R v Navarro

Her Majesty the Queen v. Fabian Navarro

Ontario Court of Justice transcript
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice R. Khawly | January 24, 2002

Background

Fabian Navarro was charged with a driving offense related to having only a G2 license. The case had been proceeding through the courts since 1999, when a Justice of the Peace initially heard the matter and accepted the evidence as proper at that time. However, by 2002, the legal landscape had shifted significantly with new case law developments.

The Crown was represented by Ms. L. Smith, while Mr. B. Bauer appeared as agent for Navarro, who was not present in court. The case came before Justice Khawly for what appears to be an appeal or review of the original conviction.

Issues

1. Whether the officer's evidence was sufficient to prove Navarro only held a G2 license
2. Whether intervening case law affected the validity of the original conviction

The Evidence Problem

Justice Khawly referenced a judgment by Justice Lapkin that thoroughly analyzed similar cases and reached a crucial conclusion: an officer simply relying on his notes and memory to say that a person had a G2 license is insufficient evidence, and it amounts to hearsay.

This was a significant shift from how these cases were being handled. The Crown acknowledged that back in July 1999, when the Justice of the Peace heard the Navarro matter, such evidence was accepted as proper. However, by 2001, the Germanis decision had changed the legal standard, making it clear that this type of officer testimony alone was inadequate.

Justice Khawly explained his position on consistency in the justice system: even though he might personally disagree with some judicial approaches, he had "no choice but to accept" established precedent to avoid inconsistency. He cited several relevant cases including Colavita from 1993, a case by Justice Masse that also considered Colavita, and Hilem from 1997.

Key Takeaway

Police officers cannot simply testify from memory or notes that you only had a G2 license — they need proper documentary evidence.

This case shows how legal standards evolve and how defendants can benefit from intervening case law, even years after their original trial. If you're facing G2-related charges, the prosecution needs more than just an officer's say-so about your license status.