The Supreme Court of Canada has released what may become one of the most significant criminal disclosure decisions of the past decade. In Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, the Court unanimously reaffirmed a fundamental principle of Canadian criminal justice: the right of an accused person to receive all relevant information necessary to make full answer and defence cannot be defeated by administrative record-keeping policies.
For those concerned with wrongful convictions, this decision is particularly important.
The Background
John McKee was charged with a number of drug and firearms offences arising from an Edmonton Police Service investigation.
During the proceedings, the defence learned by chance that the lead investigating detective had previously been found guilty of police misconduct. However, that disciplinary finding had been administratively removed from the officer’s disciplinary record under Alberta regulations requiring certain records to be destroyed after a prescribed period.
The Edmonton Police Service argued that because the disciplinary record had been legally expunged, it no longer formed part of the officer’s record and therefore did not have to be disclosed.
The Supreme Court rejected that position.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Martin, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that administrative expungement does not erase disclosure obligations in criminal proceedings.
If police misconduct has a realistic bearing on an officer’s credibility or reliability as a witness, it may still constitute information that the Crown must disclose to the defence.
The Court emphasized that disclosure obligations established in R. v. Stinchcombe and R. v. McNeil cannot be circumvented simply because disciplinary information has been removed from an administrative personnel file.
In particular, the Court held that:
- police services have a continuing obligation to provide relevant misconduct information to Crown prosecutors;
- once the Crown possesses and determines that the information is relevant, it becomes first-party disclosure and must ordinarily be provided to the defence;
- accused persons should not be forced to bring unnecessary court applications to obtain material that ought to have been disclosed automatically; and
- administrative destruction or expungement does not render otherwise relevant misconduct evidence legally irrelevant.
The Court was unequivocal:
Administrative expungement does not eliminate an accused person’s constitutional right to disclosure.
Why This Matters
Disclosure failures remain one of the leading contributors to wrongful convictions in Canada.
Numerous Canadian exonerations have involved situations where critical information was never disclosed to the defence, including:
- police misconduct;
- witness credibility issues;
- undisclosed benefits provided to witnesses;
- forensic concerns;
- investigative tunnel vision; and
- exculpatory evidence held by police or prosecutors.
The integrity of the criminal justice system depends upon the defence receiving all relevant information before trial—not merely the information police choose to retain in their official files.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that constitutional disclosure obligations arise from the accused’s right to a fair trial, not from the internal record-management practices of police organizations.
Implications for Future Cases
The McKee decision is likely to have significant implications across Canada.
Police services will need to ensure that historical disciplinary findings capable of affecting an officer’s credibility remain accessible for disclosure purposes, even where provincial regulations provide for administrative expungement.
Crown prosecutors may also be required to revisit their disclosure practices to ensure that potentially relevant police misconduct information is identified and disclosed early in criminal proceedings.
For defence counsel, the decision provides stronger authority for seeking disclosure whenever there is reason to believe an investigating officer has previously been the subject of substantiated misconduct findings.
A Victory for Transparency
At Miscarriage of Justice Canada, we have consistently maintained that transparency is one of the strongest safeguards against wrongful convictions.
When relevant evidence is withheld—whether intentionally or inadvertently—the fairness of the trial process is compromised. Confidence in the administration of justice depends upon complete and timely disclosure.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee reinforces an essential constitutional principle: administrative procedures cannot override an accused person’s right to a fair trial.
That principle protects not only the individual accused, but the integrity of Canada’s entire criminal justice system.
As Canada prepares for the full implementation of the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission, decisions such as McKee serve as an important reminder that wrongful convictions often arise not from a single error, but from cumulative failures in disclosure, investigation, and accountability.
Greater transparency remains one of the most effective safeguards against those failures—and one of the strongest protections for the innocent.