R v Cormier

R. v. Cormier

[2008] O.J. No. 4964
Ontario Court of Justice — G.J. Griffin J. | November 20, 2008

Background

On October 14, 2007, Constable Darren Heasman of the Stirling Rawdon Police Service was conducting radar enforcement on Belleville Road. Using his Genesis II Spectre directional radar in opposite direction mode, he clocked Kimberleigh Cormier's southbound vehicle traveling between 86 and 94 km/h in a posted 50 km/h zone. Using his discretion, he issued her a ticket for the lower speed of 79 km/h.

At trial before Justice of the Peace Cureatz on May 12, 2008, Cormier was convicted and fined $160.50. Her lawyer argued that the officer had failed to follow the radar manufacturer's mandatory testing procedures, making the speed reading unreliable. The Justice of the Peace rejected this argument, taking what he called "a broader view" of the testing requirements.

Issues

1. Did the investigating officer properly follow the manufacturer's mandatory testing procedures for the radar device?
2. Can a court ignore or modify the manufacturer's explicit requirements for radar operation?

The Radar Manual Requirements

During cross-examination, the officer was confronted with a crucial passage from the Genesis II Directional User and Installation Manual. The manual clearly stated: "In addition to this road test, as part of the tracking history for any violation in which enforcement action is to be taken, it is a mandatory requirement that there be this correlation between the patrol speed of the police vehicle and the patrol speed displayed on the radar unit at that time. Without this correlation no enforcement action shall be taken."

The officer admitted he had not performed this correlation test at the time of the violation. His position was that testing the radar earlier in the day at 1:30 p.m. and later at 5:30 p.m. was sufficient compliance with the manufacturer's requirements. He testified that during the actual traffic stop, he was "focusing on the investigation" and operating in opposite direction mode, not same direction mode.

The Justice of the Peace accepted this interpretation, ruling that the instrument had been "tested adequately and correlated throughout the day." However, Judge Griffin found this reasoning fundamentally flawed, stating it was not open to the Justice of the Peace "to second guess the manufacturer's mandatory requirement."

Key Takeaway

Courts cannot ignore or water down the manufacturer's explicit mandatory requirements for radar operation — if the manual says "no enforcement action shall be taken" without a specific test, that means exactly what it says.

This case shows that even seemingly minor technical requirements can be the foundation of a successful defence. The officer's failure to perform one specific correlation test at the time of the violation was enough to overturn the entire conviction, despite proper testing earlier in the day.