This ruling addresses the admissibility of Crown expert evidence in a criminal trial concerning firearm offences.
The Crown sought to introduce opinion evidence from Sgt. Peter Reinjtes regarding firearm classification, functioning, and comparison, specifically to link a seized firearm to one seen in a social media video, and to comment on the firearm's prevalence.
The defence conceded classification and functioning but contested the comparison and prevalence evidence.
Applying the Mohan framework, the court found the comparison evidence logically relevant and necessary to assist the trier of fact, particularly regarding unique markings and their significance.
However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on the firearm's prevalence, deeming it unreliable due to a lack of normative data and reliance on anecdotal experience.
The assessment of the expert's duty to the court was reserved for further inquiry during the trial.
