a CV. Further, it is the practice for the proponent of the evidence
to utilize the CV to establish the proposed witness’ qualifications
in a defined subject-matter. The same document is often used by
opposing counsel to limit the fields of expertise or to disqualify
the witness entirely in the proposed area of expertise.
 Section 657.3(3)(a)( iii) of the Criminal Code requires
a party who intends to call an expert witness to disclose to the
other parties in the proceedings “a statement of the qualifications
of the proposed witness as an expert”. Section 657.3(3)(a) describes
the time periods within which this disclosure is to be provided for
the purpose of promoting the fair, orderly and efficient presentation of the testimony of the witnesses. A compendious equivalent
for the statutory language “a statement of the qualifications of the
proposed witness as an expert” would be the witness’ curriculum
vitae, or CV.
 It is worth notice that disclosure of the CV under
s. 657.3(3)(a)( iii) imposes a duty on the proponent of the evidence
and a correlative right on the opponent. No application for disclosure is necessary. In short, the CV is “obviously relevant”.
 The rolling log is obviously relevant for the same reasons
as the CV. Both documents describe the DRE’s experience and are
relevant to establishing and delineating the DRE’s area of expertise. Therefore, both should be subject to the same, not different
 In the result, I am satisfied that disclosure of the rolling
log is governed by the first party disclosure regime of
Stinchcombe, not the third party scheme of O’Connor.
Ground #2: The Relevance of the Rolling Log
 The second ground of appeal challenges the finding of the
motion judge that the rolling log of the DRE is relevant for
 As I have already explained in connection with the first
ground of appeal, the touchstone of disclosure is relevance. My
determination that the rolling log of the DRE is “obviously
relevant” for disclosure purposes, and thereby subject to the first
party disclosure regime, allows for a rejection of this ground of
appeal without further discussion.
 Nevertheless, two passages in the motion judge’s discussion
of relevance require clarification.
The reasons of the motion judge
 The motion judge described the role of the rolling log in
the qualification of the DRE to give expert opinion evidence about
drug impairment, at para. 25 of his reasons: