After having watched this thread unfold, I feel I should put my two cents in.
The central issue of a speed measuring device is not about calibration, certificates, laboratories, or anything like that. The central issue is: When the device was used, was it working properly? That is what the courts have tried to decide, and actually, have decided. They've had a long, long time to figure out what they consider to be reasonable
proof that the device was working properly. They've decided that the police officer testing the device before and after the stop, and proper usage of the device (including a tracking history), etc., is sufficient proof.
Now, if the lack of an Industry Canada document proves to be a sticking point, it is worthwhile exploring, but only as a novel defence and with the defendant fully aware that its use is unlikely to be successful. If anything, the courts may require that the officer simply testify that there is an IC sticker or IC number on it. However, as far as requiring calibration certificates, inspectors, etc., many devices that receive periodic calibration and have stickers etc are not tested on a daily basis to ensure that they are working correctly. For example, gas pumps are calibrated regularly, yes? But the attendant doesn't go out before and after his shift, draw a measured sample from each pump, and use a device to confirm that the pumps are, in fact, distributing the exact volume of gasoline that they should be. (They sometimes check for contamination but that's about it.) Or, weigh scales at MTO stations, while I'm sure they get calibrated, do not have calibrated weights rolled on top of them every day to ensure that their weight measurement is accurate. Or, with certain weights and measures, usually the only proof of correct operation is the time of calibration, not a daily "confidence check," if you will.
Police speed measuring devices, on the other hand, do get checked daily. This is where the "testing before and after the stop" comes in. In most cases, these require an internal circuit check to be done (press the "test" button) and
an external check. For example, the Decatur Genesis II (widely used in Ontario) gets an internal circuit check, and then the officer drives down the road and verifies that the Decatur's speed readout is accurate against the patrol vehicle's calibrated speedometer. I have had an issue with any device that does not require an actual signal to be sent out and bounced back to the device to ensure correct operation, which is the case with some hand-held radar units. If the device does not actually measure some kind of external speed during its check, in my opinion, yes, it should not be used. The officer must be able to testify as to how the device was tested, when it was tested, and the results. I do not believe it is reasonable to require all kinds of other documentation of it being in proper working order, given that the tests performed by the officer were valid and reliable. I suppose you could argue that the officer could simply commit perjury, but you could also argue that the inspector's certificate, calibration certificate, etc., could have been forged, so you'd have to call the inspector to testify; but then you could argue the inspector was on the take and is also lying; and then you've turned the whole situation into a cascading Kangaroo court Gong Show. Respectfully, at some point, you have to say "this is reasonable proof." The courts have decided that standard is that the device must be tested before and after the stop, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
One of the core values of justice in a free and democratic society is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As the stakes are raised, the margin for reasonable doubt expands, but speeding is an absolute liability offence, which is the lowest level. Stunt driving 50 km/h or more over the limit is a strict liability offence, so there's opportunity for the defendant to avoid escalating sanctions with the use of a due diligence defence. Dangerous driving is mens rea. To ask for about 10 different types of proof that the device was working properly, in my opinion, is not reasonable, given the fact that the implications to society are small. From everything I've read and dealt with (2 1/2 years of being on this board and having helped over 50 people outside of it), the courts seem to agree. You're not building, say, a nuclear reactor, where the implications to society are huge. The devices are calibrated and repaired according to the manufacturer's instructions, it is just that the courts have ruled that a conviction does not turn on that documentation, so it is not required for disclosure. Even if it was calibrated, I submit that is not proof that it was working correctly on the day the offence occurred, nor is it proof that it was used correctly. It's a justice issue, not an ISO issue, in my view.
Furthermore, the device is not sole proof of the speeding. In addition to the daily tests, before the speed measuring device is activated, the officer must first observe that the vehicle is travelling above the posted speed limit, and estimate its speed. They receive training on how to estimate vehicle speeds. Once they have the estimate, they activate the speed measuring device to confirm. If there is a noticeable discrepancy, they don't stop the vehicle. In the state of Ohio, the officer's estimation of vehicle speed alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction - they don't need the speed-measuring device! What seems to be misunderstood is that it is the officer's visual observation that is the critical component, not the device. Of all speeding cases I've seen dismissed during trial, it was invariably one of three things: Improper tracking history, improper testing, or lost sight of the vehicle.
That is why I believe this calibration issue needed to be given some significant face time here given the Crown's decision to drop the charges.
Respectfully disagree. This is speculation. We do not know the reason behind the withdrawal. While I support finding new ways to challenge speeding offences, as hwybear mentioned earlier, we simply do not know if the Industry Canada conformance/etc was behind it, or if there was some other issue, such as the officer going: "Um... I forgot my notebook." The fact that the Prosecutor was steaming mad prior to the trial is nothing out of the ordinary; many of them use these sort of bluster-and-intimidation tactics to try to get people to accept a plea bargain, rather than drag it out in court.
So there's my input.