R. v. Klimov (OCA appeal)
•
0 likes•186 views
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Jevgeni Klimov, who had been convicted at trial and had his summary conviction appeal dismissed, and returned the matter for a new trial. The Crown acknowledged that the appeal should be allowed. The Court agreed and ordered that the matter be returned for trial.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
![Case Name:
R. v. Klimov
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and
Jevgeni Klimov, Appellant
[2008] O.J. No. 413
2008 ONCA 84
Docket: C46526
Ontario Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
J.I. Laskin, M. Rosenberg and H.S. LaForme JJ.A.
Heard: January 31, 2008.
Judgment: February 11, 2008.
(1 para.)
Appeal From:
On appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court dated October 26, 2006 by
Justice Rick Libman of the Ontario Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction
entered on May 6, 2005 by Justice of the Peace James V. Bubba.
Counsel:
Matthew R. Riddell as agent for the appellant.
Joseph Perfetto for the respondent.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
Page 1](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/d1e8f429-9111-47ae-aa2f-e004176a824e-150204002052-conversion-gate02/85/R-v-Klimov-OCA-appeal-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Sabbath school lesson 5, 4th quarter 2019
Nehemiah faced the challenge of some people oppressing and exploiting the poor in Jerusalem by charging excessive interest and even taking people's children as collateral. He angrily confronted the creditors and accused them of not acting in line with God's spirit of preventing perpetual slavery. The creditors were ashamed and agreed under oath to return all lands and remit all debts and interest. Nehemiah led by selfless example as governor, not taking taxes for himself for 12 years and prioritizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls over personal gain.
how am i doing Do Not Talk Back Respond Politely
This daily report card tracks a student's behavior throughout the school day and requires signatures from the student's teacher, parent, and Mrs. Ortega. The student needs to avoid talking back and respond politely during scheduled class periods and activities from 8 AM to 2:45 PM in order to receive a reward from Mrs. Ortega.
Sakshi Newspaper Update On First Heart Transplantation In Telangana
Sakshi Newspaper Update On First Heart Transplantation In TelanganaDr AGK Gokhale Cardiac Surgeon in Hyderabad
City Water v. Wellness Beauty Spa (appeal proper & single judge)
The appellant, City Water International Inc., appeals a small claims court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent, Wellness Beauty Spa, for breach of contract and unpaid fees relating to the rental of a water filtration system. The trial judge found that the respondent's principal did not understand the 5-year rental term, that the system had deficiencies especially with hot water, and that the appellant improperly withdrew a full annual payment at once. However, the Divisional Court found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by not adequately explaining why she preferred the respondent's evidence over the appellant's or addressing evidence contradicting her conclusions. The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant in
City Water International Inc. v. Wellness Beauty Spa (panel & leave)
City Water International Inc. appealed a Small Claims Court decision and sought leave to have its officer and director, Matthew Riddell, represent the corporation in the appeal even though he is not a lawyer. The Divisional Court granted the request based on additional context not previously provided, including that Mr. Riddell holds a full-time position with City Water and prepared all appeal materials for a claim under $2,000.
Recommended
Sabbath school lesson 5, 4th quarter 2019
Nehemiah faced the challenge of some people oppressing and exploiting the poor in Jerusalem by charging excessive interest and even taking people's children as collateral. He angrily confronted the creditors and accused them of not acting in line with God's spirit of preventing perpetual slavery. The creditors were ashamed and agreed under oath to return all lands and remit all debts and interest. Nehemiah led by selfless example as governor, not taking taxes for himself for 12 years and prioritizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls over personal gain.
how am i doing Do Not Talk Back Respond Politely
This daily report card tracks a student's behavior throughout the school day and requires signatures from the student's teacher, parent, and Mrs. Ortega. The student needs to avoid talking back and respond politely during scheduled class periods and activities from 8 AM to 2:45 PM in order to receive a reward from Mrs. Ortega.
