M. Giovinazzo

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after it invited the trial judge to acquit the accused to avoid non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The trial judge had ruled that the Drug Recognition Expert's rolling log was relevant and subject to disclosure under Stinchcombe, but that section 320.36(2) of the Criminal Code prohibited its disclosure, rendering the section unconstitutional.

On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the finding that rolling logs are relevant and must be disclosed.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in interpreting the Criminal Code; the amended provisions do not prohibit the disclosure of rolling logs in criminal proceedings.

As the rolling logs were still required to be disclosed, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for driving with excess blood alcohol and stunt driving.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, erroneously relied on the repealed presumption of identity under the Criminal Code, and erred in dismissing his section 10(b) Charter application regarding the right to counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no uneven scrutiny, holding that the presumption of identity continues to apply to transitional cases where the offence predated the legislative amendments, and concluding that the police fulfilled their informational and implementational duties under section 10(b) without steering the appellant toward duty counsel.