UPDATE (2026): Certified Evidence Now Being Used for Additional Speeding Charges in Ontario

Since the publication of this blog in 2025, there has been a notable shift in how some municipalities are prosecuting speeding offences under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA).

In jurisdictions such as York Region, prosecutors are now proceeding by way of certified evidence in certain speeding cases, including:

• 0–15 km/h over the limit (no demerit points)
• 16–29 km/h over the limit (3 demerit points)

This represents a significant evolution in practice, particularly for offences that were traditionally prosecuted through live officer testimony.

Why This Matters

Historically, the use of certified evidence was limited by regulation and practice. In particular:

• Offences carrying demerit points, including most speeding charges under s. 128 HTA, were generally excluded from certified-evidence procedures.
• As a result, the defence could typically expect that the officer would be required to attend trial.

However, current practice in some courts suggests:

The Crown is now attempting to rely on certified evidence even in certain speeding matters

Some courts are permitting these matters to proceed without officer attendance

What Has Changed?

While the core statutory provision — s. 48.1 of the Provincial Offences Act — remains unchanged, the practical application has evolved.

Key observations:

• Courts are increasingly focused on whether:
  • the proceeding is a Part I certificate matter, and
  • a set fine exists for the offence,
    rather than strictly relying on earlier regulatory exclusions.
• In practice, this has opened the door to more lower-tier speeding offences being prosecuted using certified evidence that now include demerit points upon conviction.
• There appears to be inconsistent application across jurisdictions, meaning:
  • some courts still require officer attendance,
  • others proceed on a “paper docket” model.

Defence Considerations Going Forward

This development significantly changes how speeding trials may be approached.

1. Do Not Assume the Officer Will Attend

• Even in speeding matters, the officer may not be called.
• Defence preparation must account for a paper-only prosecution.

2. Challenge Whether Certified Evidence Is Properly Available

• The law in this area is still evolving.
• Defence should consider:
  • whether the offence is properly captured under s. 48.1,
  • whether any regulatory exclusions still apply,
  • whether the Crown is overreaching in applying certified evidence.

3. Consider Bringing a Fair Trial Application

Under s. 48.1(4) POA, the court may require the officer to attend if:

“the oral evidence of the person is necessary to ensure that the accused has a fair hearing.”

This is now more important than ever in speeding cases involving:

• Radar/LIDAR operation
• Calibration and testing
• Visual estimation
• Officer observations not fully captured on the certificate

4. Increased Importance of Defence Evidence

Where the Crown proceeds without a witness:

• The burden shifts practically to the defence to raise doubt.
• Effective defence evidence may include:
  • dashcam footage
  • GPS/speed data
  • witness testimony
  • cross-examination of certified documents (where permitted)

5. Scrutinize the Certificate of Offence Carefully

With no officer testimony:

• The certificate becomes the Crown’s entire case.
• Any defect, ambiguity, or omission becomes more significant.

Unresolved Legal Questions

This emerging practice raises important legal questions that have not yet been definitively settled by appellate courts, including:

• Whether speeding offences carrying demerit points are properly included within certified-evidence procedures
• Whether reliance on certified evidence in these cases infringes on the accused’s right to a fair trial
• How courts should interpret the interaction between s. 48.1 POA and the regulatory framework

Until higher courts provide clarity, this area remains in flux.

Key Takeaway

The use of certified evidence in Ontario traffic court is expanding.

What was once limited primarily to automated enforcement and minor offences is now being applied — at least in some jurisdictions — to traditional speeding charges.

Defendants and practitioners should no longer assume that a speeding trial will include officer testimony.

Strategic defence preparation must now account for certified-evidence prosecutions.

Conclusion

Certified evidence continues to reshape the landscape of traffic court in Ontario.

While it offers efficiency for the prosecution, it also creates new legal issues and defence opportunities — particularly in cases where its use may exceed what the law permits.

As this area develops, close attention to statutory interpretation, fairness arguments, and evolving case law will be essential.