As the first signs of spring emerge, our thoughts turn to highway pavement. Joking, most people don’t think about spring and road bans but, when ruts and potholes destroy your vehicle, you think about it. While they may not be top of mind for everyone, road bans are crucial for preserving infrastructure and preventing costly damage to vehicles and highways.
Why Do Road Bans Exist?
Road bans have been around for as long as roads themselves. In the past, springtime ruts and mud made roads impassable. Today, municipalities formally regulate road bans to protect highways from damage during the thaw cycle. Alberta, thanks to strong infrastructure investments, during the Premier Lougheed era, has an excellent highway system that requires diligent maintenance.
Here’s what happens during the freeze-thaw cycle:
Carrier Responsibilities & Training
Commercial carriers are legally required to train their drivers on weights and dimensions, including seasonal road bans, Alberta Regulation 314/2002 Section 41(1)(h)(i). While MELT (Mandatory Entry-Level Training) includes some instruction on road bans, it is minimal.
For example, MELT Module 6 in Alberta, provides only two and a half hours of classroom legal weights training, with just one and a half pages covering road bans. Compounding the issue, fraudulent licensing schemes in Ontario mean some drivers never received any training at all. The result? A significant number of undertrained drivers coming to destroy a road near you.
Spring Road Training: What Drivers Must Know
A spring road refresher is essential before bans take effect. Drivers must be aware of:
Understanding Road Ban Signs
At intersections of restricted and unrestricted roads, signs display a truck symbol with a percentage below it. This percentage represents the allowable weight on an axle for that road.
Example:
Some exemptions exist for farm commodities and emergencies, but they require permits and approvals from the appropriate authority and highway engineering.
Increased Enforcement & Penalties
Calgary city police have a budget shortfall of 28 million dollars due to the cancellation of the photo speed enforcement on all provincial highways thanks to Minister Dreeshan. Other cities and towns and municipalities are feeling the pinch of lack of funding and reduced revenues. One way to make up these shortfalls is to increase enforcement revenue from other areas and road bans are money makers. Enforcement traps are usually near highways with new restrictions or restrictions that have recently changed. Don’t assume just because it was a 90% ban last year it will be the same this year.
Avoid Costly Fines
Overweight penalties increase exponentially during road ban season. Fines can double compared to the rest of the year, and carriers risk accumulating points on their carrier profiles.
Stay Compliant: Drivers Plan Ahead
By staying informed and proactive, you can avoid hefty fines, protect your vehicles, and help maintain Alberta’s roads for everyone.
Inter-provincial trade limitations have gone viral, touted as a solution to U.S. tariffs. In my last blog, "SESAME STREET TAUGHT US, COOPERATION MAKES IT HAPPEN,'" I explained that the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) is ultimately responsible for any regulatory changes that effect the trucking industry and inter-provincial trade.
The CCMTA has a long-standing relationship with Transport Canada—dating back to 1947 when Transport Canada granted it authority. The CCMTA is an incorporated body whose membership includes representatives from Canada’s 14 provincial, federal, and territorial governments, each appointed by their respective jurisdictions.
Within the CCMTA, several committees focus on specific issues, including:
These committees establish working groups that seek solutions to pressing issues. The committee level is where the real work happens. The matter of inter-provincial trade barriers will likely fall under Compliance and Regulatory Affairs.
The CCMTA published its 2024–2027 strategic plan before the recent surge in tariff discussions. Given the growing focus on inter-jurisdictional trade, priorities may have shifted. One of the CCMTA’s strategic goals is to develop and maintain Reciprocal Pan-Canadian and International Agreements. The strategic plan includes examining:
Rather than focusing on international agreements, the CCMTA appears to be prioritizing Pan-Canadian agreements—meaning nationwide alignment.
Past Efforts: Heavy Truck Weight and Dimension Limits
In 2019, the Heavy Truck Weight and Dimension Limits for Interprovincial Operations in Canada document was released, based on the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Interprovincial Weights and Dimensions. Between 1991 and 2019, nine amendments were made to accommodate evolving technologies and industry needs, such as:
This is typical of government regulation—reactive rather than proactive. Technological advancements (e.g., electronic logging devices, ELDs) force unprepared regulators to adjust, rather than anticipating and preparing for industry changes. An example is there is still no ELD interpretation guide from the Federal Government or Alberta Transportation and the regulation is 4 years old. The 2019 amendments (Amendment 10) set the vehicle weight and dimension regulations that the trucking industry operates under today.
Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) & Trade Barriers
In 2023, the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) released a report titled Interprovincial Trade Barriers in Trucking. The report, based on a survey of CTA members, identified multiple trade barriers, including:
The CCMTA’s strategic plan and the 2025 Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table (RCT) Workplan align on many of these issues. However, some trade barriers may never be fully resolved, while others require significant federal and provincial collaboration.
Why Is It So Hard to Remove Inter-Provincial Trade Barriers for Trucking?
Simple answer: a lack of leadership and direction.
Transport Canada granted regulatory policy authority to the CCMTA, which consists of 14 representatives—each with different priorities. Achieving consensus takes years of meetings, drafts, and rewrites. Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) move slowly.
If the federal Transport Minister provided clear directives, stating that inter-provincial trade is Priority #1, the CCMTA and provinces would have to fast-track agreements. Transport Canada may need to act as referee and tie-breaker to push progress forward. More committees, working groups, and studies aren’t the answer—we need decisive action.
Not every jurisdiction will get exactly what it wants, but it’s time to focus on the big picture.
The Root of the Problem: Provincial Control
The weights and dimension 2019 MoU states:
"Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, each of the provinces and territories will permit vehicles which comply with the appropriate weights and dimensions described in the following section to travel on a designated system of highways in their jurisdiction. It should be recognized that each jurisdiction continues to retain authority to allow more liberal weights and dimensions, or different types of vehicle configurations, for trucking operations within their jurisdiction. In addition, for trucking operations which take place between adjacent jurisdictions with compatible weight and dimension regulations which are more liberal than those specified in this document, the local regulations will prevail."
This explains why complete harmonization of regulations has never been achieved—each province and territory maintain authority over its own regulations.
A Call for Action: A Regulatory Reckoning
The transportation industry needs a regulation overhaul, just as it did during deregulation in 1987. If the federal government is serious about removing inter-jurisdictional trade barriers, it should:
The industry doesn’t need more bureaucracy—it needs bold leadership and immediate action to remove the barriers that have stifled trucking progress for decades.
My favorite MAGA hat-wearing minister has issued a call to action to the federal transport minister, urging investment in interprovincial mega-infrastructure projects to keep Canada productive amid an impending tariff war with the United States. Given that his ministry is Transportation and Economic Corridors, it’s worth examining what’s actually being actioned. Historically, the MAGA minister’s focus has been squarely on the economy, often neglecting how transportation itself contributes to economic strength.
Another Bureaucratic Layer Instead of Action
The MAGA minister proposes creating an Economic Corridor Agency to identify and maintain economic corridors across provincial boundaries, with consultations involving Indigenous groups and industry. However, Transport Canada already has mechanisms in place: the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). These organizations have spent decades attempting to align regulations and reduce interprovincial trade barriers. The issue isn’t a lack of agencies—it’s the unwillingness of jurisdictions to uniformly adopt existing regulations.
Rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy, the government should focus on implementing industry-backed solutions. The CCMTA has a strategic plan for 2024-2027 and the CFTA’s Internal Trade Action Plan (ITAP) for 2024-2027 already outlines necessary steps—there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
The Case of the Disappearing Rest Areas
The MAGA minister calls for increased federal funding for trade-enabling infrastructure such as roads, rail, ports, inland ports, and airports. Notably, the CTA lists lack of rest areas as an inter-provincial trade barrier in trucking. There is an urgent need for more rest areas for commercial drivers, particularly those accommodating long combination vehicles (LCVs).
Yet, in 2022, the UCP government promised 18 new rest areas. Construction was supposed to begin in 2023, and it’s now 2025—yet no new rest areas exist. If the minister is serious about trade-enabling infrastructure, he should take inspiration from Lougheed’s government: build roads, twin highways, and fulfill existing commitments instead of making new ones.
Regulatory Barriers: Overlooked and Unresolved
The MAGA minister also pledges to streamline regulations around trade-related infrastructure and interprovincial commerce, particularly within economic corridors. But Alberta trucking companies still face significant burdens, such as PST compliance when operating in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. This issue should have been addressed under the New West Partnership MoU—why wasn’t it?
