Gordon Norsworthy

The Crown sought to have a certified drug recognition expert (evaluating officer) testify regarding their opinion on whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, without requiring the officer to meet the formal expert qualification criteria established in R. v. Mohan and R. v. J.-L.J. The accused argued that while the evaluating officer could testify about the evaluation tests and procedures conducted, any opinion on impairment would require formal expert qualification unless it was solely for the purpose of making a demand under section 254(3.4) of the Criminal Code.

The court ruled that a certified drug recognition expert accredited by the International Association of Chiefs of Police may provide expert opinion evidence regarding drug impairment without a Mohan voir dire, as Parliament intended through the enactment of the relevant legislation and regulations.

The court also permitted the accused to call expert evidence challenging the scientific validity of the evaluation tests without requiring constitutional notice.

The accused was charged with sexual interference involving a complainant under the age of consent and sexual assault involving a separate complainant.

The trial required the court to assess credibility where the accused denied any sexual conduct with the younger complainant and denied the alleged assault.

Applying the framework from R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed the evidence of multiple witnesses, including corroborative circumstantial evidence such as descriptions of the accused’s residence, tattoos, and the nature of the relationship between the accused and the younger complainant.

The court found the complainants’ evidence credible and rejected the accused’s explanations as implausible.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.