R v Goodman

R. v. Goodman

Case No. 78627883
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Fuerth | April 23, 2009

Background

Michael Goodman was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. An OPP officer using radar observed Goodman's vehicle, which appeared to be speeding and had a tractor trailer behind it. The officer obtained a speed reading using his radar unit and issued the ticket.

At trial, the Crown presented evidence that the officer was trained by the Ontario Provincial Police and had experience using radar devices in the field. However, significant gaps emerged in the officer's testimony about the radar operation and the circumstances of the stop.

Issues

1. Whether the officer was properly qualified to operate the radar device
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the radar reading was accurate and reliable

The Radar Evidence Problems

The defence lawyer, M. Higgins, systematically exposed critical weaknesses in the radar evidence. The officer admitted he had "no notation" and "no recollection" of how far away Goodman's vehicle was when he first observed it or when he activated the radar. When pressed, the officer could only estimate the distance as "maybe a kilometre, maybe two kilometres" but acknowledged the radar unit had "a specific limitation for its accuracy" and that operating within those limitations was "essential for accuracy."

Most damaging was the officer's admission that while he believed the vehicle was within the radar's "effective range," he didn't know what that effective range actually was based on his training. He had never compared the OPP training manual to the manufacturer's specifications and couldn't provide any precise distance measurements. Despite this, he testified that he believed the target vehicle was "within one kilometre" — a conclusion Justice Fuerth found "troubling" given the complete lack of supporting evidence.

The Court's Decision

Justice Fuerth granted the appeal and dismissed the charge. The judge found that while the officer's basic qualifications were acceptable, his evidence about the radar's operation was "conclusory evidence at its best." The officer didn't know the effective range for accuracy, couldn't recall the distance to the target vehicle, and had no reliable basis for concluding the vehicle was within the necessary range for an accurate reading.

The judge emphasized that in "absolute liability" offences like speeding, the evidence must be reliable and accurate. Since there was reasonable doubt about whether the vehicle was within the radar's effective range when clocked, the conviction could not stand.

Key Takeaway

Radar evidence fails when the officer cannot establish that the target vehicle was within the device's effective range for accuracy.

If you're challenging radar evidence, focus on getting the officer to admit gaps in their knowledge about distances and the radar's operational limitations. Courts require reliable evidence, not convenient assumptions.