L. Mathews

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

The accused, charged with possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, sought a Rowbotham order requiring the state to fund counsel of his choice after Legal Aid refused authorization to replace previously retained counsel.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing state-funded counsel and emphasized that an accused must demonstrate financial inability to retain counsel and that representation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The accused failed to provide evidence of financial inability and primarily sought publicly funded counsel of choice after discharging previous counsel.

The court found the case was not overly complex and that the accused was capable of conducting his defence.

The application for state-funded counsel was dismissed, but amicus curiae was appointed to assist the court and ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings.