Kustom Signals Falcon HR, Operator'S Manual

Page: 67 / 97

SECTION 10 - CASE LAW
10.9
R. v. Wolfe (B.C.C.C.) 1979
The officer had some training and experience operating
radar set, but training "fell short" which cast doubt on
the accuracy of the device and its results.
R. v. Brewer
(May 19, 1988, Prov. Off. Ct. Nwkt, Ont.)
At trial, officer had stated in-chief that he was a
qualified radar operator and that he had received some
basic training from an experienced officer in the use of
the radar. In cross-examination, the officer's
qualifications were challenged,
HELD ON APPEAL: In this case, the officer could not
be regarded as a "qualified radar operator" and
therefore, a prima facie case was not made out.
NOTE: Can be distinguished on the facts of this case,
as officer had no formal training.
R. v. Waschuk (Sask. Q.B.) 1970
Judicial notice of radar: Judicial notice may only be
taken of facts which are known to intelligent persons
generally, therefore, judicial notice may not be taken of
meaningfulness of tests.
Radar operator should be able to give evidence as to
whether the machine is in good working order and
capable of recording the speed of the vehicle being
tested.