R v Taman

R. v. A. Taman

March 12, 1998
Ontario Court (Provincial Division) — Judge R.E. Bogusky | Newmarket, Ontario

Background

Amos Taman was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, the Crown called Sergeant Grenville to testify about operating a laser device to measure vehicle speeds. What should have been a routine traffic case became anything but when the officer's qualifications — or lack thereof — came under scrutiny.

The Crown also attempted to introduce evidence from other Alberta cases involving radar technology, hoping to establish that laser devices were reliable and accurate for measuring vehicle speeds.

Issues

1. Whether the officer was qualified to operate the laser speed detection device
2. Whether evidence from other jurisdictions could establish the reliability of laser technology
3. Whether the Crown had proven the speeding charge beyond a reasonable doubt

The Qualification Problem

The case fell apart when Sergeant Grenville admitted under cross-examination that he had never actually been qualified to operate the laser device according to the manufacturer's specifications. Despite years of experience using radar devices, he had not completed the proper training for this specific laser unit. The court found this devastating to the Crown's case.

Judge Bogusky was clearly frustrated with what he saw as sloppy police work. The decision reveals a pattern of officers using devices they weren't properly trained on, creating a "garbage in, garbage out" situation for the courts. The judge noted that without proper qualifications, there was no foundation for the officer's evidence about the device's accuracy.

The Alberta Evidence Gambit

The Crown tried to salvage the case by introducing evidence from Alberta court decisions that had accepted laser technology as reliable. Judge Bogusky firmly rejected this approach, noting that evidence must stand on its own merits in each case. You can't prove your radar worked by pointing to someone else's radar in another province.

The court emphasized that each case requires proper foundation evidence — qualified operators, properly functioning equipment, and accurate readings. Generic judicial notice of technology isn't enough when the specific officer and specific device haven't been properly established.

Key Takeaway

An officer's experience with similar devices doesn't automatically qualify them to operate every speed detection device.

Self-represented defendants should ask detailed questions about the officer's specific training and qualifications for the exact device used. The Crown must prove not just that the technology works in general, but that this particular officer was qualified to use this particular device on this particular day.