the log was part of the “fruits of the investigation”, they, without
the benefit of the decision in Gubbins, erred in so holding.
The log as “obviously relevant”
 The opinion of the DRE that the respondent’s ability to
operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug is part of the case
for the Crown on the issue of drug impairment. While not dispositive, the opinion is nonetheless relevant, material and potentially
admissible. It also provides a gateway to the admission of the
results of the toxicological analysis of the respondent’s urine.
Tender of the DRE’s opinion on drug impairment of necessity
amounts to a representation by the Crown that the opinion is
a reliable indicator of drug impairment. This in turn is an implicit
claim that the DRE followed the 12-step evaluation and did so
properly. Any evidence that has a logical tendency to cast doubt
on that claim is therefore relevant.
 Recall that in Bingley, the court recognized that despite
Parliament’s statutory approval of the reliability of the 12-step
drug evaluation, an accused retained the right to test the
evidence. The trier of fact also retained the ability to critically
assess the DRE’s conclusion. Among the methods of testing, the
( i) cross-examination of the DRE to undermine the conclusion
of drug impairment;
( ii) evidence of bias;
( iii) evidence of failure to conduct the evaluation in accordance
with the DRE’s training;
( iv) questioning the DRE’s inference-drawing from observations;
( v) refutation of the conclusion by bodily sample evidence
collected under s. 254(3.4).
 In the end, this issue reduces to whether the rolling log is
relevant in challenging the Crown’s necessary and implicit claim
that the DRE’s conclusion on drug impairment is reliable.
 In my view, evidence of the rolling log meets the requirement of “obviously relevant” for the purposes of the first party
disclosure regime. I reach this conclusion for four reasons.
 First, the relevance requirement itself.
 The term “obviously relevant” represents a comment on
the obvious nature of the relevance of the record in the case.
What the term does not do is describe a higher standard or degree
of relevance. It describes information that is not within the