R v Ell

R. v. Ell

Court File No.: Halton 3785796A
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice R.J. LeDressay | June 11, 2012

Background

On March 12, 2010, Sklyar Ell was driving southbound on Tremaine Road in Milton when Officer Hanowski clocked him at 98 km/h in a 60 km/h zone using a Lidar Laser Truespeed 20/20 device. The officer was qualified to operate the device and had been re-qualified as recently as April 2011. He tested the laser device both before and after the traffic stop and found it to be working properly according to the manufacturer's instructions.

But there was a problem with one of the required tests. For the Fixed Distance Zero Velocity Test, Officer Hanowski needed to measure the device's accuracy at exactly 50 meters. Instead of measuring this distance himself, he relied on information from Police Constable Ivey, who had told him the distance was 50 meters and had marked it off at the police station. Ell was found guilty at trial and appealed, arguing this hearsay evidence made the laser readings inadmissible.

Issues

1. Does an officer's reliance on hearsay evidence about the 50-meter test distance undermine the admissibility of laser speed readings?
2. What level of evidence is required to establish the proper functioning of speed measuring devices?

The Hearsay Evidence Ruling

Justice LeDressay ruled that Officer Hanowski's reliance on his colleague's measurement was perfectly acceptable. The court found that police officers routinely rely on hearsay evidence when operating technical equipment — from training manuals to calibration information to procedural instructions. The judge compared it to an impaired driving investigation where an officer relies on calibration stickers showing a breathalyzer was properly maintained by a qualified technician.

The court emphasized that the information came from "a reliable and trustworthy source" — a fellow police officer who had measured and marked the distance at the station. Officer Hanowski had seen and used these markings himself when conducting the test. The fact that he didn't personally measure the 50 meters didn't invalidate his professional opinion that the device was working properly.

Importantly, there was no contradictory evidence challenging the accuracy of the 50-meter measurement. The court referenced R. v. Chow, noting that hearsay evidence can be both admissible and given significant weight when it demonstrates "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and accuracy" and no competing evidence exists.

Key Takeaway

Police officers can rely on reliable hearsay evidence when testing speed detection equipment, and you need contradictory evidence to challenge their conclusions.

Simply arguing that an officer relied on information from colleagues or manuals won't make laser evidence inadmissible. To successfully challenge speed detection evidence, you need to present actual contradictory evidence about the device's accuracy or testing procedures, not just point out that some information came from hearsay sources.