R v Amyot

Regina v. Amyot

[1968] 2 O.R. 626-634
Ontario Simcoe County Court — Clare, Co.Ct.J. | January 10, 1968

Background

Theodore Amyot was charged with speeding after Ontario Provincial Police Officer McCharles clocked his dark maroon vehicle at 78 and 80 mph in a 60 mph zone on Highway 400. The twist? Officer McCharles was in an airplane, using a stopwatch to time how long it took Amyot's car to travel between painted "T" markings on the highway that were exactly 1,320 feet apart. McCharles radioed down to Constable Ragot on the ground, who pulled Amyot over and charged him.

Magistrate Kennedy heard the case first and acquitted Amyot. The Crown appealed, seeking a trial de novo (essentially a complete do-over). But when the appeal came before Judge Clare on November 27, 1967, Amyot didn't show up — and that's where things got legally messy.

Issues

1. Did the Crown properly notify Amyot of when and where his appeal would be heard?
2. Is stopwatch evidence from an aircraft sufficient to prove speeding without proving the stopwatch's accuracy?

The Notice Problem

The Crown's notice of appeal told Amyot his case would be heard "at the County Court of the County of Simcoe at its next sittings of competent jurisdiction" — but gave him no specific date, time, or location. The court clerk later posted a general list of cases in his office and mailed Amyot a copy, but even that list didn't specify when Amyot's individual case would be called.

Judge Clare was not impressed: "a citizen served with such a notice might expect to receive some further notification as to the exact place and date for the new trial before he was again placed upon his peril." The judge found this violated the Criminal Code's requirement that proper notice be given, and ruled the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Case dismissed on a technicality.

The Aerial Speed Enforcement Evidence

Even though he lacked jurisdiction, Judge Clare analyzed the evidence anyway in case his notice ruling was wrong. Officer McCharles had three years of aerial patrol experience and personally verified the 1,320-foot distance between highway markers with a cyclometer. His stopwatch readings of 11.5 and 11.2 seconds translated to 78 and 80 mph respectively — well above the 60 mph limit.

The judge relied on English case law (Nicholas v. Penny) establishing that mechanical devices like stopwatches provide "prima facie evidence" of what they record, even without proof of accuracy. As Judge Clare noted, "any error of over three seconds in the stop-watch would be almost inconceivable" given that a legal 60 mph speed would take 15 seconds to cover the same distance. The evidence would have been sufficient for conviction.

Key Takeaway

Perfect evidence means nothing if the Crown can't properly serve you notice of your trial date.

This 1968 case shows that courts take notice requirements seriously — even when the evidence of guilt seems overwhelming, procedural fairness comes first in the criminal justice system.