K.L. McCleave

The Crown applied to admit expert opinion evidence from a dog track handler (Sgt. deRuiter) and a forensic toxicologist (Dr. Langille) in a criminal trial for impaired driving causing bodily harm and fail to remain.

The respondent objected to the scope and admissibility of the expert evidence.

The court applied the two-step inquiry for expert evidence admissibility, considering the Mohan criteria and the cost-benefit analysis from R. v. Abbey.

The court found both expert opinions relevant, necessary, and not subject to exclusionary rules, with qualified experts.

The probative value of the evidence, particularly given the lack of eyewitnesses and the injured party's memory loss, was deemed to outweigh any prejudicial effect.

The Crown's application was granted for both experts.

The accused, charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop, applied to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his jury trial.

The accused argued that sitting in the dock would prejudice his right to a fair trial, erode the presumption of innocence, and limit his ability to instruct counsel.

The Crown opposed the application, citing courtroom security, sight-lines, and the lack of exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, applying the principles from R. v. Gervais, and found that the accused failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances necessitating a departure from the customary practice of sitting in the dock.