APPROVED INSTRUMENT MAINTENANCE RECORDS DISCLOSURE

The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service has stayed some exceed .08 charges due to disclosure issues regarding the maintenance records of the devices. Some direction on this issue will be provided in the case of R. v. Vallentgoed, 2015 ABCA 202; 2016 ABCA 19.

This maintenance record issue seems to have been clarified some time ago in Saskatchewan (see R. v. Worden, 2014 SKPC 143) and more recently in Ontario:

"A police officer asked David Jackson to do something. Twice. Nothing complicated. Just blow into a device. So David Jackson did. The first time he failed. Then he talked to a lawyer. The second time, he provided evidence against himself. David Jackson was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation of a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol so that the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. David Jackson got the usual disclosure provided by the prosecutor in alcohol-driving cases. But David Jackson wanted more. He wanted to find out about the history and performance of the device that measured his blood alcohol concentration. So he asked the trial judge to require the prosecutor to provide the records he sought. The trial judge ordered disclosure. A judge of the Superior Court of Justice refused to quash the trial judge’s order. The police service that maintains the records and the Crown appeal even though the records have been disclosed. These reasons explain why I would allow the appeal and quash the disclosure order." Mr. Justice Watt in R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832