Sakshi Newspaper Update On First Heart Transplantation In Telangana
Sakshi Newspaper Update On First Heart Transplantation In TelanganaDr AGK Gokhale Cardiac Surgeon in Hyderabad
City Water v. Wellness Beauty Spa (appeal proper & single judge)
The appellant, City Water International Inc., appeals a small claims court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent, Wellness Beauty Spa, for breach of contract and unpaid fees relating to the rental of a water filtration system. The trial judge found that the respondent's principal did not understand the 5-year rental term, that the system had deficiencies especially with hot water, and that the appellant improperly withdrew a full annual payment at once. However, the Divisional Court found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by not adequately explaining why she preferred the respondent's evidence over the appellant's or addressing evidence contradicting her conclusions. The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant in
City Water International Inc. v. Wellness Beauty Spa (panel & leave)
City Water International Inc. appealed a Small Claims Court decision and sought leave to have its officer and director, Matthew Riddell, represent the corporation in the appeal even though he is not a lawyer. The Divisional Court granted the request based on additional context not previously provided, including that Mr. Riddell holds a full-time position with City Water and prepared all appeal materials for a claim under $2,000.
Dasilva v. Ighodalo
The plaintiff's insurer was awarded $10,000 in damages in a subrogated claim for a motor vehicle accident. The defendant had stopped at a stop sign but proceeded when it was unsafe to do so, striking the plaintiff's vehicle. The court found the defendant solely responsible for the accident as the plaintiff had the right of way. Despite difficult weather conditions, the defendant had a duty to wait until it was safe before crossing the intersection. The court therefore awarded the agreed $10,000 damages amount plus interest to the plaintiff's insurer.
Williams v. Bartley
This case involves a small claims action brought by Beatrice Williams (Plaintiff) against her landlord Yvonne Bartley (Defendant) for damages from an alleged theft of her property during her arrest and incarceration. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant provided false information to police leading to her wrongful arrest, charge, and conviction, from which she was later pardoned. However, the court found the Plaintiff's testimony to be vague and unsupported by documentation or additional witnesses. The Defendant testified she was unable to access the Plaintiff's locked room and called police to remove the Plaintiff's belongings. The court preferred the Defendant's testimony and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for failing to meet the burden of proof.
R. v. Dodman
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Dodman, where the defendant Jason Dodman was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. During a roadside stop, the officer detected signs of impairment but administered an approved screening device test within 15 minutes, without ensuring no recent alcohol consumption. While other signs suggested impairment, the court found the breath test results inadmissible due to the Charter violation, and dismissed the over 80 charge. Admitting the evidence would compromise fairness and the reputation of justice.
R. v. Balasubramaniam
The defendant was found by police officers slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle in the middle of an intersection with the engine running. When the officer opened the driver's door to turn off the ignition, the defendant was startled and his foot hit the gas. The officers smelled alcohol on his breath but the court found the evidence equally supported that the defendant had fallen asleep at the wheel and was not fully awake after being startled. Taking all evidence into account, the court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired and found him not guilty.
R. v. Azeez
This document summarizes a court case between Her Majesty the Queen and Anthony Azeez regarding charges under Section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada for driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The judge found that while there was sufficient evidence that the breath tests occurred within two hours of driving, there was no evidence provided that Anthony Azeez was read the breath sample demand after the officer formed the opinion that he was over the legal limit. As a result, the presumption allowing the breath test certificate to be admitted as evidence did not apply, and without this presumption, there was insufficient evidence to find that Azeez was over the legal limit when driving. Therefore, the judge dismissed the charge.
R. v. Beaudrie
Jordan Beaudrie was charged with racing under the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, the police officer identified Beaudrie in the courtroom as the individual he observed racing, but did not identify him by name in his notes at the roadside stop. The court found that without a proper identification at the time of the incident, the prosecutor did not prove the case against Beaudrie beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge against Beaudrie was dismissed.
R. v. McCoy
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. McCoy, where the appellant Blake McCoy appealed his conviction of failing to stop at a red light. The judge found that there was insufficient evidence that the traffic lights at the intersection were functioning properly on the day in question. Specifically, the officer who charged McCoy did not provide reliable evidence of checking the lights' functioning and made assumptions without direct observation of the light McCoy faced. As a result, the judge determined the justice of the peace erred in taking judicial notice of the lights' functioning and quashed the conviction, entering an acquittal.
