This Week at the SCC: Do Expunged Police Misconduct Records Have to Be Disclosed?

Editor’s Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash.

🚔 On Friday, June 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Chief of the Edmonton Police Service v. John McKee, et al. At issue is whether information about a police detective’s past misconduct must be disclosed to an accused when the misconduct has since been removed from the detective’s record of discipline under Alberta’s Police Service Regulation.

🎯 On June 19, 2026, the SCC released its decision in Resler v. Anglin, 2026 SCC 23. In a 6:3 decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unsuccessful election candidate’s civil claim against Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer can proceed where the claim alleges bad faith and seeks damages rather than a change to the election result.

🤖 Only 23% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result! The SCCbot got it right.

🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision. Scroll down for details on this week’s case and a recap of last week’s judgment.

Case to Predict: Disclosing Expunged Police Misconduct Records

Appeal by leave from R. v. McKee, 2023 ABKB 698

SCC webcast 🎥 | factums 📃

What Happened?

John McKee is charged with drug and weapons offences. The investigation involved an Edmonton Police Service detective, Jared Ruecker.

Years earlier, in 2015, a finding of misconduct had been made against Det. Ruecker and recorded in a document called a “Decision of Hearing.” EPS gave the Crown a copy of that document in 2015 for use in another prosecution. The finding of misconduct was later removed from the detective’s record of discipline under s. 22 of Alberta’s Police Service Regulation.

In 2023, the Crown told McKee’s counsel that it had records relating to the detective’s past misconduct and that the misconduct may be relevant because it was serious and had a realistic bearing on the detective’s credibility. EPS opposed disclosure, but the Crown said it would consent if McKee brought an application.

McKee did bring the application. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench held that the information of misconduct in the Decision of Hearing was relevant and disclosable as first-party information. The application was granted. With no other appeal route available, the Chief of the Edmonton Police Service appealed directly to the SCC.

What Was Argued at the SCC?

Appellant: The Chief of Police argues that once the disciplinary finding was removed from the detective’s record under s. 22, it should no longer be treated as first-party disclosure under McNeil. On this view, the Crown’s possession of the Decision of Hearing from a different prosecution should not determine the disclosure analysis in McKee’s case. The Chief’s position is that expunged police discipline records should not be treated as first-party disclosure in unrelated criminal proceedings and, if sought at all, should be handled through the stricter third-party record process.

Respondents: McKee and the Crown say the information should be disclosed because the Crown has it, reviewed it, and concluded that the misconduct was serious and realistically bore on the detective’s credibility. They argue that McNeil and Stinchcombe require disclosure of relevant information that may assist the accused in making full answer and defence. They also say s. 22 is about police discipline and employment consequences, not about limiting disclosure in a criminal trial.

What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?

If the Court sides with the Appellant Chief of Police, expunged discipline records may be harder for accused persons to obtain, even where the Crown knows about them and considers them relevant. If the Court sides with McKee and the Crown, police services may have to disclose relevant misconduct information notwithstanding provincial rules that remove discipline from an officer’s record after time passes.

I’m leaning toward appeal allowed with the Court trying to limit the implications of a broad interpretation of what is “in the possession of the Prosecuting Crown”. However, the application judge framed the issue as disclosure of relevant information of misconduct, not necessarily wholesale production of every disciplinary record. That distinction may give the SCC a way to dismiss the appeal while protecting fair-trial rights, and still recognizing privacy and rehabilitation concerns for police officers.

SCCbot

This season, we’re also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. This week, the SCCbot predicts the appeal will be dismissed (with ~85% confidence). It expects the Court to reaffirm McNeil and hold that a provincial regulation removing a police officer’s disciplinary record (PSR s. 22) cannot limit the Crown’s constitutional disclosure obligations in a criminal trial — both because criminal disclosure and relevance fall under federal jurisdiction, and because the “expunged” record was neither truly destroyed nor equivalent to a free pardon, so it remains relevant and the officer can still be cross-examined on it. SCCbot is now 10 for 15 in its predictions.

Previous Case Recap: Resler v. Anglin

Resler v. Anglin, 2026 SCC 23
Held (6:3): Appeal dismissed. Most of Anglin’s civil claim against Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer may proceed.

Key points:

• Anglin’s claim was not a collateral attack on the 2015 election result because he was not asking the court to undo the election or change who was elected.
• The claim was not an abuse of process because it raised allegations different from those decided in earlier proceedings.
• Parliamentary privilege did not bar the claim because the claim did not challenge the composition of the Legislative Assembly.
• Alberta’s Election Act protects the Chief Electoral Officer from proceedings for acts done in good faith, but Anglin alleged bad faith.
• The majority left the availability of loss-of-chance damages to be addressed later. The partial dissent would have struck that head of damages now.

📊 23% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly. The SCCbot got it right.

Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked today’s newsletter, we’d love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts

-Tom Slade