R v Guglietti

R. v. Guglietti

[2004] O.J. No. 6218
Ontario Court of Justice — F.L. Forsyth J. | December 3, 2004

Background

John Guglietti was charged with speeding 138 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 407 in Milton on March 1, 2003. Officer Ian Michel of the OPP Port Credit Detachment testified that he clocked Guglietti's speed using a handheld Genesis VP Radar unit. Michel said he had been with the OPP since April 2001 and testified that he was "trained as a radar operator" both at the OPP Academy in Orillia and at the detachment level.

Guglietti's agent, Mr. Alesandro, made a motion for non-suit, arguing that the officer never said he was *qualified* to operate the specific radar unit — only that he was trained. Justice of the Peace Bonas denied the motion, calling the distinction between "trained" and "qualified" mere "semantics" and finding the words "interchangeable to some extent." Guglietti was convicted and appealed.

Issues

1. Was there sufficient evidence that Officer Michel was qualified to operate the specific Genesis VP radar unit?
2. Can the words "trained" and "qualified" be used interchangeably when it comes to radar operation?

The Training vs. Qualification Distinction

Justice Forsyth found that the Justice of the Peace made a fundamental error. The evidence showed only that Officer Michel had received generic radar training — not training on the specific Genesis VP unit he used. More importantly, there was no evidence whatsoever that he was *qualified* to operate any radar unit, let alone this particular model.

The court referenced R. v. He, where Justice Bellefontaine established that "there must be evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was trained and qualified in the operation of the machine." Training and qualification are distinct concepts: a person can receive training and still fail a qualification test, or cease training before becoming qualified.

Justice Forsyth rejected the Justice of the Peace's finding that these terms were interchangeable, noting that even dictionary definitions show qualification requires "knowledge, training *and experience*." The court found there was "no factual foundation" for concluding that Officer Michel was qualified on this specific radar unit.

Key Takeaway

The Crown must prove the officer was both trained AND qualified on the specific radar unit used — generic radar training isn't enough.

If you're challenging radar evidence, press the officer on their specific qualifications for the exact model of radar used in your case. Training alone doesn't establish competence to operate specialized equipment.