The Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in fingerprint and palm print analysis and comparison using the ACE-V method.
The defence opposed the qualification, arguing that fingerprint analysis is not a science and that the ACE-V method is susceptible to confirmation bias and lacks fixed standards.
The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks for the admissibility of expert evidence.
The court found that the officer's extensive training and experience met the threshold requirements and that the evidence was sufficiently beneficial to the trial process to warrant admission, noting that defence concerns could be addressed in cross-examination.
