R v Leveson

R. v. Leveson

Ontario Court (Provincial Division), November 27, 1997
Ontario Court (Provincial Division) — Judge E. Earle-Renton | November 27, 1997

Background

Puimei Leveson was charged under section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to stop for a red light. The collision occurred when Mr. Mulchan was turning left on a green light and was struck by Leveson's vehicle coming from his left. Mulchan testified that his light was green when he entered the intersection, but crucially, he never said what colour the light was for northbound traffic (Leveson's direction).

The investigating officer, Mr. Tam, testified that he had an opportunity to inspect the traffic lights at the intersection and found them to be "functioning properly." However, when pressed on cross-examination about what "functioning properly" actually meant, the officer could not specify the actual colour sequence or timing of the lights.

Issues

1. Was there sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Leveson's light was red?
2. Can a court take judicial notice that when lights are "functioning properly," one direction being green means the other is red?

The "Functioning Properly" Problem

The defence argued that the officer's vague statement about lights "functioning properly" was insufficient proof that Leveson's light was actually red. The Crown attempted to argue that the court should take judicial notice that if one direction has a green light, the perpendicular direction must have a red light.

Judge Earle-Renton rejected the Crown's judicial notice argument, noting the complexity of modern traffic intersections: "There are so many variations and combinations. It would not have been difficult for the Crown's witness, had the question been put to him or her to establish the actual functioning of the lights at this particular intersection."

The judge distinguished this case from a recent Brampton decision (R. v. Newton) where Judge Flaherty had accepted judicial notice of light functioning, stating that such a broad judicial notice principle was inappropriate given the variety of traffic light systems, including multi-phase lights, advance green arrows, right-turn-on-red permissions, and sensor-activated systems.

Key Takeaway

Vague police testimony about traffic lights "working properly" is not enough to prove a red light violation.

The Crown must provide specific evidence about what the lights were actually showing, not just assume that "functioning properly" means a simple two-way red/green system. This case shows the importance of challenging vague police testimony and demanding specific, detailed evidence of the alleged violation.