R v Chair

R. v. Chair

2015 ONCA 868
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Doherty, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A. | December 9, 2015

Background

Wai-On Chair got tagged for speeding by the Regional Municipality of York. The officer used a radar device to clock Chair's speed, and importantly, the officer tested the radar gun both before and after using it, following the procedure set out in the manual. The officer was also a qualified operator of the device. At trial, the Justice of the Peace accepted this evidence and convicted Chair.

Chair appealed to a judge, and Justice Gorewich of the Ontario Court of Justice set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The judge found that the Justice of the Peace had "erred in law by making a finding on the facts that he was not entitled to make." The Crown then appealed that decision to Ontario's highest court.

Issues

1. Was the evidence of proper testing and qualified operation sufficient to establish a prima facie case for radar accuracy?
2. Should courts create a presumption of accuracy for radar gun readings?

The Radar Evidence Standard

The Court of Appeal relied heavily on R. v. Bigioni, a 1988 case that established the standard for radar evidence. Under Bigioni, if you can show that: (1) the officer tested the device before and after use according to the manual, and (2) the officer was qualified to operate it, then you've made out a "prima facie case" — meaning the evidence is sufficient unless the defence can poke holes in it.

Here, there was clear evidence of both elements. The trial judge accepted that evidence, which under Bigioni was enough to prove the case. The appeal judge was wrong to overturn the conviction, because the Justice of the Peace was absolutely entitled to make findings based on that evidence.

The Court of Appeal pointedly noted that "nothing in the subsequent case law should be taken as diminishing" the authority of Bigioni. This was a shot across the bow to lower courts that might be getting too demanding about radar evidence.

Key Takeaway

Radar evidence doesn't require perfection — just proper testing by a qualified operator.

If you're fighting a radar ticket, don't expect the Crown to produce engineering manuals or calibration certificates. Focus your defence on whether the officer actually followed testing procedures or was properly trained, not on demanding more technical evidence than the law requires.