Joshua Frost

In a trial for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought to qualify a police sergeant as an expert witness on the sale and distribution of drugs.

The accused opposed the qualification, arguing the officer lacked special knowledge and was biased because he belonged to the same drug enforcement unit as the investigating officers.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, finding the officer had the requisite experience and understood his duty to be fair and impartial.

The court held that being from the same police service did not automatically disqualify the expert, and admitted the evidence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after having intercourse with his roommate's girlfriend while she was passed out on a couch.

The accused raised the defence of automatism, arguing he was in a state of extreme intoxication from consuming alcohol, marijuana, and GHB.

The court found the complainant was incapable of consenting and did not consent.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he consumed GHB, finding he was not extremely intoxicated and therefore not in a state of automatism.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused were tried for multiple offences arising from the armed robbery of a restaurant.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's presence at an apartment where stolen property was found shortly after the robbery.

The court found that the evidence against one accused was not sufficient to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, as his presence could be explained by other rational inferences.

However, the court found the other accused guilty, concluding that his prior employment at the restaurant, possession of stolen currency, and other circumstantial factors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a party to the robbery.