R. v. Farkas
This case involves R. v. Farkas, where Ferenc Farkas was charged with disobeying a no left turn sign under the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, the officer testified that he witnessed Mr. Farkas make a left turn where signs indicated no left turns were allowed. However, Mr. Farkas testified that on the day in question, the sign was completely covered in snow and not visible. The judge accepted Mr. Farkas' evidence and found that because the sign was obstructed and not clear, the offence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge against Mr. Farkas was therefore dismissed.
R. v. Fuller
This case involves R. v. Fuller, where Jermaine Fuller was charged with failing to wear a complete seat belt assembly under section 106(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. A police officer testified that he observed Fuller without his shoulder strap fastened when stopped at an intersection late at night. However, Fuller and his girlfriend testified that he was wearing his seat belt and only removed it after being pulled over to retrieve documents from the glove compartment. While the judge preferred the officer's evidence, considering the dark and tinted conditions, consistent defense testimony, and reasonable doubt standard, the charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt about whether the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
R. v. Nikiforos
This case involves two defendants, Nikiforos and Vlachos, who were charged with failing to wear a seatbelt as passengers in a taxi cab. An officer observed the taxi cab and heard a passenger yelling profanities. The officer followed the cab and observed both passengers reaching for seatbelt straps and pulling them across their hips. However, the court found reasonable doubt due to factors such as it being 3:28 am, limiting the officer's visibility, and inconsistencies in the officer's testimony regarding traffic. As a result, the court dismissed the charges against both defendants.
R. v. Prescott
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Prescott, where the defendant Ian Prescott was charged with following too closely under section 158(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after he rear-ended another vehicle at a red light. The presiding judge found Prescott guilty. On appeal, the appellate judge determined that (1) there was no evidence presented of the distance between the vehicles, and (2) the lead vehicle that was hit was stopped, not moving. As such, the elements required to prove the offense of following too closely were not met. The appellate judge concluded that Prescott had been charged with the wrong offense and should have been charged with careless driving instead, and acquitted Prescott
R. v. Mascoe
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Mascoe, where the defendant Lascelles Mascoe appealed the 45 day prison sentence imposed by the justice of the peace for driving while under suspension. The judge on appeal found issues with the justice of the peace's reasoning for rejecting the joint submission of a $3,000 fine and failing to explain why the submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The judge also noted there was only one prior conviction, not three as stated. While a custodial sentence was within range, 45 days was found to be excessive. The prison time was set aside and replaced with a $1,500 fine, with Mascoe having already served 7 days.
R. v. Lupo
The accused, Charles Lupo, appealed his conviction for driving with a suspended license. The trial judge made errors in his assessment of the accused's credibility and in admitting prejudicial evidence. While the trial judge could have rejected the accused's defense, the errors require a new trial. The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
R. v. Smagin
This case involves R. v. Smagin, where Eugene Smagin was charged with careless driving. The defense counsel requested disclosure on multiple occasions dating back to December 16th, but did not receive any documents from the prosecution until March 15th, just two weeks before the scheduled trial date. The judge criticized the untimely manner in which disclosure was provided by the investigating officer. As a result, the judge dismissed the careless driving charge, finding that the late disclosure did not provide adequate time for the defense to prepare for trial.
R. v. Seles (trial)
R. v. Seles was a case where Rebecca Seles was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after her vehicle left the roadway, went through the gravel shoulder, and ended up in a ditch. However, the prosecution did not provide enough evidence about how and why the vehicle ended up in the ditch to prove the charge of careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt. The officer who laid the charge did not provide testimony about any conversation with Seles about what happened. As such, the judge granted the motion of non-suit and dismissed the charge of careless driving against Seles.
R. v. Cross
The appellant was convicted of careless driving for running a red light. He appealed, arguing the justice failed to properly consider his evidence that he stopped at the light and only proceeded when it was safe. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered. The justice did not apply the test from R. v. D.W., which requires the justice to consider whether the accused's evidence raises a reasonable doubt, even if not believed. While disbelief of the appellant could be inferred, the justice failed to consider the third part of the D.W. test regarding reasonable doubt.
