2 total
DRE rolling logs are not subject to disclosure when the evaluating officer's opinion is corroborated by toxicological results.
This decision addresses two applications for certiorari brought by the Crown, RCMP, and Ottawa Police Services to quash lower court rulings that ordered the disclosure of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling logs in drug-impaired driving cases.
The Superior Court considered the impact of recent amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-46) on the relevance and disclosability of these logs, particularly in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Stipo.
The court found that the Code amendments constituted a significant change in circumstances, but ultimately concluded that the amendments do not alter the requirement for disclosure of rolling logs where the DRE's opinion is not corroborated by toxicological results.
However, where toxicological analysis does corroborate the DRE's call, the rolling log is no longer relevant to challenge the DRE's opinion.
The court indicated it would quash the disclosure orders in the specific cases at hand because the DRE calls were corroborated by toxicology, but declined to issue a mandamus order.
An unrepresented inmate must be given an opportunity to respond in writing before their habeas corpus application is summarily dismissed.
Patrice Severin, an inmate, applied for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Crown sought to dismiss Severin's application summarily under Rule 6.11(2) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and lacked reasonable prospect of success.
The court considered whether summary dismissal without the applicant's personal appearance or response was permissible under section 774.1 of the Criminal Code and consistent with natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem principle.
Citing R. v. Gustavson, the court adopted a two-stage procedure for unrepresented applicants, allowing for written submissions at the first stage.
The court found that the Crown's application for summary dismissal did not address the fairness of the process.
Consequently, the court ordered Severin to be given 30 days to file a written submission responding to the Crown's dismissal application, adjourning the scheduled hearing and rescinding any production order for his attendance.
The judge remained seized of the matter.
