ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RICCO CAMARA
Before Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci
Heard on August 28, 2025
Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence released on November 26, 2025
Taylor Ormond.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Jaime Stephenson............................................ counsel for the accused Ricco Camara
FIORUCCI J.:
Overview
1On September 22, 2024, Hamilton police were dispatched to investigate a report that a male pulled out a gun and pointed it at a complainant. The police located the accused, Ricco Camara, who matched the description of the suspect. The accused was arrested and searched incident to arrest. In a cross-bag strapped to the accused, police located a handgun and ammunition in a magazine. In the accused’s pockets, police located drugs and cash. The accused was charged with firearms and ammunition offences on one information and drugs and proceeds of crime offences on a separate information.
2This prosecution relates to the drugs and proceeds of crime. The police charged the accused with possession of three Schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking, cocaine, fentanyl, and oxycodone. The proceeds charge relates to $1,660 in Canadian currency in various denominations that the police found on the accused’s person. The Crown stayed the oxycodone charge and proceeded with the fentanyl and cocaine charges. The accused admits knowledge and control of the fentanyl and cocaine. He denies that he possessed these substances for the purpose of trafficking and denies that the cash is proceeds of crime.
3The Crown seeks to elicit expert opinion evidence from Detective Constable Ryan Goch of the Hamilton Police Service to assist the court in drawing the inference that the accused was in possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown wants the officer qualified as an expert in relation to all three substances notwithstanding that the Crown directed a stay of proceedings to be entered in relation to the oxycodone charge. The defence contested the admissibility of expert evidence through Detective Constable Goch, saying that his evidence is not necessary and that he is not properly qualified.
4A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the proposed evidence. Detective Constable Goch was examined and cross-examined on the voir dire. These reasons explain why I qualify Detective Constable Goch to give expert opinion evidence in relation to cocaine and fentanyl but not oxycodone. In this ruling, I will set out the nature and scope of the expert evidence the Crown is permitted to tender through the officer.
Agreed Statement of Facts
5The accused entered not guilty pleas to the charges of possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000. The parties filed an agreed statement of facts setting out admissions the accused is prepared to make at his trial pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code.
6The accused admits that, when the police searched him incident to arrest, they found $1,660 Canadian in his left front jeans pocket, in the following denominations: (i) 4 x $5 bills, (ii) 4 x $10 bills, (iii) 40 x $20 bills, (iv) 10 x $50 bills, and (v) 3 x $100 bills.
7In the accused’s right rear jeans pocket, the police located a clear plastic bag with a red zip closure holding 30 pills of oxycodone. In his left rear jeans pocket was clear twisted plastic holding 19 small plastic dime bags containing p-Fluorofentanyl, an analogue of fentanyl. The 19 individual dime bags each contained the following amounts of p-Fluorofentanyl:
0.1 grams,
0.11 grams,
0.11 grams,
0.11 grams,
0.11 grams,
0.11 grams,
0.07 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.08 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.06 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.07 grams,
0.1 grams,
0.09 grams,
0.07 grams, and
0.06 grams.
8The combined weight of the p-Fluorofentanyl in the 19 dime bags was 1.75 grams.
9In the accused’s left rear jeans pocket, the police found twisted clear plastic holding 10 small, folded paper baggies containing cocaine. The 10 folded paper baggies contained the following amounts of cocaine:
0.18 grams,
0.17 grams,
0.22 grams,
0.21 grams,
0.14 grams,
0.18 grams,
0.16 grams,
0.19 grams,
0.18 grams, and
0.18 grams.
10The combined weight of the cocaine in the 10 paper baggies was 1.81 grams.
11On the ground near the accused, the police located three cell phones, a 9-millimetre bullet, and a silver bandana.
