R v Cannon

R. v. Cannon

Ontario Court (Provincial Division)
Before the Honourable Judge R.E. Bogusky | February 18, 1999, at Newmarket, Ontario

Background

Doug Cannon was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. The police used a laser speed-measuring device to catch him, but there was a significant gap in the testing schedule. The device had been tested with radar five months before the alleged offence and four months after. This created a nine-month window where the laser's accuracy wasn't verified against a known standard.

The case came to court as an appeal from a Justice of the Peace decision. Defence counsel B. McLeod argued that nine months between accuracy tests was far too long to establish that the device was working properly on the day Cannon was allegedly speeding.

Issues

1. How frequently should laser speed-measuring devices be tested to ensure accuracy?
2. Was a nine-month gap between tests sufficient to undermine the reliability of the speed reading?

The Periodic Testing Requirement

The court examined the Tamon decision, which had established that speed-measuring devices should be "tested periodically" against more common speed-measuring devices like radar. However, the Tamon decision didn't specify exactly what "periodically" meant — whether it was daily, weekly, monthly, or some other timeframe.

Crown counsel argued that the testing was sufficient, noting that laser technology is sophisticated and reliable. The defence countered that nine months was simply too long, especially when the device was being used daily. Defence pointed out that if something is used daily but only tested twice per year — with gaps of several months — there's no way to know if it was working properly during the untested period.

Judge Bogusky noted that while police departments had started testing laser devices with radar following his Tamon decision, they were doing so "quite infrequently." The court found that for a device used on a daily basis, testing only every several months was inadequate to establish ongoing accuracy.

Key Takeaway

Large gaps in device testing can successfully challenge the reliability of speed-measuring evidence.

If you're facing a laser speeding charge, ask the Crown to produce evidence of when the device was last tested and calibrated. Gaps of several months between accuracy tests may be grounds to argue the speed reading is unreliable.