Celine Dostaler

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert witness on outlaw motorcycle gangs, specifically the Hells Angels and Red Devils, in a trial where the accused allegedly attempted to forcibly remove a victim's gang-related tattoo.

The defence opposed the qualification, arguing the evidence was unnecessary, unreliable, and the officer lacked proper qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the officer was properly qualified based on her extensive experience.

The court ruled her evidence on gang structure and culture was necessary, but excluded her proposed testimony interpreting text messages and her evidence on tattoo removal practices that relied on inherently suspect hearsay.

The Crown applied for a mistrial after the trial judge engaged in an off‑the‑record conversation with the officer‑in‑charge about matters related to the case following the release of guilty verdicts but before sentencing.

The judge acknowledged the conversation occurred in chambers without counsel present and related to a website mentioned in the evidence, though no information about the complainant had been obtained.

While the judge maintained the ability to disregard any information received, the court concluded that the conversation created a reasonable apprehension of bias affecting the perceived fairness of the process.

Given that the court was not functus officio regarding counts awaiting sentence, the judge exercised the authority to vacate the adjudications of guilt prior to sentencing.

A mistrial was ordered and the guilty findings were set aside.

The accused was tried on multiple charges arising from an incident involving a complainant and her teenage daughter, including sexual assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unlawful confinement, assault, and breaches of recognizance conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching recognizance conditions.

At trial, the court closely scrutinized the credibility of the complainant and the testimony of the daughter who was present during the events.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and credibility concerns in the complainant’s evidence and preferred the daughter’s testimony on key issues.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove sexual assault, weapon possession for a dangerous purpose, or unlawful confinement beyond a reasonable doubt, but found the accused guilty of the included offence of simple assault based on minor injuries observed by medical evidence.