R. v. McNeil

R. v. McNeil

Police must disclose to the prosecuting Crown investigatory material that is relevant to the accused's case; where police misconduct findings relate to the investigation or could reasonably impact the accused's case, those records fall within the first‑party Stinchcombe disclosure package. Production of other third‑party records is governed by O'Connor's two‑stage test (likely relevance then court inspection and balancing). The O'Connor regime is not limited to cases where a reasonable expectation of privacy is assumed; privacy is a contextual factor to be weighed at the inspection/balancing stage and production orders should be narrowly tailored with redactions or dissemination limits...

Citation
2009 SCC 3
Parties
Appellant (third Party Record Holder): Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent (accused): Lawrence McNeil; Respondent (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent (third Party Record Holder): Chief of Barrie Police Service
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal (moot; Amicus Appointed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the court below set aside; application rendered moot and no further order made
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Stinchcombe Disclosure, O'connor Third Party Production, Police Corollary Duty to Disclose, Police Disciplinary Records, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Crown Duty to Inquire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Administrative/police Law Privacy Law Disclosure Obligations Stinchcombe Disclosure O'connor Third Party Production Police Corollary Duty to Disclose +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Ontario

Appellant (third Party Record Holder)

Lawrence McNeil

Respondent (accused)

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent (prosecution)

Chief of Barrie Police Service

Respondent (third Party Record Holder)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal (moot; Amicus Appointed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police disciplinary records and third-party criminal investigation files are subject to the Crown's Stinchcombe first‑party disclosure or the O'Connor third‑party production regime
  2. 2 Whether the police act as a first party for disclosure purposes or are third parties
  3. 3 Whether the O'Connor production regime applies only where third parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy

Ratio Decidendi

Police must disclose to the prosecuting Crown investigatory material that is relevant to the accused's case; where police misconduct findings relate to the investigation or could reasonably impact the accused's case, those records fall within the first‑party Stinchcombe disclosure package. Production of other third‑party records is governed by O'Connor's two‑stage test (likely relevance then court inspection and balancing). The O'Connor regime is not limited to cases where a reasonable expectation of privacy is assumed; privacy is a contextual factor to be weighed at the inspection/balancing stage and production orders should be narrowly tailored with redactions or dissemination limits...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the court below set aside; application rendered moot and no further order made

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and the production order of the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside.
  • No further order given as the underlying application became moot.