Case law...

---

If you plan to challenge the ticket with some specific defences, you may need to be familiar with the case law. If you plan to rely upon the case law, you may need copies of the originals which are available from many courthouse and university law libraries (for reported cases) or reporting services (for unreported cases). Page counts refer to the official version of judgement, not the web-based version.
  Automated Traffic Enforcement Decisions: British Columbia | Canadian | International
Motor Vehicle Decisions: Canadian

How to interpret citations: for example, 34 M.V.R. (2d) 12 means: Volume 34 of Motor Vehicle Reports, second edition, starting at page 12. Citations in the form of: "[1999] B.C.J. No. 123" refer to Quicklaw's on-line search system, a fee-based system not publicly available.

R. v. Akita (March 1, 1999), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SC0222133, Turley JP), (11 pages).
Crown successful, unrepresented defendant lost on "PR100"/"PR100NZ" issue.

R. v. B & L Security Patrol (1981) Ltd. (January 7, 1999), unreported - proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Kamloops Registry No. SC02558148, Hughes JP), (35 pages).
Defendant successful, Regulations specify that photo radar unit model number "PR100" shall be used. Evidence given that units in use are "PR100NZ". Note: this transcript also illustrates a typical photo radar "case" submission for the Crown -- useful for understanding how the Crown presents their case and what it is based upon.

R. v. Balog (November 4, 1997), [1997] B.C.J. No. 3049 - oral reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Maple Ridge Registry No. SA01250696, Hayes JP), (3 pages).
Defendant successful, readability of license plate: "the relative quality of the photograph would impair the person's ability to make full answer and defence by virtue of lack of definition of other visual cues that may or may not be present in the photograph..."

R. v. Barclay (November 12, 1999), 48 M.V.R. (3d) 74 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Preston J).
Appeal of conviction. Defendant raised charter arguments of law similar to R. v. Tri-M Systems (see below). Legal issues had been determined and were not grounds for appeal.

R. v. BC Transit [judgment only] (August 5, 1997), unreported - proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Victoria Registry No. SA00451279, Rivett JP), (38 pages).
Due diligence -- driver refused to be nominated, company met burden of "due diligence".

R. v. Black Top Cabs Ltd. (January 22, 1998), unreported - written judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA01334391, Makhdoom JP), (11 pages).
Due diligence -- driver refused to be nominated, companies procedures failed to meet burden of "due diligence".

R. v. Bosworth (August 27, 1997), [1997] B.C.J. No. 244 - written decision, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA00030445, Hayes JP), (40 pages).
REQUIRED READING FOR ANYONE FIGHTING A TICKET!

R. v. Bryson (December 16, 1997), unreported - excerpt from proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA01410399, Makhdoom JP), (11 pages).

R. v. Columbia Dodge 1967 Ltd. (No. 1) (January 22, 1997), unreported - proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Morrison JP).
Due diligence -- the defendant company successfully argued that they met the standard of "reasonable care" in lending a vehicle to an employee. Charge dismissed.

R. v. Columbia Dodge 1967 Ltd. (No. 2) (December 18, 1997), unreported - oral judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Proctor JP).
Due diligence -- the defendant company successfully argued that they met the standard of "reasonable care" in lending a vehicle to an employee, defence based upon a form completed jointly by the driver and employer. Charge dismissed.

R. v. Davey (September 24, 1997), unreported - oral reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Edwards J).
Defendant gave evidence without being sworn in -- Crown not permitted to cross-examine. Requirement that signs be posted at every possible entry to a highway. Crown appealed dismissal -- "manifest absurdity" -- new trial ordered.

R. v. Evans (January 16, 1998), unreported - proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Victoria Registry No. SA00114596, Rivett JP), (29 pages).
Charter challenge.

R. v. Etherington (March 6, 1997), [1997] B.C.J. No. 3042 - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Makhdoom JP), (15 pages).
The defendant successfully argued that the Crown had failed to prove necessary elements of a speeding charge (except section 146(1) [was 151(1)]) -- that signs were posted in the direction of travel, unobstructed, and within a reasonable distance. Charge dismissed.

