.
The Federal HOS was amended to mandate that drivers must use a certified Electronic Logging Device (ELD) to automatically record driving and working time instead of a paper logbook. The ELD section of the Federal Hours of Service (SOR/2005-313) (HOS) is 77 and the ELD mandate was fully enforced as of January 1, 2023. It is important to remember the HOS duty status limits (working time) and off duty time requirements did not change.
A driver is never exempt from the HOS duty status time limits but, the driver may be exempt from using a ELD to record time. The driver, if operating under an exemption, must record duty status time using an alternative time record such as a paper log. ELDs have the ability to accommodate exempt and non-exempt drivers, Technical Standard 3.1.3 but, the driver must be trained to use the exempt driver functionality.
It depends, each provider is different but, the costs a carrier should be aware of are: device cost, lease or buy, contract length, data charges, cloud storage and support. A ELD works exactly like a cellphone and just like cellphone contracts need to be reviewed carefully. All ELDs function the same the only difference is the user interface for the driver and carrier. Some ELD providers offer a Federal and Provincial application if you run 2 companies.
ELDs are important because it’s the law, if a driver has a serious incident without a functioning ELD the consequences can be grave for the carrier and the driver. Penalties for ELDs roadside and administrative in audit can get expensive. ELD penalties contribute to negative points on a carrier profile.
Certified ELD devices can be found on the Transport Canada website. Only certified ELDs can be used in Canada. The header page of a RODS contains the ELD Authentication Value, ELD Identifier and ELD Certification ID that confirm the authenticity. Motor carriers need to do required software updates to ensure the ELD remains compliant.
No, Raven teaches motor carriers and drivers how to use the ELD they currently have. We help carriers set up new ELDs to ensure compliance at the start. Raven can help motor carriers set up effective ELD monitoring policies to ensure compliance and limit liability in the event ELD data is needed as evidence.
