R v Reybroek

R. v. Reybroek

[1998] O.J. No. 2586
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) — Babcock Prov. J. | March 4, 1998

Background

Todd Reybroek was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act on July 7, 1997. Rather than simply fighting the ticket, Reybroek decided to go on the offensive with disclosure. In September 1997, he sent the prosecutor a letter demanding twelve specific items of disclosure that he claimed were "essential" to prepare his defence.

The list was extensive and detailed — everything from the radar device's brand name and serial number to copies of the officer's report cards, training course outlines, maintenance logs for both the radar and the police cruiser, and even a breakdown of how many tickets Officer No. 6498 had written day-by-day in the weeks before and after the incident. When he didn't get everything he wanted, Reybroek applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown had failed to provide full disclosure.

Issues

1. Was Reybroek entitled to all twelve items of disclosure he requested?
2. Should proceedings be stayed for failure to disclose?

The Disclosure Fishing Expedition

Justice Babcock made it clear that disclosure isn't a free-for-all. Citing R. v. Stinchcombe and R. v. Anutooshkin, the court explained that the Crown must disclose everything relevant to the charges, but has no duty to disclose clearly irrelevant material. More importantly, an accused person isn't "entitled to disclosure merely upon demand" — there must be a reasonable possibility that the material could assist the defence.

The judge went through Reybroek's twelve-item wish list and found that ten of the requests were "frivolous, unreasonable and irrelevant to the preparation of a defence on a charge of speeding." Items like the officer's course evaluation sheets, detailed ticket statistics, and written confirmation that radar components hadn't been "tampered with" between manufacture and installation were dismissed as having no bearing on whether Reybroek was actually speeding.

However, the court did order disclosure of two items: the brand name, manufacturer, make, model and serial number of the radar device used, and the officer's field notes for the specific incident in question. These items, unlike the others, were directly relevant to challenging the radar evidence.

Key Takeaway

You can't demand disclosure of everything under the sun and expect to get it — you need to show why each item is actually relevant to your defence.

Before making disclosure requests, think carefully about how each item would actually help you challenge the evidence against you. Courts won't entertain fishing expeditions disguised as disclosure requests, and asking for irrelevant material can hurt your credibility when you do need something important.