The applicant sought prerogative relief by way of certiorari and prohibition to quash a trial judge’s ruling refusing disclosure of Intoxilyzer maintenance and operational records in an impaired driving prosecution.
The applicant argued the materials constituted first‑party disclosure under Stinchcombe or, alternatively, that the trial judge erred in finding them third‑party records lacking likely relevance.
The court held that certiorari should rarely intervene during ongoing criminal proceedings where an adequate appellate remedy exists and that only a palpable infringement of a constitutional right would justify such relief.
The court found the trial judge was entitled to conclude the records were third‑party materials and not likely relevant to the accuracy or operability of the breath testing instrument.
No jurisdictional error or breach of the right to full answer and defence was established.
