Defective speedometer
In December 2023, the Québec Court of Appeal overturned the long-standing legal precedent regarding available defenses against speeding violations[1].
Cain Lamarre was at the forefront of this debate, representing the case before the province’s highest court.
Context
In 2018, the defendant was pulled over while driving a new car and received a ticket for driving 126 km/h in a 70 km/h zone, a major speeding violation.
However, according to his testimony, Mr. Dafinei was convinced he was driving slower than the speed alleged by the officer. Moments before being clocked, he claimed to have checked his car’s speedometer, which showed only 112 km/h.
Months later, using the Waze app on his phone, he discovered a significant discrepancy between the app’s calculated speed and his car’s speedometer. To confirm this, he visited a dealership where a technician verified the issue using the same app and reset the vehicle’s system to its original parameters. After this adjustment, the discrepancy disappeared.
Two potential defenses were considered:
- a) The speedometer was indeed defective, and the speed recorded by the officer was accurate. The driver had no reason to suspect a defect in his new car’s speedometer at the time of the stop. This constitutes a reasonable mistake of fact defense.
- b) Alternatively, the speedometer was accurate, and the officer made an error in recording the speed. Based on the driver’s contemporaneous reading of the speedometer, he could present a contrary evidence defense.
Previous Legal Framework
For over 60 years, speeding was treated by courts across Canada as an “absolute liability” offense. This meant that, except in rare cases, a person could be found guilty simply for exceeding the speed limit, regardless of fault.
This classification prevented drivers from invoking several defenses, including the defective speedometer argument.
Historical jurisprudence revealed that this legal stance was based on a 1976[2] decision that conflicted with a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling, Sault Ste. Marie, issued two years later. Despite this, Canadian courts continued to apply the outdated 1976 precedent for decades.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Québec Court of Appeal’s decision marks a significant shift. Drivers accused of speeding now have access to multiple defenses, including due diligence and reasonable mistake of fact.
Although this ruling currently applies in Québec, it is likely to influence legal interpretations across Canada.
In This Case
Given the facts, the Québec Court of Appeal concluded that an expert should have testified about the speedometer defect using GPS data from the Waze app. As such, the court rejected the claim of a defective speedometer and deemed the vehicle compliant.
Considering the driver’s admission that he believed he was driving at 112 km/h in a 70 km/h zone, the court found him guilty of exceeding the 70 km/h limit, without determining the exact speed. The case was sent back to the Québec Court to assess the contrary evidence defense and determine the appropriate penalty.
The Court of Appeal, referencing the Supreme Court’s guidance, ruled that speeding is no longer an “absolute liability” offense but a “strict liability” offense, reaffirming the presumption that statutory penal offenses are subject to strict liability[3].
[1] In the case Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions v. Dafinei, 2023 QCCA 1596.
[2] R. v. Hickey, (1976) 29 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (Ontario Divisional Court).
[3] This case is still pending.
This publication was featured in Transport Magazine.