R. v. Guinn (June 25, 1997), [1997] B.C.J. No. 3046 - oral reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, No. CC970321, Levine J), (8 pages).
Photo readability -- it is not necessary for the Justice or defendant to be able to read the licence plate or jurisdiction if a certificate is completed.

R. v. Hillcrest Plumbing and Heating, (May 16, 1997), unreported, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA00872459, Morrison JP).

R. v. Ianakiev (August 13, 1997), [1997] B.C.J. No. 3048 - proceedings at hearing, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA00844143, Hayes JP), (17 pages).

R. v. K2 Language Ltd. (March 10, 1998), unreported - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. 00863903, Turley JP), (15 pages).
Charter challenge, right to cross examine enforcement officers. Accused convicted.

R. v. Korlak (January 5, 1999), 39 M.V.R. (3d) 320, [1999] B.C.J. No. 84 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, No. SA02278720, Quijano J).

R. v. Magone (March 20, 2000), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Victoria Docket No. V03448, Hall J).
Admissability of certificates and right to cross examine.

R. v. Margolis (May 26, 1997), unreported, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. AD01335993), (10 pages).
Due diligence -- not photo radar related, distinguishable.

R. v. McCormack (March 24, 1999), [1999] B.C.J. No. 814 - proceedings at hearing, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SC02322080, Hayes JP), (34 pages).
PR100 issue explored in detail -- defence successful.

R. v. Ng, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1716 (B.C. Provincial Court).

R. v. Paruk (December 23, 1999), 49 M.V.R. (3d) 309 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Bennett J), (20 pages).
Crown appeal of acquittal. Regulations specify that photo radar unit model number "PR100" shall be used, units do not comply. Defence successful.

R. v. Pearce (March 1, 2000), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Smith J).

R. v. Pres Ventures Ltd. (June 18, 1997), unreported - excerpt from proceedings at trial, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA00308321, Smigel JP), (7 pages).
Charter challenge.

R. v. Ross (January 27, 1999), unreported - (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Courtenay Registry No. SC0202252).

R. v. Rush (February 23, 1999), [1999] B.C.J. No. 446 - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Kelowna Registry No. SC02452788, Hughes JP), (6 pages).
Defendant successful, Regulations specify that photo radar unit model number "PR100" shall be used. Evidence given that units do not comply.

R. v. Salehi (December 16, 1997), unreported - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. S850992, Turley JP), (5 pages).
Definition of "dusk" relating to Speeding Against Playground Sign s. 147(2).

R. v. Salemi (April 2, 1997), 27 M.V.R. (3d) 26 - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Curtis J).
Defendant acquitted of speeding -- photo radar certificate for Section 146(1) [was 151(1)] did not adequately prove Crown's case. Crown appealed, new trial ordered. Crown not required to prove absence of signs indicating another speed limit.

R. v. Silbernagel (April 3, 2000), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA025737, Southin J).
Constitutionality of the legislation and stare decisis.

R. v. Smith (Paul Raymond) (January 28, 1998), 34 M.V.R. (3d) 64, [1998] B.C.J. No. 302 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry No. CC970761, Allan J), (4 pages).
Admissibility of certificates. Proof of "enforcement officer"signing. Certificates are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein without extrinsic evidence. Appeal dismissed.

R. v. Smith (Roy) (November 17, 1999), 47 M.V.R. (3d) 135 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry No. CC970761, Williams CJ).
Multiple owners does not frustrate photo radar prosecution. Crown successful.

R. v. Steen (October 31, 2000), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA027307, Rowles J).
Appeal on various issues granted.
R. v. Steen (May 31, 2001), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA027307, Hollinrake, Huddart and Braidwood J).
Appeal dismissed.