R. v. Slawter
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Slawter, in which the appellant Jerry Slawter appealed his careless driving conviction. The presiding judge allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. While the appellant drove aggressively by moving between lanes, the judge determined the lane change that led to the charge could have been due to momentary inattention while driving a large truck in rainy conditions with difficult to see lane markings. As such, the judge found the appellant's actions did not amount to careless driving and that due diligence had been established.
R. v. Woldenga
This document summarizes a court case involving an appeal of a careless driving conviction. Terry Woldenga was convicted of careless driving after his vehicle rear-ended another vehicle that had stopped abruptly. On appeal, the judge analyzed the evidence presented at the original trial and relevant case law on the elements of careless driving. The judge found that the lower court justice of the peace misinterpreted precedent as saying mere inadvertent negligence was sufficient for a careless driving conviction, when the precedent actually said the opposite.
R. v. Schlesinger
This case involves R. v. Schlesinger, where the defendant David Schlesinger was charged with speeding at 129 km/h in an 80 km/h zone based on a police officer's laser speed reading. The officer could not provide consistent testimony about testing the laser device before use. The court found that (1) the laser must be tested before and after to prove accuracy, (2) the officer's statement of usual practice was not sufficient proof that testing occurred, and (3) the defendant's admission of "probably" speeding at 100-110 km/h was too vague to convict without proof of the laser's accuracy. As a result, the court acquitted the defendant due to reasonable doubt about
R. v. Cuccarolo
Officer Deyo testified that he tested the laser speed gun according to the manufacturer's specifications and found it to be working properly. However, when questioned, Officer Deyo was vague about the number and type of tests performed and the service history of the unit. The judge ruled that Officer Deyo's testimony regarding the testing procedures was manifestly unreliable, as he could not state the required number of tests or their names and procedures. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and the charge against Bruno Cuccarolo of speeding was dismissed.
More Related Content
More from Matthew Riddell
Dasilva v. Ighodalo
The plaintiff's insurer was awarded $10,000 in damages in a subrogated claim for a motor vehicle accident. The defendant had stopped at a stop sign but proceeded when it was unsafe to do so, striking the plaintiff's vehicle. The court found the defendant solely responsible for the accident as the plaintiff had the right of way. Despite difficult weather conditions, the defendant had a duty to wait until it was safe before crossing the intersection. The court therefore awarded the agreed $10,000 damages amount plus interest to the plaintiff's insurer.
Williams v. Bartley
This case involves a small claims action brought by Beatrice Williams (Plaintiff) against her landlord Yvonne Bartley (Defendant) for damages from an alleged theft of her property during her arrest and incarceration. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant provided false information to police leading to her wrongful arrest, charge, and conviction, from which she was later pardoned. However, the court found the Plaintiff's testimony to be vague and unsupported by documentation or additional witnesses. The Defendant testified she was unable to access the Plaintiff's locked room and called police to remove the Plaintiff's belongings. The court preferred the Defendant's testimony and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for failing to meet the burden of proof.
R. v. Dodman
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Dodman, where the defendant Jason Dodman was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. During a roadside stop, the officer detected signs of impairment but administered an approved screening device test within 15 minutes, without ensuring no recent alcohol consumption. While other signs suggested impairment, the court found the breath test results inadmissible due to the Charter violation, and dismissed the over 80 charge. Admitting the evidence would compromise fairness and the reputation of justice.
R. v. Balasubramaniam
The defendant was found by police officers slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle in the middle of an intersection with the engine running. When the officer opened the driver's door to turn off the ignition, the defendant was startled and his foot hit the gas. The officers smelled alcohol on his breath but the court found the evidence equally supported that the defendant had fallen asleep at the wheel and was not fully awake after being startled. Taking all evidence into account, the court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired and found him not guilty.
