The appeal concerned whether police misconduct findings that were administratively expunged from an officer’s disciplinary record under provincial regulation remain subject to first party criminal disclosure.
The Court held that administrative expungement for police discipline purposes does not alter the constitutional disclosure regime, does not erase the underlying finding, and does not convert relevant misconduct records into third party records subject only to an O’Connor application.
Applying Stinchcombe, O’Connor and McNeil, the Court clarified that relevance is a low, utility-based threshold, that police must triage and transmit relevant misconduct information to the Crown, and that the Crown remains the ultimate arbiter of relevance with a duty to inquire when put on notice of potentially relevant information.
The appeal was dismissed, the motion to file further evidence was allowed, and solicitor-client costs were awarded to the accused against the police appellant.