Additionally, Alberta’s Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors has selectively granted an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) exemption permit to the oilfield industry while neglecting farmers and ranchers. The U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) recognized this additional burden on farmers and ranchers and wrote an agriculture exemption into its ELD regulation. This MAGA minister only cares about farmers and ranchers during rodeo season. Manitoba offers an ELD exemption by permit to federal carriers with parts of the fleet that remain within the province. Why hasn’t Alberta followed suit? If the minister is serious about regulatory efficiency, these discrepancies need to be addressed.
All Talk No Action The MAGA minister claims Alberta is proactively tackling trade issues by collaborating with Prairie provinces and the North, reducing interprovincial trade barriers, and fostering partnerships with Indigenous groups. However, in the trucking sector, this simply isn’t happening. Clearly this minister should have read the reading materials that came with the job to understand the issues facing trucking. Instead, all his focus has been on economic corridors and this neglect has stifled trucking in Alberta.
Seriously? Canada’s current federal Minister of Transportation has made an announcement that will surely solve everything. The regulations that are often criticized as barriers to trade between Canadian provinces could all crumble within a month, according to federal cabinet minister Anita Anand. Following an announcement at the Port of Halifax on Wednesday, a reporter asked Anand if "interprovincial trade barriers [could] be dealt with, wiped away in 30 days?" "The short answer to your question is yes," responded Anand, the minister of transport and internal trade. Anand suggested her optimism was based on an emergency meeting last week between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the premiers. "We are making incredible, fast-paced progress with all of the provinces and territories," she said.
Really? Yes? That's optimistic—considering the government's track record on this very issue.
For decades, provinces have been hindered by barriers that impede interprovincial trade, costing businesses, industries, and, frankly, everyone in the country. The lack of regulatory alignment has been so bad that in 2017, a push was made to start some sort of interprovincial regulatory cooperation. Fast forward eight years and—surprise!—not much has changed. Many provinces, including Alberta, have resorted to adopting memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to handle region-specific issues. An example would be the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA), between Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia to address regional concerns.
Why is it acceptable for the government to do nothing for eight years without delivering any meaningful action? Accountability is non-existent, and there’s no sense of urgency. But why should we expect any different? Just look to the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) regulations—implemented by the federal government in 2020—and still, no interpretation guide from either the federal or Alberta government. The carrier profile enforcement information data transfer system has been broken since 2019, again, nobody cares.
The idea of harmonizing road transportation regulations is old. In the 1970s, we had the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (RTAC), which was supposed to make life easier for truckers by aligning weight and dimension regulations. These efforts culminated in the publication of the "Pavement Management Guide" in 1977. In 1988 we tried again with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, RTAC the re-mix. This aimed to harmonize truck weight and dimension regulations across Canada. The implementation process faced challenges because of differing regional preferences which are still in place today.
The fact is that Minister Anand’s objectives sound admirable but, there’s a catch. The reality is the federal government doesn’t have the power to fix this. The feds handed control over to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), a body that is supposed to facilitate federal regulations for provincial and territorial governments. But here’s the kicker: the federal government only provides a measly $4.44 million to the provinces and territories for road safety and transport-related initiatives. It’s no wonder things haven’t moved an inch.
So, how can Minister Anand’s bold vision become a reality? Is harmonization even possible? The answer is yes—but don’t get too excited. It’s not going to be easy, and some of the regional differences are never going to disappear. Canada’s geography and diverse terrain mean that some differences are simply unavoidable. What’s needed is clear direction from the federal government, telling the CCMTA that aligning regulations is a top priority. The CCMTA needs to step up and get everyone in a room to hash it out. After all, they managed to implement MELT within a year after the Humboldt tragedy—so surely, they can handle something as basic as truck weight and dimension regulations.
But while the feds and the CCMTA fiddle around with their big ideas, Alberta must address some glaring issues themselves. Here are a few suggestions that could make a big difference:
Let’s not forget the issue of consultation with Indigenous communities. Consultation with Indigenous communities must happen when changes to regulations that impact the weights and dimensions allowed on highways that run through traditional territories. The days of Canada just bulldozing the roads through is over, communities must be involved. This is going to be more important as mining and exploration increases in the north. Those projects involve equipment and people that need to get north on limited road infrastructure, not on a 62,500 kg RTAC highway. If these projects do not include Indigenous consultation, you can bet legal action will follow. This can only delay and increase the costs of projects—something Canada can't afford as industries look to expand.
