At the roadside, the officer only had to believe you were stunt driving. In court, the prosecutor has to prove it, and much of that proof sits in a file you do not receive unless someone asks for it.
I am Jeremy Ashby, a licensed paralegal at Case Dismissed, and when I read a stunt charge I look at the disclosure first. This article explains how police prove stunt driving in Ontario by walking through that file: what it tends to hold, how the speed gets measured, and which questions each piece raises. It describes how these cases work in general. It cannot tell you how any one case comes out, because that depends on evidence I have not seen.
Belief Is Enough for the Roadside, Not for a Conviction
Two different tests are at work in the same charge. Under section 172 of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, an officer needs only reasonable and probable grounds to demand the licence and detain the vehicle, which brings a 30-day licence suspension and a 14-day impoundment, and subsection 172(18) allows no appeal and no chance to be heard first. My timeline of a stunt driving charge walks through that sequence, from the stop to the court date.
The trial is a different exercise. The Ontario Court of Justice's Guide for Defendants in Provincial Offences Cases puts it this way: "It is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove that you committed the offence with which you are charged." The same guide says a justice of the peace finds a defendant guilty only if the evidence satisfies them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The stakes sit on the far side of that gap. Ontario's page on speeding and aggressive driving lists a fine of $2,000 to $10,000, up to six months in jail and a one to three year licence suspension on a first conviction, and warns of a substantial increase in insurance rates. Our stunt driving guide covers those consequences. This article stays with the evidence.
Stunt driving is a provincial charge. If the same incident also produced a criminal charge such as dangerous driving, we do not take that part, and it needs a criminal lawyer.
The File Exists, but Someone Has to Ask for It
Nothing in the summons hands over the evidence. Ontario's page on traffic tickets and resolving a case says a person charged is entitled, free of charge, to the relevant information in the prosecutor's possession or control, and it is blunt about the catch: "you must ask for it to get it." The request may have to be in writing, and the province points people to the court office shown on the ticket or summons.
Our directory of Ontario courts lists prosecutor offices alongside each location, and my article on finding your provincial offences court explains how to read the paperwork to work out which one is yours.
The legal footing is solid. In York (Regional Municipality) v. McGuigan, 2018 ONCA 1062, the prosecutor conceded that first party disclosure obligations apply to provincial offences prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal said the concession was correct. "First party" means the prosecutor must deliver the material on request, with no court application needed. It covers what the court calls the fruits of the investigation and other information that is obviously relevant to the defence. Decisions on these obligations are collected in our disclosure case law library.
What a Stunt Driving File Tends to Hold
There is no fixed table of contents. Ontario's page gives examples rather than a list: officer notes, witness statements, diagrams and photographs. Case law adds two more items worth looking for.
| Item | What it can show | The question it raises |
|---|---|---|
| The charging document | The offence alleged, the date and the place | Which driving behaviour is actually being alleged? |
| Officer's notes | What was seen, measured and said, and in what order | When were they written, and do they match the testimony? |
| Witness statements | Accounts from other drivers or a second officer | Who saw what, and from where? |
| Diagrams and photographs | The road, the positions and the sight lines | Could the officer see what the notes describe? |
| Video, where it exists | The driving or the stop itself | Was it preserved, and has it been produced? |
| Device testing and operating procedures | How the radar or laser was meant to be tested and used | Do the officer's steps match those instructions? |
Officer's notes get particular attention. The Guide for Defendants says a defendant is entitled to ask to see the notes of any prosecution witness and to use them in cross-examination, including on inconsistencies between the notes and the testimony. Under section 46 of the Provincial Offences Act, a defendant is entitled to make full answer and defence and may cross-examine witnesses. The file is what makes those rights useful.
The Paragraph Alleged Decides What Evidence Matters
Section 172 itself just prohibits races, contests, bets, wagers and stunts on a highway. The working definitions are in O. Reg. 455/07, and they call for very different proof. Section 3 has these main kinds:
- Pure speed. Paragraph 7: at least 40 km/h above a limit under 80 km/h. Paragraph 7.0.1: at least 50 km/h above a limit of 80 km/h or higher. Paragraph 7.1: a speed of 150 km/h or higher, whatever the limit.
- Conduct described by intention. Paragraphs 1 to 3 cover driving in a manner that indicates an intention to lift tires, break traction while turning, or spin the vehicle. Paragraph 8 covers things like blocking a pass or crowding another vehicle, again framed around what the driving indicates.
- Physical facts. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are a person in the trunk and a driver who is not in the driver's seat.
Section 2 separately defines race and contest, using ideas like an apparent competition, a chase, and speed well out of line with the lawful rate. Place matters too. Section 172 generally speaks of a highway, and section 5 of the regulation extends it to parking lots, fields and similar specified places, but only for some behaviours. The speed paragraphs are not on that list.
So the first thing I want to know is which paragraph the prosecution is working from. A radar case and a burnout case carry the same charge name and raise entirely different questions.
