The court ruled on whether a Drug Recognition Officer must qualify through a Mohan voir dire before providing expert opinion evidence regarding drug impairment.
The accused challenged the scientific basis of drug recognition testing, arguing that expert evidence proving the reliability of the science was required before a DRE could testify.
The Crown argued that Parliament had already conducted its own voir dire when amending the Criminal Code and that accreditation under the applicable regulations was sufficient.
The court held that no Mohan voir dire is required if the officer meets the regulatory accreditation criteria, as Parliament has legislated the qualifications and found the science sufficiently reliable.
Any challenge to the science itself should be brought as a constitutional question.
