The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The trial judge had excluded both lay opinion evidence and expert evidence from police officers trained as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), as well as a toxicology report, concluding that such evidence was inadmissible or failed to meet the Mohan criteria for expert evidence.
The appeal court held that lay witnesses, including police officers, may provide opinion evidence about impairment, and that trained DRE officers may give expert opinion evidence concerning drug impairment.
The court found that the trial judge erred in law by excluding the officers’ expert evidence and failing to consider the toxicology report.
As a result, the acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
