The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80.
He sought disclosure of historical maintenance and usage records for the Intoxilyzer used in his breath tests.
The trial judge ordered disclosure under the first party Stinchcombe regime, and a motion judge refused to quash the order.
The Crown and the Ottawa Police Service appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the records were generated by and in the exclusive possession of the police service, making them third party records governed by the O'Connor regime.
The court further held that the accused failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party production, as the request was a speculative fishing expedition.
