The applicant, charged with speeding, brought a motion seeking disclosure of maintenance records for the Lidar device, the officer's training records, and other particulars, as well as a voir dire on the admissibility of the speed measurement evidence.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the maintenance and training records were third-party records for which the applicant failed to establish likely relevance.
The court also held that a voir dire was unnecessary, as the prosecution is not required to prove the general reliability of Lidar devices, and the applicant could cross-examine the officer at trial.
The request for costs was denied as there was no Crown misconduct.
