The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence travel to Bermuda as circumstantial evidence in a trial for exporting fentanyl.
The accused objected, arguing the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and invited moral prejudice based on religion and economic status.
The court found the travel records relevant as part of a matrix of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the offence.
The court dismissed the accused's arguments regarding prejudice, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any minimal prejudicial effect, and ruled the evidence admissible.
