SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.7
R. v. Friedlan
(1993) Ontario Court of Justice (Prov. Div.)
Where a person is charged with speeding in a
construction zone, the onus is on the Crown to prove
that the portion of the highway travelled was designated
as construction zone under s. 128(8) of the Highway
Traffic Act. Pursuant to s.128(9) of that Act, such
designation is not a regulation within the meaning of
the Regulations Act.
In this case, despite the fact that the officer testified that
this was a construction zone in question and the area
was clearly posted as an 80 km/h zone, the court
allowed the conviction, but amended the offence to
indicate the non-construction zone speed limit of 100
km/h.
Quebec c. Robitaille
(1991) Quebec Court of Appeal
A police officer who was following the accused’s
vehicle testified that the speedometer of his own car
recorded a speed of 140 km/h while the speed limit was
90 km/h. At the end of the Crown’s case, the accused
moved for non-suit on the grounds that the speed at
which he was travelling was not established. This
argument was rejected and the accused was convicted.
On appeal by trial de novo, the Superior Court quashed
the conviction. The Crown appealed.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was
restored. If a speed established by a RADAR device is
sufficient prima facie evidence, a fortiori is the speed
recorded by the speedometer. Expert evidence
establishing the speed at which the accused was driving
is not required, since the accused had not adduced
evidence raising a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy
Summary of Contents for Falcon HR
Page 2: ......
Page 94: ...SECTION B ATTESTATION OF CONFORMITY B 2 B 2 AS NZ CERTIFICATION OF CONFORMITY...
Page 97: ......