“Speeding Charge - Do I Qualify For 11(b) - Need Advice”

holiday_mazda wrote:is it still required under case law that there is documentation that the unit was tested after being pulled over? you'd think the officer would just say he did test the unit afterwards and that would be the end of it then, even though the notes did not mention any testing afterwards?

orcrowing wrote:

trenchknife wrote:He does not need to provide the calibration certificate. He tested it, in his opinion, it was operating properly. That's all he needs to prove. If you wish to prove it was NOT operating properly, it is up to YOU to prove that.

Isn't that burden of proof backwards? My understanding (admittedly limited) of Ontario law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - shouldn't this mean that the burden to prove or disprove something is never on the accused, and that the accused needs only cast reasonable doubt? Is the burden or responsibility of proof different under the HTA?

Doing a quick Google Search I have found calibration certificates that were issued by a laser manufacturer.

If you look at the manufacturer's calibration test, it's exactly the same as the one the officer performs before and after his shift. So if the device passes the officer's daily test, then it would be in agreement with the calibration certificate.

I've stated earlier in this thread, that these calibration certificates are not necessarily in the possession of the either the prosecutor nor the individual officer. It's something that has to be requested through a Freedom of Information Request, and even then the defendant will most likely have to appeal. I've yet to read a decision where a calibration certificate has been disclosed.

Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2004 CanLII 56313 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1r1fc

Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2006 CanLII 50669 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1qvqx

Peel Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2008 CanLII 1829 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1vhk5