R. v. Tri-M Systems Inc. (July 9, 1998), unreported - written ruling on a motion, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, New Westminster Registry No. SA300391011, Makhdoom JP), (31 pages).
Charter challenge, defendant successful.
R. v. Tri-M Systems Inc. (November 19, 1998), 38 M.V.R. (3d) 265, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2702 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, New Westminster Docket No. X051688, Brenner J), (18 pages).
Appeal by Crown, Crown successful.
R. v. Tri-M Systems Inc. (November 16, 1999), 47 M.V.R. (3d) 143 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA025368, Proudfoot J).
Defence appeal of BCSC judgment, denied.
R. v. Tri-M Systems Inc. (February 2, 2000), unreported - oral reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA025368, Southin J).
Defence appeal of BCCA refusal of hearing, granted.
R. v. Tri-M Systems Inc. (April 11, 2001), unreported - written reasons for judgment, (B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Docket No. CA025368, Low J).
"The court dismissed this appeal challenging the constitutional validity under s.11(d) of the Charter of the photo-radar provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. The provisions do not infringe s.11(d)."

R. v. Tsang (April 22, 1998), [1998] B.C.J. No. 1216 - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Provincial Court - Traffic Division, Vancouver Registry No. SA02258269, Hayes JP), (14 pages).
Defendant successful, readability of license plate, list of defences.

R. v. Weber (March 25, 1999), unreported - reasons for judgment, (B.C. Supreme Court, McKinnon J).
Appeal of conviction and refusal of justice to grant presense of officer. Threshold for requiring officer is relatively low. New trial ordered.

R. v. Chow (April 22, 1991), 29 M.V.R. (2d) 7, (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Conrad J), (10 pages).
R. v. Chow (October 7, 1991), 33 M.V.R. (2d) 171, (Alberta Court of Appeal, McClung and Major JJ.A. and Dixon J. (ad hoc)), (2 pages).
Although the recorded speed on the photograph is hearsay evidence, it is receivable if the surrounding circumstances indicate that it is accurate and trustworthy (if it enjoys "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness"). Accused convicted.

R. v. Drissell (January 16, 1996), unreported - written decision, (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Cawsey J), (8 pages).
Admissibility of mechanical recording of speed, alignment of vehicle to roadway (re: cosine error), accuracy of tuning fork. Accused convicted.

R. v. Halliday (November 7, 1995), 19 M.V.R. (3d) 7, 179 A.R. 148, (Alberta Provincial Court, Gruman Commr.), (6 pages).
R. v. Halliday (??), ??, (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)
R. v. Halliday (March 6, 1997), unreported, (Alberta Court of Appeal), (1 page).
Further evidence of external testing of speed monitoring device not essential as a condition of admissibility of the speed read-out as a proof of speed. Appeal dismissed.

R. v. Hedayat (September 26, 1991), 34 M.V.R. (2d) 12, (Alberta Provincial Court, Pepler Prov. J.), (8 pages).
R. v. Hedayat (October 13, 1992), 41 M.V.R. (2d) 218, (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Chrumka J), (27 pages).
The service of the violation ticket 25 days after the alleged offence was not an unreasonable delay.

R. v. Tilden Car Rental Inc. (December 19, 1991), 85 Alta. L.R. (2d) 345, (Alberta Provincial Court, Cioni Prov. J.), (18 pages).
The defence argued that they had met the standard of "reasonable care" required to reasonably prevent the conduct of speeding when renting their vehicles. Crown successfully argued that checking for a valid driver's licence and that the renter is sober is not sufficient. Accused convicted. -- see R. v. Columbia Dodge and R. v. BC Transit above for employer-employee situations.

R. v. Winder (September 6, 1995), 174 A.R. 170, 102 W.A.C. 170, (Alberta Court of Appeal).
The accused appealed his conviction for speeding, alleging that the failure to post a sign within 150 feet of a photo radar location infringed his s. 11(d) Charter right to a presumption of innocence and a fair and impartial trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Municipality of Anchorage v. Baxley et. al. (October 1, 1996), unreported, (Anchorage District Court), (10 pages).A must read!
Municipality of Anchorage v. Baxley et. al. (October 16, 1997), unreported, (Anchorage Court of Appeals).
Three-magistrate court found that the American Traffic Systems PR-100 AutoPatrol photo radar units (the same system used in BC) do not meet the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Upheld under appeal.

Duhaime & Company (Victoria): Canadian Motor Vehicle Cases: A Selection

Rev: 2001.06.12