These companion criminal appeals addressed whether breathalyzer maintenance records are first party disclosure or third party disclosure in impaired driving prosecutions.
The Court held that such maintenance records are generally third party records, requiring an accused to establish likely relevance through an O’Connor application.
The majority found the records were not part of the fruits of the investigation and not obviously relevant on the evidentiary record.
Because likely relevance was not shown, disclosure orders were not warranted.
The appeals were dismissed, with a dissent concluding the records should be disclosed as first party material.
