R v More

R. v. More

Ontario Court of Justice — Justice R. Khawly | March 31, 2000
Toronto, Ontario

Background

John More was charged with "proceed contrary to sign at intersection" — essentially making a left turn when prohibited by a no-left-turn sign. The case hinged on a critical detail: the regulations require these signs to have a black arrow pointing left with a red circle and red slash through it. During the trial, the prosecuting officer's testimony about the arrow's colour became confused and contradictory.

In cross-examination, the officer initially testified that the arrow was red. During re-direct examination, the Crown prosecutor asked a leading question: "Officer, is the arrow on the signs, is it red or black?" The officer then changed his answer to "probably it would be black." At this point, Justice of the Peace Burgess intervened and asked the officer directly what colour the arrow was at the intersection, seeking to clarify the conflicting testimony.

Issues

1. Whether the Crown's leading question in re-direct examination was improper
2. Whether the justice of the peace improperly interfered by questioning the witness to bolster the Crown's case

Judicial Interference and the Appearance of Bias

Justice Khawly found that the justice of the peace had clearly erred by stepping in to help clarify the officer's testimony. The sequence of events was particularly problematic: after the officer gave contradictory answers about the arrow's colour, and after the Crown's improper leading question, the justice of the peace asked his own question to get a definitive answer. Justice Khawly noted this wasn't just clarification — it was "trying to assist or bolster the evidence of the witness to become clearer."

The court emphasized that judges must remain neutral, especially on issues that are "the crux of the case." Here, whether the sign complied with regulations (black arrow, not red) was essential to proving the offence. When the justice of the peace intervened after the Crown received an unsatisfactory answer, it created an appearance that the court was helping the prosecution build its case rather than remaining impartial.

Key Takeaway

When a judge steps in to help clarify evidence that favours one side, especially after that side has already received an unfavourable answer, it crosses the line from neutral fact-finding into improper assistance.

Self-represented defendants should watch for situations where the court appears to be helping the prosecution overcome weaknesses in their case, and should object if the judge's questions seem designed to bolster rather than clarify evidence.