Government uses the word collaboration freely but rarely practices what they preach. In order for Minister Arnad’s wishes to become reality there must be collaboration. Collaboration by the 14 representatives to the CCMTA without ego, avarice, tribalism or elitism. Regulatory alignment is just one of a few issues facing the road transportation industry. Recently the federal government has limited the manufacture of manual transmission models to 10% of their total heavy-duty truck sales. The decision is driven by the need to comply with stricter greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards. Certain industries require equipment with manual transmissions, and this will drive up the cost for those carriers to configure equipment. These challenges on top of the Carbon Tax increase in April and the upcoming US tariffs are going to make a difficult industry impossible. If the feds and the CCMTA can’t accomplish alignment this time around the industry will remain in its current unstable condition. The only solution is collaboration, we are all Canadian, on our home on native land. Cooperation makes it happen.
In a December 8, 2024, news release, Diane McLeod, Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, issued a reminder about the importance of transparency in government operations: “Citizens should be able to feel confident that governments will design systems and processes for day-to-day operations that promote transparency of government records.” Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that transparency is fundamental to democratic trust and civic engagement: “By embedding transparency into the very fabric of our public institutions, we not only build trust between Canadians and their governments but also empower citizens to actively participate in the decision-making processes that shape our society. This resolution is a significant step toward ensuring that our public bodies operate with the openness and accountability that Canadians rightfully expect.”
These principles are more than abstract ideals. They should be central to the actions of public institutions, including Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight. However, the department’s handling of the Federal Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate raises serious questions about its commitment to transparency.
The ELD Mandate Information Hoarding
Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight adopted the Federal ELD mandate on June 12, 2021, with enforcement beginning January 1, 2023. This provided an 18.5-month window between adoption and enforcement—ample time to prepare the industry. Yet, during this period, the department failed to provide critical guidance to commercial carriers, specifically safety officers who are required to monitor and verify driver records.
There has been no interpretation guide for the ELD mandate, no policy for required ELD driver monitoring, no educational materials for industry stakeholders, and no transparency regarding violations observed during reviews yet, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight can sure write administrative penalties for these infractions. It is immoral and dishonest to hoard information and then subsequently write tickets because the information was not known. This vacuum of information is particularly egregious given the significant operational changes ELDs already impose on federally regulated commercial carriers.
Instead of fostering compliance through education, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight has focused on enforcement, writing administrative penalties for infractions rooted in ignorance. This approach mirrors the “cash cow” criticisms once levied at the province’s problematic photo radar system, which was ultimately dismantled for being unfair. The question is: How is this any different? When Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight adopts a new regulation, it has an obligation to educate stakeholders, not penalize them for a lack of knowledge.
Transparency: A Pillar of Public Trust
The issue at hand underscores why transparency must be a cornerstone of public administration. Government information belongs to the public, and withholding it undermines the relationship between institutions and citizens. Diane McLeod and Caroline Maynard’s calls for embedding transparency in daily operations are especially relevant here.
To that end, Canada’s Information Commissioners and Ombuds have recommended eight key principles for transparency in public institutions:
These principles are essential for fostering a culture of accountability and openness in all levels of government.
The Path Forward for Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight
To rebuild trust, Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight must shift its focus from enforcement to education. Developing and distributing an ELD interpretation guide, creating clear policies, and providing comprehensive educational resources are urgent priorities. Transparency should no longer be treated as a peripheral concern but as a fundamental aspect of governance.
Furthermore, the department must address systemic issues such as the broken Carrier Profile system and the horrendous TPA program. These tools should serve to enhance safety and compliance, not create additional barriers for measuring accurate commercial carrier safety performance.
Conclusion
Information hoarding by Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight runs counter to the democratic principles of openness and accountability. As Information Commissioners McLeod and Maynard highlight, transparency is the foundation of public trust and meaningful civic participation. It is time for Alberta’s transportation authorities to embrace these values fully, ensuring that their systems and policies reflect a genuine commitment to serving the public interest. Governance rooted in openness and education is not only fairer but also more effective.
In recent months, news stories and discussions on Reddit threads, Facebook groups, and industry publications have illuminated a growing crisis within the Canadian transportation industry. The issue is not just about on-road safety or the rate crisis anymore—it's about the financial instability plaguing commercial carriers across Canada and the United States. Every day, companies are declaring bankruptcy, leaving behind millions of dollars in unpaid wages, truck leases, and taxes. Yet, transportation regulations and safety codes often ignore these issues, focusing solely on a carrier’s road performance.