The Scope of the Proposed Expert Opinion Evidence
12Exhibit 1 on the voir dire is a statement filed by the Crown setting out the scope of the proposed expert opinion evidence. During submissions, Crown counsel made slight amendments to the scope of the proposed evidence. The Crown asks that Detective Constable Goch be qualified to give expert opinion evidence in relation to cocaine, fentanyl and oxycodone drug trafficking generally, and specifically pricing, quantity, street terminology and language, consumption habits of users, purchase patterns, conduct of drug trafficking and indicia of trafficking.1
The Admissibility Framework for Expert Opinion Evidence
13Expert opinion evidence is presumptively inadmissible. The party tendering the evidence must establish its admissibility on the balance of probabilities.2 A two-stage analysis governs the admissibility of such evidence. At the first stage, the party seeking to introduce the evidence is required to establish the following threshold requirements:
(1) that the evidence is logically relevant to an issue in the specific case;
(2) that the evidence is necessary;
(3) that the evidence does not infringe on an exclusionary rule of evidence;
(4) that the expert is properly qualified.3
14If the threshold criteria are met, the analysis moves on to the “gatekeeper” stage, where the judge engages in a case-specific cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the benefits of admitting the evidence outweigh the costs.4 This stage focuses on the legal relevance and reliability of the evidence.
15In the accused’s case, the defence contested admission only on the bases that the evidence is not necessary, and Detective Constable Goch is not properly qualified. I will nonetheless address the other requirements of admissibility for sake of completeness and because it will assist in explaining my finding regarding the oxycodone.
Threshold Inquiry
Relevance
16At the threshold stage, relevance refers to logical relevance. In R. v. Abbey, Justice Doherty said that the evidence must “have a tendency as a matter of human experience and logic to make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue more or less likely than it would be without that evidence”.5
17In R. v. (J.-L.), the Supreme Court of Canada provided a slightly different definition, saying that evidence is relevant “where it has some tendency as a matter of logic and human experience to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than that proposition would appear to be in the absence of that evidence”.6 The SCC said that this concept of relevance-“some tendency”- provides a low threshold. It is different from legal relevance which is assessed at the “gatekeeper” stage, where the judge must determine, on balance whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs the potential prejudice or impact on the trial process.7
18The accused is charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking which requires the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of these illegal substances (the actus reus) and that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking (the mens rea). The evidence the Crown seeks to adduce through Detective Constable Goch - the conduct associated with drug trafficking of cocaine and fentanyl, including pricing, quantity, street terminology and language, consumption habits of users, purchase patterns, and indicia of trafficking - is relevant to the issue of whether the accused was in possession of these substances for the purpose of trafficking.
19The Crown has not articulated with sufficient clarity how the officer’s proposed expert opinion evidence regarding oxycodone is relevant to a fact in issue in this litigation. The Crown stayed the charge relating to oxycodone. In submissions, Crown counsel said that evidence about the oxycodone was “peripherally relevant” and acknowledged that, on the voir dire, she did not spend as much time questioning Detective Constable Goch about oxycodone. Crown counsel alluded to the fact that oxycodone, like the cocaine and fentanyl, was an item of value that the police located on the accused’s person. However, this does not establish on the balance of probabilities that the officer’s proposed expert opinion evidence regarding oxycodone is relevant to the material issue in this case, which is the purpose for which the accused was in possession of cocaine and fentanyl. The Crown’s application to elicit expert opinion evidence about oxycodone fails at this stage.
Necessity
20To be necessary, the opinion must provide information “which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury”.8 The evidence must be more than merely helpful, but necessity need not be judged by too strict a standard.9 Absolute necessity is not required.10 The expert evidence must be necessary to allow the trier of fact to either “appreciate the facts due to their technical nature”, or “to form a correct judgment on a matter if ordinary persons are unlikely to do so without the assistance of persons with special knowledge”.11
21Defence counsel says that Detective Constable Goch’s evidence is not necessary because the agreed statement of facts shows that this is a straightforward case requiring me to determine whether the accused was in possession of the cocaine and the fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The defence submits that I can form my own conclusions on that issue from the proven facts, without the expert opinion evidence.
22With respect, the defence position assumes that I am approaching the question of the accused’s purpose for possessing the illegal substances with experience and knowledge of the consumption and sale of cocaine and fentanyl. Because expert opinion evidence regarding drug trafficking practices is generally admissible, it may be that certain portions of Detective Constable Goch’s evidence will be familiar to me, having heard similar evidence in past cases. However, as the officer pointed out in his evidence on the voir dire, he routinely consults with other investigators and drug experts to keep current on drug trends including pricing, suggesting that the information an officer can provide about drug trafficking practices, including things such as pricing and quantities, is not fixed but can evolve. The information that Detective Constable Goch would convey to the court are not facts upon which judicial notice can be taken because they are so commonly accepted as accurate that evidentiary proof is not required.
