Well, I guess the officer helped me a bit :) In his testimony he basically repeated his notes. He also stated that - the weather was clear and it was around 20C (6 am April 5!), - that I was in the curb lane, - and that traffic was very light. During the cross-examination I asked him if he remembered any vehicles following me - he couldn't recall. He also confirmed that he was going North along EMP straight from EMP and Dundas and he did not come from 403 (you'll see why I needed that in a moment). Then I asked him if he had to stop for red lights shortly before EMP and WB 403 ramp-off - he couldn't recall. Then I testified - I gave the same story that's in my first post with some more detail. I mentioned that I was driving in the left lane. Later during cross examination I explained that I am sure I was in left lane because I at that point I have been driving my own car for just a couple of weeks and I was a bit afraid of lane changing at EMP since the speeds there are often high - so I always stayed in the left lane when going to work in the morning since I need to turn left from EMP further north. I stated that road was wet because of the rain and that it was much cooler that 20C - at this point I provided a printout of the weather report for that day and time, which said "light rain showers" and 10C. I said that traffic wasn't "very light" - there were vehicles in all three lanes. I also stated that I stopped at the red lights at the previous intersection which is just 350 meters away ((EMP and EB 403 ramp-off), which explains why there were no vehicles directly in front of me at the intersection in question. I said that the officer must have stopped at the same intersection, otherwise he would have been far ahead of me already. Then I showed very simple calculations (not taking into account acceleration and deceleration) that for the officer to be 5-7 seconds ahead of me at the intersection he had to travel those 350 meters at 100 to 130 km/hr. The prosecutor was trying to convince JP that my evidence is not reliable since there are several regulated intersections in the close proximity in that area - so I must have got confused which lights I am talking about. At that point I wanted to note that this argument works equally well in both directions, but JP didn't give me an opportunity to do so and declared case dismissed referencing R. v WD. :) I guess the bottom line is that if you want to win - be prepared, think your defence through, prepare questions that might demonstrate that the other side has no independent recollection of events, be consistent when giving your side of the story.
Radar Identified wrote:
Would you mind sharing some of the details (eliminating the stuff that would make you or the officer easily identifiable) so that others can learn from your experience?
Well, I guess the officer helped me a bit 
In his testimony he basically repeated his notes.
He also stated that
- the weather was clear and it was around 20C (6 am April 5!),
- that I was in the curb lane,
- and that traffic was very light.
During the cross-examination I asked him if he remembered any vehicles following me - he couldn't recall.
He also confirmed that he was going North along EMP straight from EMP and Dundas and he did not come from 403 (you'll see why I needed that in a moment).
Then I asked him if he had to stop for red lights shortly before EMP and WB 403 ramp-off - he couldn't recall.
Then I testified - I gave the same story that's in my first post with some more detail.
I mentioned that I was driving in the left lane. Later during cross examination I explained that I am sure I was in left lane because I at that point I have been driving my own car for just a couple of weeks and I was a bit afraid of lane changing at EMP since the speeds there are often high - so I always stayed in the left lane when going to work in the morning since I need to turn left from EMP further north.
I stated that road was wet because of the rain and that it was much cooler that 20C - at this point I provided a printout of the weather report for that day and time, which said "light rain showers" and 10C.
I said that traffic wasn't "very light" - there were vehicles in all three lanes.
I also stated that I stopped at the red lights at the previous intersection which is just 350 meters away ((EMP and EB 403 ramp-off), which explains why there were no vehicles directly in front of me at the intersection in question. I said that the officer must have stopped at the same intersection, otherwise he would have been far ahead of me already.
Then I showed very simple calculations (not taking into account acceleration and deceleration) that for the officer to be 5-7 seconds ahead of me at the intersection he had to travel those 350 meters at 100 to 130 km/hr.
The prosecutor was trying to convince JP that my evidence is not reliable since there are several regulated intersections in the close proximity in that area - so I must have got confused which lights I am talking about. At that point I wanted to note that this argument works equally well in both directions, but JP didn't give me an opportunity to do so and declared case dismissed referencing R. v WD.
I guess the bottom line is that if you want to win - be prepared, think your defence through, prepare questions that might demonstrate that the other side has no independent recollection of events, be consistent when giving your side of the story.
You could argue that if you did blow the light, the camera should have gone off, and you have not received any ticket from it yet. Will it be convincing? Don't know. Camera could've been out of service, etc. If you also got a red-light camera ticket, you should be able to get one of them dropped.
