The same result should apply to the rolling log, an essential
component of the DRE’s CV.
 The intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association
(“CLA”), contends that the test for disclosure is simply relevance,
whether under the Stinchcombe or the O’Connor framework. The
only difference between the two frameworks is that under
O’Connor it is the accused who must bear the burden of establishing relevance in an application. The choice between the two
frameworks is largely a matter of policy that should be informed
by whether it would be justified and efficient to require a full-blown O’Connor hearing in each case. For rolling logs, it is an
inefficient use of court resources and unjustified to shift to an
accused the burden of bringing an application to obtain disclosure
of this obviously relevant information. The nature of the rolling
logs and their relationship to the weight to be assigned to the
DRE’s expert opinion on impairment engages the Crown’s duty
to inquire and the related police duty to provide in accordance
with the Stinchcombe disclosure regime.
The governing principles
 Despite the novelty of its subject matter, a DRE’s rolling log,
this disclosure issue reduces in the main to the application of settled
principles intermingled with a tincture of statutory prohibition.
The disclosure regimes
 It is commonplace that two different regimes govern disclosure in criminal cases.
 The first party disclosure regime originated in
Stinchcombe and was supplemented by duties imposed on the Crown
and the investigating police in R. v. McNeil,  1 S.C.R. 66,
 S.C.J. No. 3, 2009 SCC 3. This requires disclosure of all
relevant information upon request. If the Crown refuses disclosure, the Crown bears the burden of establishing that the information is privileged from disclosure or “clearly irrelevant”:
Gubbins, at para. 29.
 The third party disclosure regime has its genesis in
O’Connor and requires an application to the court for records
that fall outside the first party disclosure scheme. In these cases,
the defence bears the initial burden of showing that the records
sought are “likely relevant”: Gubbins, at para. 29.
 Each disclosure regime has as its purpose the protection of
an accused’s right to make full answer and defence to the offences
charged. At the same time, each scheme recognizes the need to
place limits on disclosure when required, including limits to avoid
fishing expeditions: Gubbins, at para. 29.