The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from a police sergeant regarding the dangers associated with the production and consumption of cannabis concentrate ("shatter") as aggravating factors in sentencing for drug trafficking.
The defendant opposed the admission of this evidence.
The court conducted an admissibility voir dire and determined that the proposed expert evidence should not be received.
The court found that the evidence failed to meet the threshold requirements for admissibility under the Mohan test, particularly regarding relevance, necessity, and the qualifications of the proposed expert witness.
