P. Burstein

The Crown and the Ontario Provincial Police applied for certiorari to quash a trial judge's order requiring the disclosure of a Drug Recognition Expert's (DRE) rolling logs to the accused in an impaired driving trial.

The applicants argued the logs were irrelevant third-party records and that disclosure was prohibited by s. 258.1 of the Criminal Code and s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the rolling logs are relevant to the DRE's proficiency, constitute 'fruits of the investigation' subject to first-party disclosure, and are not shielded from disclosure by statutory privacy or public interest provisions.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and to refusing to provide a breath sample after a motor vehicle collision that killed a child passenger.

The collision occurred when the accused drove through a stop sign at excessive speed and struck another vehicle lawfully proceeding through the intersection.

Although alcohol had been consumed prior to the collision, the impaired driving causing death charge was withdrawn as part of a joint submission.

The court reviewed sentencing ranges for dangerous driving causing death and emphasized the high threshold for rejecting a joint submission.

Finding the proposed disposition within the reasonable range and not contrary to the public interest, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence totaling 27 months and a four‑year driving prohibition.

During a first degree murder trial, the Crown sought a publication ban under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code to prevent publication of information identifying the deceased victim, primarily to shield an elderly relative from learning distressing details of the death through media reporting.

The court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck framework governs discretionary publication bans even when sought under a statutory provision.

The Crown failed to establish that the order was necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice or that a significant public interest justified limiting openness.

The concern raised was characterized as a private interest unsupported by medical evidence demonstrating likely harm.

The interim publication ban was therefore set aside.