R v Bland

Regina v. Bland

(1975), 6 O.R. (2d) 54
Ontario Court of Appeal — Jessup, Arnup and Dubin JJ.A. | December 20, 1974

Background

Milton Bland was driving westbound on Highway 7 through Omemee when Police Constable F.L. Prior spotted him leaving the village. Prior followed for four and a half miles, then clocked Bland's vehicle at 95 mph over a seven-tenths-mile stretch from Reaboro to the 9th concession of Ops Township. Bland was charged with driving 90 mph in a 60 mph zone under section 82(16) of the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, Prior testified about the speed but never mentioned what the speed limit actually was on that stretch of highway. He also admitted he had no personal knowledge about his speedometer's accuracy — just a card in his cruiser saying it had been checked by radar that day. Despite these gaps, the Justice of the Peace convicted Bland. The conviction was upheld on appeal to the Provincial Court, then appealed again to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Can police speedometer evidence support a conviction without proof of the speedometer's accuracy?
2. Can a court convict for speeding without any oral evidence of the speed limit?

Speedometer Evidence Without Accuracy Proof

The Court of Appeal firmly rejected the idea that police must prove their speedometer's accuracy before using it as evidence. Following the English case Nicholas v. Penny, Justice Arnup ruled that speedometer readings over a measured distance provide prima facie evidence of speed — meaning it's presumed accurate unless the defence proves otherwise. The officer's testimony that his speedometer showed a steady 95 mph over seven-tenths of a mile was enough to establish Bland was speeding, even without technical evidence about calibration.

This directly overruled an earlier Ontario case, R. v. Thibodeau, which had required proof of speedometer accuracy. The Court of Appeal noted that if defendants want to challenge speedometer accuracy, they can cross-examine the officer or call their own evidence — but the Crown doesn't have to prove accuracy as part of its case.

Judicial Notice of Speed Limits

Even though the prosecutor forgot to ask about the speed limit, the Court found this didn't matter. Speed limits are set by regulation under section 82(11) of the Highway Traffic Act. Under sections 5 and 10(2) of Ontario's Regulations Act, published regulations must be judicially noticed — meaning judges are legally required to recognize them even if no one mentions them in court.

The Court examined R.R.O. 1970, Reg. 429 and determined the relevant stretch of Highway 7 had a 60 mph limit. Since regulations are automatically "noticed" by law, the speed limit was legally established without any testimony.

Key Takeaway

Police speedometer evidence is presumed accurate unless you prove otherwise, and speed limits don't need to be proven in court.

If you're defending a speeding charge, don't expect the Crown to prove their speedometer works — that burden is on you. Focus your defence on challenging the officer's observations or the speedometer readings themselves, not demanding calibration certificates.