2 total
The court dismissed the Crown's certiorari applications, upholding orders that require the disclosure of DRE rolling logs as relevant third-party records.
The Crown and Ottawa Police Service brought certiorari applications to quash disclosure orders made by three application judges.
These orders required the disclosure of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling logs and face sheets to the respondents, who were charged with drug-impaired driving.
The Crown argued that disclosure was prohibited by s. 258.1 of the Criminal Code or, alternatively, that the records were third-party records and not relevant.
The court dismissed the certiorari applications, finding that the application judges did not exceed their jurisdiction, s. 258.1 of the Code did not bar disclosure, and the rolling logs and face sheets were relevant third-party records.
The court also declined to order a new hearing for one respondent despite an error in denying standing to the Ottawa Police Service, citing judicial efficiency and the respondents' s. 11(b) rights.
DRE opinion was admissible without a further voir dire on these facts.
The appeal concerned whether a drug recognition expert’s opinion under s. 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code is automatically admissible at trial or remains governed by common law expert-evidence rules.
The majority held the provision does not create automatic admissibility, but found the statutory and regulatory framework conclusively establishes the expert’s specialized expertise for administering the 12-step evaluation.
On that basis, and with the other Mohan factors not in dispute, the opinion evidence was admissible without an additional voir dire in this case.
The dissent would have required proof of threshold reliability of the underlying science before admitting the opinion on impairment.
The appeal was dismissed and the new trial order was confirmed.
