The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding 135 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.
At trial, the appellant claimed he did not know he was speeding due to vision problems, which did not constitute a valid defence.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the officer's notes contained an incorrect vehicle model description (Mercedes 2 CL instead of Mercedes 250 CLA) and that this error should result in the conviction being overturned.
The court found that the officer properly identified the vehicle by colour, make, model number, and license plate at trial, and directly identified the appellant as the driver through a valid Ontario driver's license photo card.
The court held that any discrepancy in the model description would have made no difference to the verdict, as the evidence clearly established that the appellant was driving his Mercedes at the alleged speed.
