During a jury trial involving alleged drug trafficking and criminal organization offences, the defence sought to call two expert witnesses to challenge the Crown’s interpretation of coded language in intercepted communications.
One proposed expert, a journalist, intended to testify about hip hop culture and marijuana terminology, while the other, a former police officer, had previously testified as an expert on drug-related street language but had not maintained his expertise.
Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan as refined by R. v. Abbey, the court found the proposed evidence either irrelevant, unnecessary, or offered by witnesses who were not properly qualified experts.
The court further held that admitting the evidence would provide minimal probative value while risking significant delay and prejudice to the trial process.
Both proposed experts were therefore excluded.