R. v. Azeez
This document summarizes a court case between Her Majesty the Queen and Anthony Azeez regarding charges under Section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada for driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The judge found that while there was sufficient evidence that the breath tests occurred within two hours of driving, there was no evidence provided that Anthony Azeez was read the breath sample demand after the officer formed the opinion that he was over the legal limit. As a result, the presumption allowing the breath test certificate to be admitted as evidence did not apply, and without this presumption, there was insufficient evidence to find that Azeez was over the legal limit when driving. Therefore, the judge dismissed the charge.
R. v. Beaudrie
Jordan Beaudrie was charged with racing under the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, the police officer identified Beaudrie in the courtroom as the individual he observed racing, but did not identify him by name in his notes at the roadside stop. The court found that without a proper identification at the time of the incident, the prosecutor did not prove the case against Beaudrie beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge against Beaudrie was dismissed.
R. v. McCoy
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. McCoy, where the appellant Blake McCoy appealed his conviction of failing to stop at a red light. The judge found that there was insufficient evidence that the traffic lights at the intersection were functioning properly on the day in question. Specifically, the officer who charged McCoy did not provide reliable evidence of checking the lights' functioning and made assumptions without direct observation of the light McCoy faced. As a result, the judge determined the justice of the peace erred in taking judicial notice of the lights' functioning and quashed the conviction, entering an acquittal.
R. v. Farkas
This case involves R. v. Farkas, where Ferenc Farkas was charged with disobeying a no left turn sign under the Highway Traffic Act. At trial, the officer testified that he witnessed Mr. Farkas make a left turn where signs indicated no left turns were allowed. However, Mr. Farkas testified that on the day in question, the sign was completely covered in snow and not visible. The judge accepted Mr. Farkas' evidence and found that because the sign was obstructed and not clear, the offence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge against Mr. Farkas was therefore dismissed.
R. v. Fuller
This case involves R. v. Fuller, where Jermaine Fuller was charged with failing to wear a complete seat belt assembly under section 106(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. A police officer testified that he observed Fuller without his shoulder strap fastened when stopped at an intersection late at night. However, Fuller and his girlfriend testified that he was wearing his seat belt and only removed it after being pulled over to retrieve documents from the glove compartment. While the judge preferred the officer's evidence, considering the dark and tinted conditions, consistent defense testimony, and reasonable doubt standard, the charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt about whether the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
R. v. Nikiforos
This case involves two defendants, Nikiforos and Vlachos, who were charged with failing to wear a seatbelt as passengers in a taxi cab. An officer observed the taxi cab and heard a passenger yelling profanities. The officer followed the cab and observed both passengers reaching for seatbelt straps and pulling them across their hips. However, the court found reasonable doubt due to factors such as it being 3:28 am, limiting the officer's visibility, and inconsistencies in the officer's testimony regarding traffic. As a result, the court dismissed the charges against both defendants.
R. v. Prescott
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Prescott, where the defendant Ian Prescott was charged with following too closely under section 158(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after he rear-ended another vehicle at a red light. The presiding judge found Prescott guilty. On appeal, the appellate judge determined that (1) there was no evidence presented of the distance between the vehicles, and (2) the lead vehicle that was hit was stopped, not moving. As such, the elements required to prove the offense of following too closely were not met. The appellate judge concluded that Prescott had been charged with the wrong offense and should have been charged with careless driving instead, and acquitted Prescott
R. v. Mascoe
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Mascoe, where the defendant Lascelles Mascoe appealed the 45 day prison sentence imposed by the justice of the peace for driving while under suspension. The judge on appeal found issues with the justice of the peace's reasoning for rejecting the joint submission of a $3,000 fine and failing to explain why the submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The judge also noted there was only one prior conviction, not three as stated. While a custodial sentence was within range, 45 days was found to be excessive. The prison time was set aside and replaced with a $1,500 fine, with Mascoe having already served 7 days.
R. v. Lupo
The accused, Charles Lupo, appealed his conviction for driving with a suspended license. The trial judge made errors in his assessment of the accused's credibility and in admitting prejudicial evidence. While the trial judge could have rejected the accused's defense, the errors require a new trial. The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
R. v. Smagin
This case involves R. v. Smagin, where Eugene Smagin was charged with careless driving. The defense counsel requested disclosure on multiple occasions dating back to December 16th, but did not receive any documents from the prosecution until March 15th, just two weeks before the scheduled trial date. The judge criticized the untimely manner in which disclosure was provided by the investigating officer. As a result, the judge dismissed the careless driving charge, finding that the late disclosure did not provide adequate time for the defense to prepare for trial.
