R v Fazlic

R. v. Fazlic

[2009] O.J. No. 1802
Ontario Court of Justice — K.G. Lenz J. | February 12, 2009

Background

Salih Fazlic was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, a Justice of the Peace convicted him based on radar evidence from a police officer. Fazlic appealed the conviction to the Ontario Court of Justice, represented by counsel M. Riddell. The Crown was represented by I. Lagden.

The case turned on a critical issue: whether the police officer properly tested the radar device according to the manufacturer's specifications before using it to clock Fazlic's speed. This wasn't just a technicality — it goes to the heart of whether radar evidence can be trusted in court.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace correctly assess the evidence regarding the radar device testing?
2. Was the accuracy and reliability of the radar device proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Radar Testing Failure

Here's where things went wrong for the prosecution. The Crown conceded — meaning they admitted — that the Justice of the Peace had "misapprehended the evidence." The transcript clearly showed that the officer failed to conduct the "tracking history component" of the manufacturer's testing procedures. This wasn't a minor oversight — it was a fundamental gap in proving the radar device was working properly.

In Canadian law, radar evidence must meet strict reliability standards. The device must be tested according to manufacturer specifications, and this testing must be proven in court. Without the tracking history test, there was no way to establish that the radar readings were accurate. Judge Lenz found that "the accuracy and reliability of the radar device was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

What makes this case particularly notable is that the Crown agreed with the defence position. This suggests the testing failure was so obvious and fundamental that the prosecution couldn't reasonably defend it on appeal.

Key Takeaway

Radar evidence is only as good as the testing that backs it up — and incomplete testing can kill an entire speeding case.

For self-represented defendants facing radar-based speeding charges, this case shows the importance of carefully examining whether the officer properly tested the device. Ask to see the testing procedures and compare them to what the manufacturer requires — gaps in testing can be grounds for acquittal.