Amy B. Rose

The appellant was convicted of speeding and stunt driving after being clocked at 154 km/h by a police officer using a BEE III radar device from the shoulder of a highway.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the officer did not operate the radar device in accordance with the manufacturer's manual, which he claimed required the patrol vehicle to be in the same or adjacent lane as the target vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the appeal judge's interpretation that the manual allows the radar to monitor traffic moving in either direction across multiple lanes from a stationary roadside position.

The Court also declined to admit fresh evidence from the radar manufacturer, finding it unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board following a finding that she was not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

The Board ordered her detained in a Secure Forensic Unit due to active, untreated persecutory delusions and a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board is entitled to consider hearsay evidence such as police occurrence reports, and that the hybrid detention order was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous option given the appellant's refusal of treatment and lack of insight.