23Expert evidence is admissible to explain the practices and habits of drug traffickers, including the significance of quantities, packaging, and pricing, because these matters are outside the knowledge of ordinary jurors and judges, and are necessary to assist the trier of fact in determining whether possession was for personal use or for the purpose of trafficking.12
24I find that the evidence about drug trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl and consumption habits of users that the Crown seeks to adduce is outside my experience and knowledge and is necessary for me to form a correct judgment on the issue of whether the accused was in possession of the substances for the purpose of trafficking.
Absence of Any Exclusionary Rule
25It was not argued that any exclusionary rule barred the admissibility of the proposed expert opinion evidence, and none presents itself on the evidence led on the voir dire.13
Properly Qualified Expert
26To find that the witness is a properly qualified expert, the court must be satisfied of two things on a balance of probabilities:
(1) the witness must have “acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify”;14 and
(2) the witness must be willing and able to discharge their duty to the court by providing evidence that is impartial, independent, and unbiased.15
27The accused concedes that the second requirement is met in this case. Detective Constable Goch testified that he understands his duty as an expert, which he stated is to provide fair, objective, impartial information and assistance to the court. He said that he is able to do so. A party that opposes the admission of the evidence has the burden of showing that there is a realistic concern that the expert’s evidence should not be received because he is unable and/or unwilling to comply with his duty to provide impartial, independent and unbiased evidence.16 The accused did not raise any such concern.
28The focus of the accused’s challenge is on the scope of Detective Constable Goch’s expertise. The threshold for becoming qualified as an expert is not onerous.17 The party calling the expert must simply demonstrate that the expert “acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience”. As the SCC stated in R. v. Bingley, “[t]he basic requirement of expertise for an expert witness is that the witness has expertise outside the experience and knowledge of the trier of fact”.18 The question is whether Detective Constable Goch meets this requirement. I find that he does in respect of both cocaine and fentanyl.
29Detective Constable Goch has not previously been qualified by a court to give expert opinion evidence. This is the first time that the officer has proposed himself as an expert witness. His Curriculum Vitae is Exhibit 2 on the voir dire. He was not involved in the investigation of the accused.
30Detective Constable Goch has been a police officer with the Hamilton Police Service since December 2015. He was a police constable in a uniform capacity until December 2021. In that six-year period, he estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of his work involved some type of drug-related incident which might arise from investigating non-drug related matters. About 5 to 10 percent of his work in uniform patrol was made up specifically of CDSA investigations, meaning that it was the primary concern of the investigation. He gave the examples of a call for service by someone witnessing drug activity, or a proactive investigation into drug possession or trafficking, for instance during traffic stops. The CDSA investigations involved a mix of simple possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking.
31From January 2022 to September 2023, Detective Constable Goch was a police constable in the High Enforcement Action Team, known as the HEAT Unit. He described this as a mix between proactive work and response to community complaints. Detective Constable Goch testified that the majority of community complaints were drug-related, “whether it was Crime Stoppers or handling informants, receiving information in person”. He estimated that 60 to 80 percent of his work in the HEAT Unit was CDSA investigations, close to half of them involving cocaine and about half of them involving fentanyl.
32From October 2023 to present, Detective Constable Goch has been in the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit. The officer said that the main focus of this unit is a higher level of drug trafficking than what the HEAT Unit would deal with, as well as weapons possession offences. He testified that the majority of the work is CDSA drug investigations, estimating it to be about 95 percent of his work, and mostly involving s. 5(2) CDSA offences. Again, he said that in Major Drugs and Gangs about half of the investigations involve cocaine and about half involve fentanyl. Some of the investigations involve both cocaine and fentanyl.
33Detective Constable Goch testified that in his ten years of police work, he has been involved in over 50 arrests for s. 4(1) CDSA offences and has participated in searches incident to these arrests. During these searches, he has located drugs, observed the quantities of drugs, the ways the drugs were packaged, how they were separated, the typical weights that they were packaged in, and how the drugs were concealed. During these s. 4(1) CDSA arrests, he had occasion to locate paraphernalia of use, which oftentimes included burnt tinfoil, glass pipes, lighters and sometimes needles.
