Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Disclosure — Whether the Crown is required to disclose its witness’s outstanding criminal charges as first party disclosure — Whether disclosure of unrelated outstanding criminal charges of Crown witnesses is governed by the first party Stinchcombe regime, or the third party O’Connor regime — Whether the Court should clarify the scope of “obvious relevance” as set out in R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Police had a Motel 6 in Brampton under observation because prostitution and drug trafficking offences had been occurring in and around the motel. Dyllan Ali and Diquan Taylor were two of four passengers in a taxi that was stopped by members of the police. The stop was based on an allegation that the taxi proceeded through a red traffic light. Cst. Sean Osborne and Cst. Erik Grant testified at the preliminary inquiry that as they approached the stopped taxi, they made observations of movements inside the taxi that justified their removing the occupants and conducting a search for officer safety. The search revealed firearms and cocaine. As a result, Dyllan Ali faces numerous firearms offences and Diquan Taylor is charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. They are to be tried together. Mr. Ali and Mr. Taylor have applied for an order requiring disclosure of the full contents of disciplinary and criminal investigation files relating to Cst. Osborne. To the extent these have not already been provided or agreed to be provided, Mr. Ali and Mr. Taylor submit that they should be part of first party disclosure from the Crown pursuant to R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66, and R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, [1991], S.C.J. No. 83. In the alternative, they submit that they have met the likely relevance threshold at the first stage of the third party disclosure regime developed in R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411. The application for further disclosure of the investigative files regarding Cst. Osborne’s previous disciplinary proceeding was dismissed. The application for disclosure of the investigative files for Cst. Osborne’s outstanding criminal charges was granted pursuant to the Crown’s first party disclosure obligations.