R v Hawkins

R. v. Hawkins

2009 ONCJ 101
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace M.A. Cuthbertson | January 6, 2009

Background

On January 13, 2008, OPP Officer S. Vallier was running radar enforcement on Wellington Road 109 in Mapleton Township using a Genesis VP radar device. He clocked Russell Hawkins driving eastbound at 109 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. The officer testified he was qualified to operate the radar unit and had tested it before and after the traffic stop according to manufacturer specifications. Hawkins was the only vehicle in sight when the radar locked three identical readings of 109 km/h.

At trial, the defence didn't call any evidence but challenged whether Officer Vallier had properly followed all manufacturer requirements when operating the radar device. This led to a deep dive into something called "tracking history" — a procedure the officer admitted he'd never heard of.

Issues

1. What testing requirements must be met for radar evidence in speeding cases?
2. Did Officer Vallier properly conduct the manufacturer-required "tracking history" procedure?

The Tracking History Requirement

The court examined page 30 of the Genesis-VP User's Manual, which outlined a mandatory "tracking history" procedure. This required four steps: (1) visual observation and speed estimation of the target vehicle, (2) placing the radar in operational mode, (3) confirming the radar display is consistent with visual observations and that the audio tracking tone matches the visual observations, and (4) taking no enforcement action if any component is missing.

Officer Vallier initially testified he'd never heard of "tracking history." When pressed, he admitted he might have read about it but didn't really understand it. Most damaging: he never testified about hearing an audio tone during the traffic stop, and his notes contained no mention of it. Only during re-examination — after being walked through the manual — did he suddenly "recall" hearing a tone and estimating the vehicle's speed at 110 km/h.

The court found this late testimony unreliable, noting it "rang more of wishful thinking than of certainty." The officer also failed to testify whether the radar's audio was even turned on or at what volume level. Justice Cuthbertson concluded that an officer operating radar equipment must follow all manufacturer requirements, including tracking history, not just the basic before-and-after testing established in R. v. Bigioni and R. v. Vancrey.

Key Takeaway

Radar evidence requires more than just pre- and post-operation testing — officers must follow every manufacturer requirement, including tracking history procedures.

If you're facing a radar-based speeding charge, obtain the manufacturer's manual for the specific device used and scrutinize whether the officer followed all operational requirements, not just the basic testing protocols most lawyers know about.