The Crown sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from an RCMP analyst comparing camouflage clothing seized from the accused's residence with clothing worn by a masked individual in a terrorist propaganda video.
The accused challenged the admissibility of the comparison evidence.
The court excluded the comparison evidence, finding it was not necessary as the trier of fact could make the comparison without expert assistance.
The court also found the proposed expert was not duly qualified to opine on camouflage patterns due to limited and dated training, and noted concerns regarding confirmation bias and reliability.
