The Crown brought applications to quash subpoenas issued by the defence against two prosecutors, David Holmes (federal) and Steven Scharger (provincial).
The defence sought to compel their testimony at a preliminary hearing regarding an officer's alleged history of misconduct and excessive force, arguing it was material to the officer's credibility and the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.
The court found that the proposed evidence was not likely material to the preliminary hearing issues, was governed by the collateral fact rule, and that the necessity test for compelling counsel's testimony was not met.
The applications to quash the subpoenas were granted.