How Police Prove Stunt Driving When the Allegation Is Speed
A speed-based case has three moving parts: the reading, the limit and the threshold. The regulation supplies the threshold. Everything else has to come from evidence.
The Margin Can Be Very Small
The Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Raham, 2010 ONCA 206, shows how narrow this can be. A driver passing a truck on Highway 7 was clocked by an officer at between 129 km/h and 131 km/h in an 80 zone. The officer said nothing was unsafe or remarkable about the driving apart from the speed, and charged her on the single reading of 131 km/h. The court observed that at 2 km/h less, as she had been seconds before, the charge would not have been available. Under today's regulation, the arithmetic works the same way: 100 km/h in a 60 zone reaches paragraph 7, and 99 km/h does not.
The Limit Has to Be the Right One
The limit decides which threshold applies, so a wrong assumption about the limit changes the sum. Section 128 sets default speeds and lets municipalities set others by by-law, and subsection 128(11) says such a by-law takes no effect until the road is signed. Construction zones have rules of their own under that section. The location in the notes, and the zone at that exact point, deserve a careful look.
That does not mean the officer has to say the limit aloud. In R. v. Bland (1975), 6 O.R. (2d) 54, the Court of Appeal held that a limit set by provincial regulation had to be judicially noticed even though no one testified to it. That was an older case about a regulation, under earlier legislation, and not about a municipal by-law.
Radar and Laser: What the Officer Has to Say
Here the law sets a lower bar than most people expect. In R. v. Chair, 2015 ONCA 868, there was evidence that the officer was a qualified operator and tested the device before and after use according to the manual. The Court of Appeal, following R. v. Bigioni, said that was sufficient for a prima facie case. The court also declined to decide whether radar readings should carry a presumption of accuracy, saying the record did not permit it.
For laser, R. v. Vancrey, [2000] O.J. No. 3033 (C.A.), upheld a conviction where the officer was trained and tested the unit before and after use, and had also compared it against an accurate radar unit some three to four weeks earlier. The court noted no evidence to the contrary had been presented.
A prima facie case is not the end of the matter. As the Court of Appeal put it in McGuigan, a case is prima facie "precisely because it is not conclusive". It can be answered with relevant evidence, which often means cross-examination on what the officer actually did.
The Manual Is Part of the File
McGuigan is the decision I would most want a charged driver to know about. It came from an ordinary speeding ticket, and a paralegal's request for the testing and operating pages of the radar manual. The Court of Appeal held that where a prosecutor relies on a speed measuring device, it must disclose those procedures on request, with no application or court order required.
The court also dealt with the shortcuts. A copy handed to the representative years earlier did not count. Neither did an invitation to come and read the manual at the prosecutor's office. Posting the relevant pages online and providing the link can satisfy the obligation. The court distinguished requests for a device's historical records on other occasions, which arose in breath testing cases, so a demand for that kind of history is a different and harder request.
The manual is the standard the officer's testing is measured against. In R. v. Cormier, 2008 ONCJ 633, a conviction was set aside on appeal after an officer did not perform a correlation step that the manual called mandatory. In R. v. Cuccarolo, 2009 ONCJ 593, arguments that a laser's tests were done incorrectly failed, including one about a 47 metre target, because the user's guide only required a target more than 45 metres away. The manual cuts both ways, and our speeding case law library has many more examples on each side.
Pacing and Other Methods
Not every speed comes from a beam. In Bland, the Court of Appeal held that a police speedometer recording steadily over a measured level distance is prima facie evidence of speed, absent some evidence suggesting it was inaccurate. An older county court decision, R. v. Amyot, [1968] 2 O.R. 626, treated stopwatch timing from an aeroplane as capable of proving speed, though that appeal ended on a jurisdiction point. With these methods, I look at how far the officer followed, how steady the reading was and how the gap was kept.
Is This the Vehicle That Was Measured?
Identification is a separate link, particularly when one officer takes the reading and another makes the stop. In Cuccarolo, a laser operator radioed a description to a chase cruiser, confirmed that the second officer was behind the right vehicle, and then lost sight of both around a bend. The driver said an identical car ahead of him was the real target, and the courts rejected that account on the evidence in that case. The file should show who kept sight of what, and at which point.
What the Driver May Have to Prove
Raham also held that stunt driving by speed is a strict liability offence, which leaves room for a due diligence defence. The burden on that defence falls on the defendant, who has to show all reasonable care was taken. The court gave examples, such as a brief acceleration to escape a vehicle closing from behind, or reliance on a speedometer later shown to be malfunctioning, and it cautioned that the defence is not readily available. It also noted that section 55 of the Provincial Offences Act may permit a conviction on the included offence of speeding, so the outcome is not always all or nothing.
When the Allegation Is the Way the Car Was Driven
Conduct cases have no number to check, so most of the weight sits on what an officer saw, heard and wrote down. The word "intention" in the regulation becomes the focus, and our stunt driving case law library shows it being handled in different ways at trial level.