Take, for instance, a house-moving company in southern Alberta that has recently caught the attention of the Alberta Government's Red Tape Reduction department due to allegations of financial mismanagement and incomplete work. Or the case of Pride Group, a major Ontario-based trucking company that recently went bankrupt, leaving behind enormous debts. These are not isolated incidents—they’re part of a growing trend in the transportation industry, and it's time we addressed the broader implications.
The Gap in Transportation Oversight
During my time in public sector investigations, I’ve seen firsthand the fallout from these financial crises. Over the years, I’ve handled countless complaints from employees who were left without wages. Despite these concerns, transportation regulations in Canada, such as the National Safety Code (NSC), don’t include provisions for monitoring a carrier's financial health.
Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, Monitoring & Compliance Branch, Investigations & Enforcement Section monitors on-road performance with the non-functional carrier profile system but, there is no obligation to consider over-all carrier health that is not safety related. This leaves a massive gap in regulatory attention. For instance, the house-moving company mentioned earlier currently holds a "Satisfactory" Safety Fitness Certificate (SFC). A citizen conducting due diligence before selecting a carrier may view a Satisfactory rating as including overall performance and compliance to the regulations. However, the reality is that financial instability in transportation companies can lead to deteriorating safety standards. Carriers in financial trouble don’t pay the bills, the drivers, or for expensive truck maintenance. Tires are expensive and if a carrier is at the point of not paying wages or completing work already paid for you know those tires are bald and the ABS light is on.
The Consequences of Ignoring Financial Health
When we overlook the financial well-being of carriers, we're putting more than just paychecks at risk—we're endangering lives. Commercial carriers facing bankruptcy aren’t just skipping wages or taxes; they're skimping on truck repairs, neglecting safety checks, and pushing drivers to operate under less-than-ideal conditions. These are ticking time bombs on our roads, and yet, there is no requirement in Alberta’s Transportation Ministry Business Plan for 2023–2026 to address this issue.
The Alberta Transportation Ministry Business Plan for 2023 – 2026 stated, The ministry ensures a robust legislative and regulatory framework is in place to protect Albertans. Legislation and regulations are reviewed and refreshed to align requirements with emerging transportation related best practices, issues and technologies. The ministry’s focus is on ensuring "a robust legislative and regulatory framework" that protects Albertans, but the framework is incomplete. The National Safety Code and provincial regulations focus solely on road safety and compliance. They ignore critical factors like financial health, which can directly impact safety. Without a complete picture of a company’s stability, it's impossible to truly gauge its ability to operate safely in the long run.
Conclusion: The Need for a New Approach Transportation is a vital part of the economy, and the financial instability of carriers is an issue that can no longer be ignored. To protect both the public and industry workers, regulatory bodies must start evaluating the overall health of carriers. The stakes are too high to focus only on road performance. It’s time for the leadership group of Alberta Transportation & Economic Corridors, Traffic Safety Services Division, to take an interest in the industry they monitor. Read the news, follow some public Facebook groups, get Redditt. It cannot always be about the Economic Corridors part of Transportation and Economic Corridors, transportation needs some attention also.
Commercial trucking insurance is high-stakes gambling. Insurance premiums are the wager—a bet on the fleet, drivers, and safety practices. The insurance company is the "house," accepting that bet in hopes the fleet won’t incur significant claims. But what goes on behind the scenes? How do insurance companies calculate the odds, and what happens if they miscalculate? Here’s a closer look at commercial trucking insurance.
The Gamble: Premiums, Odds, and Actuaries
When setting premium rates, insurance companies rely on actuaries, the industry’s "odds makers." These experts use historical data and risk models to calculate the likelihood of claims. They analyze factors like accident frequency, claim costs, and inflation trends. Setting the minimum premium, or “bet.” Insurance brokers act as intermediaries, like a bookie, between trucking companies and insurers. They earn commissions to facilitate these relationships.
Actuarial calculations are only as reliable as the data they use. If the data is wrong the resulting odds and premiums may misrepresent actual risks. Insurers may overcharge safe trucking companies or undercharge riskier ones. These inaccuracies, if widespread, drive up premiums across the industry. Insurance companies offset losses by charging all policyholders higher rates, ensuring that everyone bears the brunt of miscalculated risks.
