Noah Schachter

This appeal concerned the applicability of the third-party records regime under sections 278.1-278.9 of the Criminal Code to a former police officer's anticipated testimony and a draft statement of claim in a criminal trial.

The appellants, J.R. (the former officer) and Toronto Police Service, sought to overturn a subpoena requiring J.R. to testify and to prevent the use of the draft statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the third-party records regime did not apply to oral statements made by J.R. and, in the specific circumstances, did not apply to the draft statement of claim.

Furthermore, even if the regime applied to the draft statement, its production was deemed necessary in the interests of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and an interim stay was set aside, making the lower court's unsealing and set aside orders effective.

The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in blood following a motor vehicle stop at 2:40 a.m. outside a drinking establishment.

The Crown proved the charge through roadside screening device and qualified technician breath samples.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the initial demand and alleged violations of his right to counsel under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both challenges, finding reasonable grounds for the initial demand and that police made reasonable efforts to facilitate contact with counsel of choice before offering duty counsel.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The trial judge found that the constable's demand for a breath sample violated section 8 of the Charter because the constable had not followed three procedures in the OPP manual for the Drager Alcotest 6810 device, and therefore could not have reasonably believed the device was functioning properly.

The trial judge excluded the breath samples under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding there was no objective basis for the constable's belief that the device was functioning properly, and that the trial judge erred in excluding the evidence under section 24(2).