R v Vancrey

R. v. Vancrey

[2000] O.J. No. 3033
Ontario Court of Appeal — Laskin, Feldman and O'Connor JJ.A. | August 18, 2000

Background

Kelly Vancrey was caught speeding on Highway 402 in Adelaide Township on February 22, 1998. O.P.P. Officer Gillies used an L.T.I. 20-20 Marksman Laser Speed Detection Device to clock her at 136 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. Officer Ormsby stopped her vehicle and issued the ticket. Vancrey was convicted under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act and appealed all the way to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Crown consented to the appeal because it raised an issue of public importance: what evidence is needed to prove a laser speed detection device is accurate? Unlike breathalyzers or some radar units, laser devices aren't specifically approved by Ontario statute, so the Crown has to prove both that the technology works and that the specific device was working properly on the day of the offence.

Issues

1. What evidence must the Crown present to prove a laser speed detection device accurately measured a vehicle's speed?
2. Was the evidence sufficient in this case to support the conviction?

The Laser Evidence Problem

Officer Gillies performed the manufacturer's four-part test twice on February 22 — once at 7:55 a.m. and again at 4:37 p.m. The tests included a self-test, display test, scope test (pointing the laser at objects to confirm the beam worked), and a distance-velocity test (measuring a wall at 19.8 meters, which read correctly for distance and showed 0 km/hr for speed).

But here's the problem courts identified: testing that a wall reads "0 km/hr" doesn't prove the device can accurately measure a moving vehicle. The justice of the peace agreed this fourth test was inadequate. However, Officer Gillies had done something extra — in late January or early February 1998, he compared his laser readings with radar readings on the same vehicles. Over 30-45 minutes, he tested at least 6 vehicles with both devices simultaneously. The readings were identical every time.

The Court of Appeal found this comparison test provided the necessary "circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness." The radar comparison, done 3-4 weeks before the offence, combined with the manufacturer's tests on the day of the offence, was sufficient evidence that the laser device was accurate.

Key Takeaway

Laser speeding tickets can be defended by challenging whether the Crown proved the device's accuracy, but comparison testing with radar can satisfy this burden.

This case shows that while laser technology isn't automatically accepted by courts, proper testing procedures can establish reliability. The court noted it would be "most helpful" to have expert evidence about laser methodology, suggesting this remains a potential area for defence challenges.