H. Cedro

The accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from Panama with new suitcases containing the drug.

At the close of evidence in their jury trial, the Crown requested that the jury be instructed on wilful blindness as a substitute for actual knowledge.

The trial judge reviewed the evidence, including the accused's interactions with a suspicious individual who helped them buy the luggage, and their failure to inspect the bags.

The court concluded there was no air of reality to the doctrine of wilful blindness on the facts, as the circumstances were not so inherently suspicious as to suggest deliberate ignorance.

The Crown's request was denied, and the jury was to be instructed only on actual knowledge.

Four members of the Five Point Generals street gang were convicted of various offences including trafficking in cocaine and marihuana for the benefit of a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic, and firearms offences.

The court considered the application of the Kienapple rule and found it did not preclude multiple convictions for the conspiracy and substantive trafficking offences.

The court sentenced the offenders to total terms ranging from 5.5 to 9 years imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and the principle of totality.

During a jury trial involving alleged drug trafficking and criminal organization offences, the defence sought to call two expert witnesses to challenge the Crown’s interpretation of coded language in intercepted communications.

One proposed expert, a journalist, intended to testify about hip hop culture and marijuana terminology, while the other, a former police officer, had previously testified as an expert on drug-related street language but had not maintained his expertise.

Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan as refined by R. v. Abbey, the court found the proposed evidence either irrelevant, unnecessary, or offered by witnesses who were not properly qualified experts.

The court further held that admitting the evidence would provide minimal probative value while risking significant delay and prejudice to the trial process.

Both proposed experts were therefore excluded.