Actuaries vs. Underwriters: Understanding Their Roles
While actuaries work with numbers, underwriters assess a company’s specific risk factors. For instance, underwriters examine a trucking company’s Carrier Profile and safety rating. A "Satisfactory" rating typically indicates strong risk management and may lead to lower premiums, whereas a "Conditional" rating suggests potential issues, leading to stricter rates or additional charges. Now is a good time to re-read my blog, Don’t look behind the curtain! unveiling the Alberta Transportation safety scam. Unlike actuaries, underwriters consider a broader range of factors, including safety practices, maintenance programs, and driver qualifications.
Insurance Models in Canada: Public, Private, and Self-Insured
In Canada, insurance systems vary by province, with three main models: public (government-managed), private, and self-insured.
Captive insurance can be structured as either "pure" captives for individual companies or "group" captives that pool resources across multiple companies, sharing risks and lowering costs. Captives can offer cost control, customized coverage, and better claims management—attractive benefits for companies looking to optimize their insurance options. Now think of a group of “chameleon carriers” getting together to self-insure, no risk there.
Limiting Liability: Knowing Your Policy and Exclusions
Understanding your policy and identifying gaps in your safety and maintenance program is of the upmost importance. These gaps could be used against you when approving or denying claims. Insurance companies may scrutinize records during an incident review especially if the carrier has a black swan event. Insurance companies are looking for evidence to limit liability, looking for reasons to minimize claim payouts. Key areas for attention include:
Complete and accurate documentation can be the difference between an insurance payout or a hefty company expense. For example, if a wheel flies off the carrier needs to be able to show regular inspections and re-torques.
In commercial trucking insurance, exclusions refer to specific situations, events, or types of damages that the insurance policy will not cover. These exclusions are important to understand, as they indicate which risks and scenarios the carrier will be financially responsible for if they occur. If you smash up your vehicle while driving impaired the insurance company doesn’t pay for a new car.
Common exclusions often include:
Final Thoughts: Navigating the Insurance Gamble
The relationship between trucking companies and insurers is an intricate blend of risk, probability, and strategic management. With proactive documentation, a comprehensive safety program, and a thorough understanding of policy limits, companies can make the most of their insurance—and minimize surprises when they need it most. Lack of reliable regulatory oversight from federal and provincial governments has resulted in inaccurate carrier information, allowing trucking companies on the road that do not meet safety standards. Two things will happen, insurance companies will put pressure on regulators to do their jobs, or insurance companies will have to do enhanced compliance reviews before insuring a carrier. Insurance companies cannot use inaccurate carrier profile information and bogus TPA (third party auditors) audits anymore to determine risk.
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.
There have been lots of news stories recently of trucking companies abusing the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) and Labour Market Impact Assessments (LIMA). It’s not a new problem but, it's a problem that has worsened in tough economic times, with blame often unfairly falling on immigrant workers, rather than the structural flaws within the programs themselves.
The reality is that foreign workers were invited to Canada because their skills were needed to fill gaps in critical industries like trucking, where there are not enough domestic drivers to meet demand. Therefore, it’s both unethical and immoral to penalize these workers by revoking their status when they were invited here. History tells us rounding up people for mass deportation never goes well. The core issue lies in the flaws of the programs under which they entered, as well as the lack of enforcement and oversight of these programs.
The government needs to allocate sufficient resources to enhance oversight. After all, if millions of dollars can be spent on projects like ArriveCan and the two Randy’s, surely the Federal government can afford more resources to monitor how these foreign worker programs are being administered. At the heart of the issue are “closed work permits,” which tie workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Workers facing abuse are unable to leave their employer without jeopardizing their immigration status, creating a near-hostage situation where they cannot access basic social safety nets like employment insurance or welfare.
The Saskatchewan government’s contradictory policies illustrate how misguided approaches to foreign worker licensing can worsen the problem. The Saskatchewan government in 2021 prohibited all non-residents, including foreign workers, from driving on out-of-country Class 1 licences. This same government in 2024 is allowing foreign agriculture workers from 40 countries to drive on their home country's licence for up to a year, until May 21, 2025. Those countries include European countries, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal and Taiwan. Similarly, federal investments, such as the $46.3 million allocated to Trucking Human Resources Canada for driver recruitment and training, exist because there is a critical shortage of truck drivers, not because immigrant workers are displacing Canadians.
