This case relates to a dispute over when and how police misconduct records must be disclosed to a person accused of a crime. Ahead of his criminal trial, Mr. McKee became aware of likely relevant information regarding the disciplinary history of Detective Jared Ruecker, a police officer directly involved in his case. This was despite an initial disclosure package claiming that Detective Ruecker had no disciplinary history.

Mr. McKee requested the information from the prosecution but was informed that the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) objected to its disclosure. On application, the trial judge ordered that the information be provided to Mr. McKee. The EPS appeals this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The EPS argues that the information should not be disclosed because it has been expunged under the Police Service Regulation. Also for that reason, the EPS takes the position that the Crown is not legally “in possession” of the disciplinary information, and so the accused should have to make an application to receive the information from the EPS, which would be a more onerous process. Mr. McKee takes the position that privacy interests of the police cannot take precedence over the fair trial rights of the accused.

BCCLA intervenes to argue that police are unique witnesses in the criminal justice system, and as a result, should be treated differently. Given the broad and extensive powers afforded to police by our society, they must be held to a higher standard of accountability. Criminal proceedings play a critical role in maintaining that accountability, which is necessary for public confidence in the criminal justice system. What constitutes relevant information about police misconduct should be interpreted broadly and be provided to the accused as a matter of course. Limiting the scope of this type of disclosure would disproportionately impact marginalized and over-policed communities.