not this case. A trier of fact needs no expert evidence to opine on
the relevance of prior experience in assessing current reliability.
 As a result, I am satisfied that the rolling log is relevant
material or information for disclosure purposes.
The applicable disclosure regime
 Determining which regime governs disclosure of the
DRE’s rolling log requires consideration of two questions:
(1) is the information that is sought in the possession or control
of the prosecuting Crown; and
(2) is the nature of the information sought such that the police
or another Crown entity in possession or control of the infor-
mation ought to have supplied it to the prosecuting Crown?
Unless some other statutory scheme interferes, an affirmative
answer to either question settles disclosure under the first party
regime of Stinchcombe.
Possession or control of the log
 In this case, the rolling log is created, and its currency is
maintained by the DRE. The log is not in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown. It remains in the possession of the
DRE, and the police force which employs the DRE, in this case,
the OPP. Therefore, the question becomes whether the entries on
the log constitute “fruits of the investigation” or are otherwise
“obviously relevant” such that the OPP has an obligation to
disclose them to the Crown.
The log as “fruits of the investigation”
 The term “fruits of the investigation” refers to the investigative files of the police, not to operational records or background information. This is information generated or acquired
during or as a result of the specific investigation into the charge
against the respondent. The term posits a relationship between
the information sought and the investigation that led to the
charges against the respondent.
 Apart from that portion of the rolling log which relates to
the investigation of the respondent and has already been disclosed,
the historical portions of the log were generated or acquired during
or as a result of unrelated investigations. It follows that the portion
of the logs sought is not part of the “fruits of the investigation”. To
the extent that the trial and motion judges grounded their finding
that the first party disclosure regime governed on the basis that