Sharon C. Wilmot

The applicant sought extensive disclosure from the Crown and Peel Regional Police (PRP) under Stinchcombe and O'Connor, and a sealing order for application materials.

The disclosure requests stemmed from suspicions of targeting and police misconduct related to a vehicle stop and subsequent arrest for firearms and drug offences.

The court denied most disclosure requests where the information did not exist (e.g., historical CPIC snapshots, specific informant recruitment policies) or where likely relevance was not met.

However, the court ordered the production of officer notes and "will say" statements regarding an off-camera interview where the applicant was asked to become a confidential informant, and specific notes of an officer related to a BOLO broadcast.

The sealing order request was denied as the applicant failed to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for restricting the open court principle.

The Crown and Peel Regional Police applied for access to a video exhibit previously ordered sealed in a sexual assault and sexual interference prosecution.

The video, likely child pornography, was in defence counsel's possession and had been sealed by a prior court order.

The applicants sought access for investigation and potential use in the prosecution.

The court, relying on R. v. Murray and Rule 5.1-2A of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct, held that physical evidence documenting a crime, even if it contains both inculpatory and exculpatory elements, must be disclosed to authorities.

The application for access to the sealed exhibit was granted.

The Toronto Police Service and a police officer sought access to youth records of a young person (L.D.) who was a witness and complainant in a police disciplinary hearing.

The officer was alleged to have assaulted L.D. while in police custody.

The court considered whether access to L.D.'s youth records was permitted under sections 119(1)(s) and 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a valid or valid and substantial interest in the records, and that permitting access would undermine the proper administration of justice under both the YCJA and the Police Services Act.

The application was dismissed.