The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by a drug.
The defendant requested rolling logs as part of disclosure.
The Crown denied the request on two grounds: (1) new evidence demonstrated the rolling logs were not relevant, and (2) new legislation prohibited their disclosure.
The court considered whether it could revisit binding precedent from R. v. Stipo, which held that rolling logs are relevant and must be disclosed.
The court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and the exceptions to revisiting binding authority, finding that neither the new evidence nor the legislative changes met the high threshold required to depart from precedent.
The court granted disclosure of the rolling logs.
