The appeal concerned an accused’s attempt to obtain police disciplinary records and criminal investigation files relating to the Crown’s principal police witness after conviction on drug charges.
The Court held that the common law O’Connor regime is the general mechanism for production of third party records and is not confined to cases involving a proven reasonable expectation of privacy.
It further held that privacy in criminal investigation files and police disciplinary records is contextual, not categorical.
The Court clarified that the investigating police force stands on the same first party footing as the Crown for disclosure purposes and must provide records of serious police misconduct where the misconduct is related to the investigation or could reasonably affect the case against the accused.
Because the underlying application had become moot, the appeal was allowed, the order below was set aside, and no further order was made.