R. v. Seles (trial)
R. v. Seles was a case where Rebecca Seles was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after her vehicle left the roadway, went through the gravel shoulder, and ended up in a ditch. However, the prosecution did not provide enough evidence about how and why the vehicle ended up in the ditch to prove the charge of careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt. The officer who laid the charge did not provide testimony about any conversation with Seles about what happened. As such, the judge granted the motion of non-suit and dismissed the charge of careless driving against Seles.
R. v. Cross
The appellant was convicted of careless driving for running a red light. He appealed, arguing the justice failed to properly consider his evidence that he stopped at the light and only proceeded when it was safe. The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered. The justice did not apply the test from R. v. D.W., which requires the justice to consider whether the accused's evidence raises a reasonable doubt, even if not believed. While disbelief of the appellant could be inferred, the justice failed to consider the third part of the D.W. test regarding reasonable doubt.
R. v. Slawter
This document summarizes a court case, R. v. Slawter, in which the appellant Jerry Slawter appealed his careless driving conviction. The presiding judge allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. While the appellant drove aggressively by moving between lanes, the judge determined the lane change that led to the charge could have been due to momentary inattention while driving a large truck in rainy conditions with difficult to see lane markings. As such, the judge found the appellant's actions did not amount to careless driving and that due diligence had been established.
R. v. Woldenga
This document summarizes a court case involving an appeal of a careless driving conviction. Terry Woldenga was convicted of careless driving after his vehicle rear-ended another vehicle that had stopped abruptly. On appeal, the judge analyzed the evidence presented at the original trial and relevant case law on the elements of careless driving. The judge found that the lower court justice of the peace misinterpreted precedent as saying mere inadvertent negligence was sufficient for a careless driving conviction, when the precedent actually said the opposite.
R. v. Schlesinger
This case involves R. v. Schlesinger, where the defendant David Schlesinger was charged with speeding at 129 km/h in an 80 km/h zone based on a police officer's laser speed reading. The officer could not provide consistent testimony about testing the laser device before use. The court found that (1) the laser must be tested before and after to prove accuracy, (2) the officer's statement of usual practice was not sufficient proof that testing occurred, and (3) the defendant's admission of "probably" speeding at 100-110 km/h was too vague to convict without proof of the laser's accuracy. As a result, the court acquitted the defendant due to reasonable doubt about
R. v. Cuccarolo
Officer Deyo testified that he tested the laser speed gun according to the manufacturer's specifications and found it to be working properly. However, when questioned, Officer Deyo was vague about the number and type of tests performed and the service history of the unit. The judge ruled that Officer Deyo's testimony regarding the testing procedures was manifestly unreliable, as he could not state the required number of tests or their names and procedures. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and the charge against Bruno Cuccarolo of speeding was dismissed.
More from Matthew Riddell (20)
R. v. Klimov (OCA appeal)
- 1. Case Name: R. v. Klimov Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Jevgeni Klimov, Appellant [2008] O.J. No. 413 2008 ONCA 84 Docket: C46526 Ontario Court of Appeal Toronto, Ontario J.I. Laskin, M. Rosenberg and H.S. LaForme JJ.A. Heard: January 31, 2008. Judgment: February 11, 2008. (1 para.) Appeal From: On appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court dated October 26, 2006 by Justice Rick Libman of the Ontario Court of Justice, dismissing the appeal from the conviction entered on May 6, 2005 by Justice of the Peace James V. Bubba. Counsel: Matthew R. Riddell as agent for the appellant. Joseph Perfetto for the respondent. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT Page 1
- 2. The following judgment was delivered by 1 THE COURT:-- The Crown acknowledges, and we agree, that the appeal should be allowed and the matter returned for trial. We so order. cp/e/qlkxl/qllkb Page 2