In my view, while the applicants’ argument has some superficial attraction,
it does not withstand scrutiny. It is true that the rolling logs were not created
during the investigation and that they relate to the investigations of other
people for unrelated offences. However, it cannot be said that they “played no
role in the acquisition of any evidence available for proffer in the prosecution”. To the contrary, for reasons I will explain, the creation and maintenance of the rolling log is an important part of the DRE’s qualification to
provide an opinion as to the respondent’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Without the rolling log, the DRE would not be entitled to provide an opinion
and his testimony would have no utility.
 The motion judge also considered the rolling log as
a measure of the DRE’s proficiency. He wrote, at para. 30:
Second, the probative value of the rolling log does not arise from the verifica-
tion of any single opinion of the DRE but, rather, from the overall verification
rate. While the lack of verification may be explainable with respect to any
particular opinion, where a large number of opinions are not verified, this may
cause a trier of fact to attach less weight to a DRE’s opinion. The IACP’s
requirement for 75% verification rate is likely due to a recognition that there
may be some instances where a DRE’s opinion, although formed in accordance
with the requisite standards, may not be verified for some reason. Otherwise,
the required rate would be 100%. However, where the DRE’s opinion is not
verified more than 25% of the time, the IACP apparently concludes that the
DRE is not sufficiently proficient to maintain his or her accreditation.
(Emphasis in original)
The arguments on appeal
 The appellants take issue with both excerpted passages.
 The appellants say that the rolling log and its contents
have nothing to do with whether a DRE is qualified to give expert
opinion evidence on drug impairment. What controls is that, at
the time of the evaluation of the accused, the DRE was actually
trained and certified as a DRE by the IACP. It is the certification,
not the rolling log, that permits the officer to conduct the 12-step
evaluation, reach a conclusion about drug impairment and testify
as an expert about that conclusion at an accused’s trial.
 The appellants also contend that the motion judge relied
on an erroneous understanding about what the DREs need in
order to maintain their certification. It is not the case that a DRE’s
rolling log needs to reflect a 75 per cent rate of toxicological
verification for that purpose. What is required for maintaining
( i) performance of at least four acceptable evaluations since the
last certification, all of which are reviewed and approved by
a certified DRE instructor and one of which is witnessed by
a certified DRE instructor;