The OPP points out that the rolling log is a record generated
and updated by an officer of the OPP. The log is held by and is kept
under the control of the OPP. It contains a one-line summary of
every evaluation the DRE performs, together with the corresponding
toxicological results. The substantial majority of the information
contained in the log consists of historical summaries of evaluations
conducted during investigations of persons other than the rspond-ent. These summaries have no association with the respondent’s
alleged offence or the investigation of it by the OPP. This is not
a record in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown.
 In addition, the OPP says that, despite its status as the
record holder, it received no notice of the application at trial. It
had no opportunity to advocate its position or adduce evidence
about the purpose and use of the logs. In particular, the OPP says
it had no opportunity to adduce expert evidence to explain why
toxicological results may not coincide with DRE evaluations.
 The respondent readily acknowledges that rolling logs are
not in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown. But
that, the respondent says, does not end the inquiry into the applicable disclosure regime, or rule out first party disclosure as the
governing disclosure scheme. This is because of two corollary
duties in place to ensure that disclosure is meaningful and that
an accused gets the entire “fruits of the investigation”.
 The first duty, imposed on the police, is to provide all
potentially relevant material they have in their possession to the
Crown. This includes all material pertaining to its investigation
of the accused. The second duty, settled upon the Crown, is to
obtain all relevant material of which they become aware, including
potentially relevant evidence pertaining to the credibility or
reliability of the witnesses in the case.
 The rolling log, the respondent contends, is relevant to the
credibility of the DRE and the reliability of the DRE’s evidence on
the issue of impairment. This triggers the Crown’s duty to seek
and obtain a copy of the log from the OPP and the duty of the OPP
to disclose that log to the Crown without prompting. And so it is
that the log forms part of first party disclosure under Stinchcombe.
This issue is not controlled by the decision in R. v. Jackson (2015),
128 O.R. (3d) 161,  O.J. No. 6274, 2015 ONCA 832. In that
decision, the court decided that certain records relating to
breathalyzer devices were not likely relevant, but the rolling log at
issue here plays a significant role in the respondent’s prosecution.
 The respondent likens the rolling log to an expert’s
CV. Each reflects the witness’ qualifications to testify as an
expert. No one would gainsay that a CV is first party disclosure.