The arguments on appeal
 The appellant Crown acknowledges that it has a broad
obligation to disclose to an accused charged with an offence all
relevant non-privileged information it has in its possession or
control unless disclosure of that information is otherwise
governed by law. This obligation extends to information in the
possession or control of the prosecuting Crown, not to information held by other arms of the state, unless that information
falls within the “fruits of the investigation” category. Records in the
hands of a third party, including the police, are not subject to the
first party disclosure obligation put in place by R. v. Stinchcombe.
 It follows, the Crown says, that when an accused seeks
records which are not “fruits of the investigation” from the
police, as in this case, the accused must seek disclosure from the
third party, whether directly or through the prosecuting Crown,
or bring a third party records application under R. v. O’Connor.
This requires the accused to demonstrate the likely relevance of
what is sought.
 The Crown accepts that neither it nor the police are permitted a passive or disinterested approach to the production of
third party records. When put on notice of the existence of material an accused seeks, the Crown has a duty to inquire and to
make reasonable efforts to obtain what is sought. Correspondingly,
the police have a duty to provide the Crown with all information
that they know has obvious relevance to an accused’s case.
 Despite these positive obligations, the Crown continues,
this does not mean that the records the respondent seeks must be
disclosed as part of the Crown’s first party disclosure obligation.
Upon inquiry by the Crown and refusal by the police to disclose
any material which is not part of the “fruits of the investigation”,
an accused must pursue a third party records application under
O’Connor to obtain the material.
 The Crown says that it does not have possession or control
over the rolling log, which is created, maintained and held by the
DRE or the OPP, the DRE’s employer. The log is not part of the
“fruits of the investigation”. Nor is it obviously relevant. The
police have no obligation to turn the rolling log over to the Crown
for disclosure to the respondent. The judges below were in error
in deciding that this case was one of first party disclosure. To
obtain what he seeks, the respondent must bring a third party
records application in accordance with O’Connor.
 The appellant OPP repeats many of the submissions of the