The appeal concerned whether a drug recognition expert’s opinion under s. 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code is automatically admissible at trial or remains governed by common law expert-evidence rules.
The majority held the provision does not create automatic admissibility, but found the statutory and regulatory framework conclusively establishes the expert’s specialized expertise for administering the 12-step evaluation.
On that basis, and with the other Mohan factors not in dispute, the opinion evidence was admissible without an additional voir dire in this case.
The dissent would have required proof of threshold reliability of the underlying science before admitting the opinion on impairment.
The appeal was dismissed and the new trial order was confirmed.
