R v Blom [2002] OJ No 3199 61 OR (3d) 51
[2002] OJ No 3199
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
Case law
Charter Notice
3 reported decisions on this issue.
R v Chartrand
[2003] O.J. No. 4309
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
R v Cichorczyk
Unreported
Ontario Court of Justice
2 May 2000
speeding
R. v. Cichorczyk
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace H. Diamond | May 2, 2000
Ontario Court of Justice
Background
Jaroslaw Cichorczyk was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act. The alleged offence occurred on April 7, 1999, at approximately 10:45 a.m. on Kipling Avenue near the northbound Kipling Avenue in Toronto. Officer Young was operating a laser speed detection device and alleged that Cichorczyk was travelling 76 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre per hour zone.
The case proceeded to trial where Officer Young testified about his use of the laser device and his training. The defence challenged whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the accuracy and proper operation of the speed detection equipment.
Issues
- Whether the Crown established sufficient evidence regarding the accuracy and proper operation of the laser speed detection device
- Whether the officer's testimony was adequate to prove the device was functioning correctly
The Laser Device Evidence
Officer Young testified that he was a qualified laser operator who had been using laser devices for three years. He described performing tests on the device, including testing it on stationary objects to ensure accuracy and testing it on moving vehicles. However, his testimony revealed significant gaps in his knowledge and recollection.
When questioned about specific details of his testing procedures, Officer Young admitted he could not recall basic information about how the device worked, what specific tests he performed that day, or whether he kept records of his testing. He testified that he "generally" performed tests but could not provide specifics about the testing on the day in question. Most critically, he could not explain the manufacturer's specifications for the device or demonstrate that he followed proper testing protocols.
The court found that the officer's vague testimony about "generally" doing tests, combined with his inability to recall specific details about the device's operation and testing, was insufficient to establish that the laser device was accurate and functioning properly on the day of the alleged offence.
Key Takeaway
Vague police testimony about "generally" testing speed detection equipment is not enough — the Crown must prove specific, proper testing occurred.
When facing a speeding charge involving radar or laser devices, defendants should closely examine whether the officer can provide specific details about testing procedures, manufacturer specifications, and the actual operation of the device on the day in question. Generic testimony about usual practices may not meet the legal standard for proving the device's accuracy.
General information, not legal advice. No case here has been re-checked for later history — read the decision itself before you rely on it.