R v McCoy

R. v. McCoy

[2004] O.J. No. 6224
Ontario Court of Justice — F.L. Forsyth J. | December 3, 2004

Background

Blake McCoy was driving southbound on Brant Street in Burlington when he passed through an intersection. A police officer positioned at the same intersection, but facing northbound, observed that his northbound traffic light was red. The officer concluded that McCoy must have run a red light and charged him under section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act. McCoy maintained that his southbound light was green when he proceeded through the intersection. The officer never actually saw the southbound light that McCoy was facing — he simply assumed it must have been red because his northbound light was red.

At trial, the officer testified that it was his "usual practice" to return to intersections after issuing red light tickets to check that the lights were functioning properly. He claimed he had done this after charging McCoy and found the lights working correctly. However, he had made no notes about this check and couldn't explain what "functioning properly" actually meant or what his inspection involved.

Issues

1. Can a court take judicial notice that opposing traffic lights function in synchronized fashion?
2. What evidence is required to prove traffic lights were functioning correctly at the time of an alleged offence?

The Evidentiary Foundation Problem

Justice Forsyth identified multiple fatal gaps in the Crown's case. First, there was no evidence about how these specific traffic lights were designed to function — no proof that when the northbound light was red, the southbound light would necessarily also be red. Second, there was no reliable evidence that the lights were actually working correctly on the date and time in question. The officer's testimony about his "usual practice" of checking lights was undermined by his complete lack of notes and inability to explain what such a check involved.

The court referenced R. v. Newton [1996] O.J. No. 5360, where Justice Flaherty established that courts cannot take judicial notice of how machines function. Justice Forsyth agreed, noting that "the functioning of traffic control lights is not self-evident." The Crown must prove through proper evidence that the lights were working as intended, not simply assume it based on how one directional light appeared to an officer.

Most critically, the Justice of the Peace at trial had improperly taken judicial notice that opposing traffic lights must be synchronized — exactly the kind of assumption about machine functioning that the law prohibits. Without this improper assumption, there was no evidence McCoy had actually faced a red light.

Key Takeaway

The Crown must prove traffic lights were functioning correctly with actual evidence, not assumptions about how traffic signals work.

If you're charged with running a red light, challenge whether there's proper evidence about the light's functioning and design. Officers who rely on "usual practice" without notes or specific testimony about what they observed have not met the required evidentiary standard.