R v Ege

R. v. Abdullahi Ege

Ontario Court of Justice — Justice M. H. Kelly | October 2, 2001
Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto

Background

Abdullahi Ege was charged with speeding 146 km/h in what appears to be a posted speed zone on Eglinton Avenue near Brimley Road in Scarborough. Officer Hougerdyke testified that he was traveling eastbound when he observed a green Lumina cab going westbound that appeared to be speeding. The officer made a U-turn, lost sight of the vehicle, then crested a hill and activated his radar device (called "the Hawke") when he regained visual contact. At 100 meters away, the radar recorded a speed of 146 km/h.

Ege was convicted at trial before Justice Tivey in provincial offences court. His agent, Mr. Higgins, appealed the conviction, arguing that the Crown failed to prove the radar device was operating properly and that there were credibility issues with the officer's evidence about losing and regaining sight of the vehicle.

Issues

1. Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the radar device was operating according to manufacturer specifications?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction given the officer's admissions about losing sight of the target vehicle?

The Radar Evidence Problem

The case turned on what Officer Hougerdyke actually knew about his radar device. Under cross-examination, the officer's evidence "started to unravel." He admitted he had never seen the actual manufacturer's manual for the Hawke radar device — only a small booklet provided by his supervisor that was "copyrighted by the force." When asked about the device's distance limitations, operating range, and minimum speed differential requirements, the officer repeatedly answered "I don't know."

Most damaging was the officer's admission that he had no idea what the original manufacturer's specifications were, yet he testified the device was "capable of accurately measuring speeds" — an opinion the court found he was not qualified to give as he had never been qualified as an expert in electronics or radar technology. The defence successfully argued this was improper opinion evidence from an unqualified witness.

Justice Kelly found the Agnoletto case persuasive, noting that an officer cannot stand before the court as a qualified technician if he testifies he follows manufacturer specifications but has never actually seen the manufacturer's manual. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence that the radar device was operating according to proper specifications.

Key Takeaway

The Crown must prove radar devices are operating according to manufacturer specifications, not just police force procedures.

If an officer admits under cross-examination that he doesn't know the actual manufacturer requirements for the radar device, this can create reasonable doubt about whether the device was operating properly, even if the officer says he "tested" it according to his training.