Three wheelie decisions make the point:
- In R. v. Silva, 2010 ONCJ 121, the justice of the peace treated paragraph 1 as requiring the prosecution to prove a guilty mind. The officer's account of a loud rev and a lifted front wheel over about 30 feet made a prima facie inference. The rider's evidence about being a brand new motorcyclist then left a reasonable doubt.
- In R. v. Kalijundic, [2008] O.J. No. 4749, the officer's observations were accepted as correct, and the rider was still found not guilty because the justice of the peace accepted that the wheel came up by mistake.
- In R. v. Sztronga, 2010 ONCJ 157, the court read Raham as making stunt offences strict liability, and convicted the rider. The officer testified from notes made at the time and held up under cross-examination, the rider's own account had problems, and an accidental wheelie was found highly improbable on those facts.
These are trial-level decisions on one paragraph, and they do not all describe the mental element in the same way, so I would not treat the point as settled. What they share is the kind of evidence that mattered: distance from the event, how long it lasted, road and traffic conditions, the rider's experience, and whether the notes and the testimony held together. Those categories carry over to a file alleging a cut-off or a blocked pass.
What a Gap in the File Does and Does Not Do
A missing document is not an automatic end to a charge. In McGuigan, the justice of the peace ordered the disclosure but refused to stay the case, adjourning the trial instead. The Court of Appeal's reasons also note that a Charter remedy for non-disclosure depends on showing a reasonable possibility that the failure affected the outcome or the overall fairness of the trial.
Lost evidence can matter more. In R. v. Ul-Rashid, 2014 ONCA 896, a red light case, the City conceded that a self-represented defendant had not been properly told of his right to disclosure and that a video recording had since been lost, and an acquittal was entered on that concession. It is a narrow decision, and the court declined to give broader guidance, but it shows why timing can matter when evidence may not last.
The Questions I Bring to the File
Not every question matters in every case, but this is roughly the order I work in when a file arrives:
- Which paragraph of the regulation does the evidence point to, and does the charging document make that clear?
- Was this on a highway, or in a specified place where only some paragraphs apply?
- For speed, what was the reading, what was the limit at that exact point, and how far past the threshold was it?
- What device or method was used, and is there evidence the operator was qualified on it?
- When was the device tested, and do those steps match the manufacturer's procedures?
- How does the file connect the reading or observation to this particular vehicle?
- Where was the officer, how far away, for how long, and in what light and traffic?
- Do the notes, statements and video tell the same story, and is anything they mention missing?
- What did the driver say at the stop, and is it recorded? Whether a statement can be used is its own legal question.
None of these answers a case by itself. Together they show whether the proof that replaced the roadside belief is as strong as it first looks.
Send Us the Paperwork for a Free Ticket Review
If you are holding a stunt driving summons, send a photo of it, or send us the disclosure for a free ticket review and a flat-fee quote, with no obligation. Stunt driving and racing are among the charges we handle, for one flat fee from start to finish. You can also call us at (905) 853-3430 or toll free at 1-800-545-6471.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can police charge stunt driving based only on one radar reading?
Yes, a speed-based charge can start that way. In R. v. Raham, 2010 ONCA 206, the Court of Appeal describes an officer charging a driver on a single radar reading of 131 km/h in an 80 zone. Whether a reading proves the charge at trial is a separate question, and it can turn on the operator's qualifications and how the device was tested.
How do I get the evidence police have against me?
You ask for it. Ontario says a person charged is entitled, free of charge, to the relevant information in the prosecutor's possession or control, but that you must ask to get it, and the request may have to be in writing. The province directs people to contact the court office shown on their ticket or summons as soon as possible to learn how.
Do they have to give me the radar manual for my charge?
On request, they have to give you the relevant part. In York (Regional Municipality) v. McGuigan, 2018 ONCA 1062, the Court of Appeal held that a prosecutor relying on a speed measuring device must disclose the testing and operating procedures from its user manual. No court application is needed. The prosecutor may post that material online and provide the link. An invitation to view it at the office was not enough.
Can I be convicted of stunt driving if there is no video?
It can happen. Neither O. Reg. 455/07 nor the stunt section of the Highway Traffic Act makes video a requirement. In R. v. Sztronga, 2010 ONCJ 157, a conviction rested on an officer's testimony about what he saw, and the reasons mention no recording. Where a relevant recording does exist, it can be requested as part of disclosure, and the weight of all the evidence is decided at trial.
What if the wheelie was an accident and I did not mean it?
Intention can become the central issue, because the regulation speaks of driving in a manner that indicates an intention to lift the tires. In R. v. Kalijundic, [2008] O.J. No. 4749, a justice of the peace accepted an accidental wheelie and found the rider not guilty. In R. v. Sztronga, 2010 ONCJ 157, the inference went the other way. Each decision turned on its own facts.
