R. v. Gubbins 2018 SCC 44

Breakdown of the Decision:

• Majority Decision: Justice Rowe (Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Brown, and Martin agreed)
• Dissenting: Justice Côté

Case Background:

• Issue: Whether breathalyzer maintenance records should be disclosed to the accused in cases of “over 80” charges.
• Case Facts: Mr. Gubbins and Mr. Vallentgoed were both charged with having blood alcohol levels “over 80.” They requested maintenance records for the breathalyzer devices used in their tests as part of their defence.

Procedural History:

• Mr. Vallentgoed’s Case: He received partial records showing the breathalyzer had been repaired shortly after his test and requested further details. The Crown refused, and the summary conviction judge ruled in the Crown’s favor. However, the summary conviction appeal judge ordered the case back to trial with the additional records.
• Mr. Gubbins’ Case: He also requested maintenance records. An expert testified that these records were not relevant to the accuracy of his specific test. The trial judge ruled in favor of Mr. Gubbins, but the Court of Appeal later ruled for the Crown.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• Majority Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that:
  • Third-Party Records: Breathalyzer maintenance records are considered third-party records. This means they do not need to be disclosed unless the accused can show they are likely relevant to their defence.
  • Relevance: The majority found that while maintenance records are relevant to general maintenance, they are not necessarily relevant to the functioning of the device on the specific day of the test. Breathalyzers conduct self-tests each time they are used, and those specific records, which were already disclosed, are what matter most for the defence.
  • Control: These maintenance records are held by the RCMP and other third parties, such as contractors, and are not part of the Crown’s investigative file. As such, they do not automatically need to be disclosed unless their relevance is demonstrated by the defence.
• Outcome: Mr. Vallentgoed’s conviction was upheld, and Mr. Gubbins’ case was sent back for a new trial.

Implications:

• First-Party vs. Third-Party Records: The decision clarifies the distinction between first-party and third-party records in criminal cases. First-party records must be disclosed unless privileged or irrelevant, while third-party records require the defence to demonstrate their relevance.
• Impact on Defence: This ruling impacts how accused persons can obtain evidence for their defence, particularly in “over 80” cases. Maintenance records for breathalyzer devices, unless shown to be relevant, do not have to be disclosed, which can limit the evidence available for challenging the accuracy of the breathalyzer tests.
• Consistency in Law: The ruling resolves inconsistencies among lower courts regarding the treatment of breathalyzer maintenance records, providing a clear precedent for future cases.

Connection to R. v. Awashish:

• Same-Day Ruling: R. v. Gubbins was released on the same day as R. v. Awashish, which also dealt with breathalyzer records in the context of an “over 80” driving offence. Both cases highlight the Supreme Court’s stance on the disclosure and relevance of breathalyzer maintenance records in criminal proceedings.