R v Le

R. v. Le

[2002] O.J. No. 894
Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Appeal Court — Fairgrieve J. | March 4, 2002

Background

Huu-Hat Le was caught speeding on Islington Avenue in Toronto — 74 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Constable D'Agostino of Toronto Police Services used a Laser Tech Marksman 2020 speed measuring device, pointing the red dot on the front of Le's vehicle and getting the reading. The officer testified he was a qualified laser operator, had tested the device before and after use, and found it in proper working order according to manufacturer specifications.

Le's defence lawyer didn't cross-examine the officer or call any evidence. The Justice of the Peace convicted Le, simply stating he was "satisfied that the laser was accurate." Le appealed, arguing the prosecution hadn't proven the laser device was reliable.

Issues

1. What evidence is required to prove a laser speed measuring device is accurate and reliable?
2. Can courts now take judicial notice of laser technology's reliability without requiring independent verification?

The Evolution of Laser Evidence

This case came down to interpreting R. v. Vancrey, where the Ontario Court of Appeal had upheld a laser conviction based on evidence that included comparison with an accurate radar unit. Le's lawyer argued Vancrey required such independent testing. But Justice Fairgrieve disagreed, finding that Vancrey didn't establish a mandatory requirement — it just said that particular evidence was sufficient.

The key breakthrough came from Quebec's City of Joliette v. Delangis, where the Court of Appeal ruled that courts could take judicial notice of laser technology's reliability. As the Quebec court put it: why require proof of laser technology when we don't require proof of how odometers or modern thermometers work? Justice Fairgrieve also relied on R. v. Mukasa, where Justice Pockele noted that laser technology "had eight years of history in this country" and was "no longer new and novel."

The court found that laser speed detection devices had been used by law enforcement for almost a decade, evidence from them was routinely admitted as reliable, and the technology was now so well-established that judicial notice could be taken of its accuracy — similar to how courts handle radar evidence.

Key Takeaway

You can't beat a laser speeding ticket just by arguing the prosecution didn't prove the technology works.

Courts now accept laser speed detection as reliable technology that doesn't require independent verification. Your defence needs to focus on whether the specific device was working properly, whether the officer was trained and competent, or whether the officer made errors in operation — not on challenging the underlying technology itself.