The appellant was convicted of possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing a police officer to give an opinion on the ultimate issue of trafficking and in instructing the jury not to speculate about a missing witness.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in permitting the expert opinion on the ultimate issue, as it was not necessary and risked the jury accepting it without critical consideration of the evidence, particularly the absence of evidence on dosages and consumption rates.
The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding the error was not harmless.
The conviction was set aside, and the court requested submissions on substituting a conviction for simple possession and an appropriate sentence.
