Garry Erwin Shapiro

The appellant appealed a conviction for speeding 62 kilometres per hour in a 40 kilometre zone under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The grounds of appeal concerned the alleged failure of the prosecution to disclose information respecting the testing of the laser speed-measuring device used by the police officer.

The appellant argued that the failure to disclose testing times and the officer's testimony about testing without corresponding notes in his notebook resulted in an unfair trial and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed acquittals on two Highway Traffic offences entered by a Justice of the Peace.

The trial judge erred in granting a non-suit motion brought by the defence before the prosecution had completed its case.

A non-suit motion must be brought only after the prosecution has formally closed its case, allowing the Crown to present its full evidence before the defence challenges it.

Additionally, the police officer had provided some evidence of identification by testifying that the defendant was the driver, which was sufficient to pass the non-suit threshold.

The appeal was allowed and the parties agreed to a substituted conviction to a lesser offence rather than a retrial.

The defendant was charged with speeding 62 kilometers per hour in a 40 kilometer zone contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved that the laser speed-measuring device was tested before and after the officer's shift, and whether the absence of specific testing times in the officer's notes invalidated the viva voce evidence provided at trial.

The court found that the officer's oral testimony regarding the testing of the device at the beginning and end of his shift (12 noon and 9 pm) was sufficient to establish the accuracy and reliability of the device, despite the lack of written notation of these times.

The defendant was found guilty.