R v McLachlan

R. v. McLachlan

2006 ONCJ 318
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Paul H. Reinhardt | August 31, 2006

Background

Michael McLachlan was driving his blue PT Cruiser southbound on Highway 400 near Steeles Avenue in Toronto on January 30, 2003, when OPP Constable David Aucoin clocked him at 136 km/h in a 100 km/h zone using a laser speed detection device. Constable Aucoin was positioned on the far left shoulder next to the passing lane, operating a Marksman LTI 2020 laser device. He testified that McLachlan's vehicle was moving faster than other traffic, so he aimed the laser at the front grille and got the speed reading from 330.7 metres away.

The constable had impressive credentials — he was a trained laser operator and instructor who had taught other OPP officers and had used laser devices on approximately 15,000 vehicles. He testified that he tested the device according to manufacturer's instructions both before and after his shift and found it working properly. McLachlan was convicted at trial and appealed the decision.

Issues

1. Was the officer properly qualified to operate the laser device without producing written certification?
2. Was the manufacturer's testing procedure sufficient, or was comparison testing with radar required?
3. Did the prosecution prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt without maintenance records?

The Evolution of Laser Evidence

Justice Reinhardt traced how Ontario courts had been treating laser speed detection technology. Early cases like R. v. Wong and R. v. Bourne treated laser as "novel technology" requiring independent verification through comparison testing with older radar technology. However, this approach was challenged by Justice Gregory Pockele in R. v. Mukasa, who argued that laser was no longer novel.

The turning point came in R. v. Le (2002), where Justice David Fairgrieve concluded that laser technology had become sufficiently established that courts could take judicial notice of its reliability. Justice Fairgrieve ruled that manufacturer's recommended testing procedures were sufficient — no comparison testing with radar was required. This approach was followed by several other Ontario judges.

Justice Reinhardt firmly endorsed this evolution, stating that "laser technology is no longer 'novel' and may be received in evidence in Ontario without expert evidence, where the laser operator can testify that he has been trained in the use of the device and has followed the manufacturer's recommended testing procedures."

Officer Qualifications

The defence argued that Constable Aucoin needed to produce written certificates proving his qualifications, citing the Manitoba case R. v. Tummillo. Justice Reinhardt rejected this argument, noting that Ontario had no such requirement. The officer's testimony about his training, instructor status, and 15,000 uses of the device provided "ample evidence of his qualifications." The court distinguished Tummillo, which involved specific provincial legislation requiring certified testers.

Testing and Reliability

The defence also challenged the reliability of the device, arguing that only one test was conducted on the moving vehicle and that maintenance records weren't produced. Justice Reinhardt found that the trial judge properly considered these arguments but reasonably concluded they were "simply speculation." The officer had testified there was no debris interfering with the device, and no evidence contradicted this.

Key Takeaway

Laser speed detection is now established technology in Ontario that doesn't require expert evidence or comparison testing with radar.

If you're challenging laser evidence, focus on whether the officer was properly trained and followed manufacturer testing procedures, not on demanding written certificates or radar comparisons. Speculation about possible equipment problems won't be enough — you need actual evidence of malfunction or interference.