On this issue, the trial judge said of these provisions [at
This, quite frankly, is incomprehensible to the court. As defence counsel
has submitted, it makes no sense. This is hardly a principled analysis of
this issue, but the court is unable to unravel the intent and policy consider-
ations at play.
In any event, the court is quite prepared to make an order exempting the participants in this trial matter from being in contravention of this legislation.
 In the result, the trial judge ordered the Crown to disclose
to the defence
( i) the training manual used or relied upon by the DRE in
carrying out his duties in the investigation of Ms. Stipo;
( ii) the DRE’s rolling logs of drug influence evaluations, including
any toxicological corroboration of his analyses contained in
those logs, from the start of his certification training up to
and including his dealings with Ms. Stipo; and
( iii) an updated copy of the DRE’s resume, but not a resume
review, “whatever that is”.
The trial judge declined to order disclosure of the DRE’s training
records and the results of the DRE’s training examinations.
The Decision of the Motion Judge
 The Crown sought certiorari with prohibition in aid to
quash the decision of the trial judge only in connection with disclosure of the rolling logs. As the record holder, the OPP sought
the same relief, although the police force had not been involved in
the application at trial. On the return of the motion, the OPP
filed a copy of the 2013 DRE training manual that was in force at
the time of the evaluation of Ms. Stipo.
 The motion judge concluded that the rolling logs were
“fruits of the investigation”, and thus subject to the first party
disclosure regime put in place by Stinchcombe. He wrote [at para.
The rolling logs are created by and in the possession of a police officer
involved in the investigation of the respondent and are relevant to the pro-
ficiency of his ability to form the opinion the Crown wishes him to testify
about in order to prove an essential element of the offence. In my view, the
rolling logs clearly meet the definition of “fruits of the investigation” as
that term is used in the case law. As a result, the DRE is duty bound to
provide them to the Crown, and the Crown is duty bound to obtain them
and provide them to the defence, subject to the applicant’s submission that
such disclosure is prohibited by s. 258.1 of the Criminal Code, which I will
address later in these reasons.