The question then becomes: how do we fix this? One answer lies in closing the loopholes that allow unscrupulous trucking companies to employ foreign drivers who may not meet Canadian driving standards. At roadside inspections, it’s assumed that a driver with a valid Canadian license is working legally, but if they present a foreign license, there is no seamless mechanism for immediate enforcement or detention, as immigration issues are beyond the scope of provincial transportation roadside enforcement departments. The solution is for the federal government to crack down on these employers, rather than the workers themselves, through sanctions and more aggressive investigations. Why not give these drivers a legitimate path to citizenship or work permit and put them through the Red Seal driver training programs that are being developed?
In 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology released a paper calling for an end to closed work permits, marking a step in the right direction, but this remains only a recommendation. The Government of Canada has announced plans to overhaul the TFW program, though concrete reforms may take years to be implemented.
The bottom line is that immigrants are not the problem—broken immigration programs with little to no oversight are. It’s time to stop vilifying foreign workers and hold the government accountable for managing these programs. Big problems need big solutions that involve co-operation between Transport Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Canada Immigration and Citizenship and Canada Border Services Agencies. Without this collaboration, Canada will continue to face a fractured system that leaves workers vulnerable and fails to meet the demands of key industries like trucking.
At the end of September, The Vancouver Sun highlighted the issue of emissions from heavy and medium-duty trucks in British Columbia, drawing attention to the problem of operators tampering with emission controls using "delete kits." These kits essentially disable emission-reducing technologies in trucks, leading to higher levels of harmful emissions. While Metro Vancouver is poised to present a report on this to a climate committee, this issue has been prevalent for years across Canada. Ontario, for example, has been grappling with delete kits for over six years now.
Metro Vancouver has outlined three potential solutions to decarbonizing the trucking industry:
I hate to state the obvious but, 2019 called, they want their problem back! Delete kits have been an issue for a long time. Maybe it takes a few years for problems to migrate from Ontario to British Columbia. Metro Vancouver could have saved themselves some time and energy and just read all the information Ontario has been publishing for the last 6 years.
These are all important goals, and the industry has been working on these solutions for some time. But, in reality, the immediate challenge lies in the interim period. The reason delete kits are so common is simple: emission systems in older trucks, particularly from the early 2000s, are unreliable. Trucking companies can't afford the downtime caused by malfunctioning emission systems, so many take a "fix it or fuck it" approach, opting for delete kits to keep trucks running.
A significant barrier to addressing delete kits is the lack of consistent enforcement and inspection criteria across Canada. While some jurisdictions have made strides in identifying tampered vehicles, roadside inspectors and repair technicians lack Canada-wide guidelines. For instance, in April 2023, British Columbia raised this issue with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), asking that emission controls be added to Level 1 inspections. This is what was decided: Canada has a regulation in NSC 11B that the exhaust cannot be tampered with. Discussion about how enforcement can determine this roadside, such as with glider kits. Enforcement may not be able to identify which parts, if any, are missing from the system without proper training, however, in some jurisdictions in Canada, roadside inspectors are trained to detect delete kits/tampering, etc. This is like a shock absorber which is a violation in Canada but not in the US. There is no regulatory section in Part 393 that would allow the inspection and a violation to be written regarding the emission system. The consensus is we leave it alone in the United States, unless a state law addresses it. Canada may address it through relevant laws and it would be a critical inspection item under Exhaust (therefore, the vehicle, in Canada, would not obtain a CVSA decal if a violation of the emissions system was present in Canada). In no case, would this be an OOSC condition. There is no uniform agreement across North America.
In Alberta, the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Manual (CVIP) still exempts emissions controls from inspections until future regulations are introduced. This leaves many sections of the 2014 NSC 11B, particularly those related to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) systems, unenforceable. Ontario, on the other hand, has specific inspection criteria and penalties in place, making it the only province that actively enforces regulations on delete kits.
Ultimately, as provinces like British Columbia and Alberta lag in enforcement, the trucking industry is evolving. By the time regulatory amendments are made, manufacturers may have resolved emission control issues, or trucks may have switched to alternative fuels entirely. Until then, the enforcement of delete kits remains inconsistent, with Ontario leading the charge while other provinces struggle to keep up. If a truck fails a level 1 CVSA inspection anywhere but, Ontario I would ask to see the inspection criteria used to determine the truck was deleted.
The real question is, in the time it takes for studies and regulatory changes to occur, how much further will the industry progress, and how much will the problem of delete kits still matter?