34Detective Constable Goch estimated that in the same ten-year period, he was involved in over 50 arrests for s. 5(2) CDSA offences. He has been involved in the searches incident to arrest for these matters and estimates that 50 percent of them involved cocaine and 50 percent involved fentanyl. From these arrests, he was able to observe the quantity of drugs seized and has learned other things like “the way in which the drugs are packaged”. He has located indicia of trafficking, such as scales, cutting agents, and colouring dyes. He testified that weapons are commonly seized when executing warrants in the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit.
35In relation to the s. 5(2) CDSA arrests, Detective Constable Goch was asked about the quantity of drugs seized. He replied, “[t]he smallest is sometimes a point or two, like, 0.1 grams, very, very small packaging. Up to multiple kilograms at a time”. When asked if that was for both fentanyl and cocaine, he said: “Yes. The fentanyl is I would say is more often in the point form. Cocaine is sometimes in a gram or a few grams, something – still small quantities but not quite 0.1 grams. Up to multi-kilo level”.
36Detective Constable Goch has debriefed individuals arrested for both s. 4(1) and 5(2) CDSA offences. He has most commonly debriefed users and traffickers of cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine, but also other drugs like prescription pills, heroin and MDMA. From his debriefs with drug traffickers, he has learned, “[a]nything from the manner in which drugs are trafficked in terms of whether it’s on foot, doing hand-to-hands, or in a vehicle or how they’re meeting up, the quantities that they’re typically operating within, the pricing, the lingo and street terminology that they refer to these drugs as, the I’m not sure if I mentioned packaging but the way they package their drugs, where that particular user/dealer might meet the other half to conduct their business, things of that nature”.
37In both the HEAT Unit and the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit, Detective Constable Goch has performed tasks which have contributed to the officer attaining specialized knowledge about drug trafficking in both cocaine and fentanyl. He has been an affiant for numerous section 11 CDSA search warrants for both fentanyl and cocaine. He estimated that half of these warrants involved cocaine and half involved fentanyl. Some of the search warrants involved both substances. While in Major Drugs and Gangs, he has been an affiant in 8 to 10 cases and been the affiant in 5 to 10 cases in HEAT.
38As an exhibit officer in both units, Detective Constable Goch has photographed and sometimes created a video of substances found during the execution of search warrants. He was tasked with going through the exhibits, categorizing them, and submitting information electronically in the NICHE system. When asked by Crown counsel what type of information he learned from acting as an exhibit officer, Detective Constable Goch replied:
You frequently see a variety of different drugs. Not only do you have your own experience and knowledge of what you believe it to be, but you also have the searching officers with sometimes less experience, equal, or more experience than myself and they’re also telling you what they believe it is, so that kind of gives you some confidence if you’re kind of on that same page. So, you’re handling these drugs, you’re seeing the different textures, the different colours, the way they are packaged, the different, like, common weights that they’re found together, things of that nature.
39While in Major Drugs and Gangs, as an exhibit officer, he also obtained samples of substances to be sent to Health Canada for analysis. He confirmed in his testimony on the voir dire that he handled both cocaine and fentanyl to send samples to Health Canada and in doing so, he observed the quantities, how they were packaged and what the drugs looked like. While in Major Drugs and Gangs, he has been an exhibit officer 8 to 10 times.
40In both units, Detective Constable Goch has handled confidential human sources/informants, obtaining information relating to the operations of drug dealers, their way of conducting business, their unique language, and their pricing for buyers and dealers. On the voir dire, Detective Constable Goch testified that from informants he learned about “specific parties that are dealing drugs, the locations that they’re dealing at, the average or range of quantities that they typically get involved in, the pricing, the specific drugs themselves, which drugs they offer for sale, sometimes the way they’re packaged, if they have, like, a sort of signature or trademark way of doing it”.
41The vast majority of informants he dealt with in the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit were drug traffickers, but he also handled informants who were users. Detective Constable Goch estimated that 50 percent of the information he received involved fentanyl and cocaine.
42When he has been an Officer in Charge (OIC) for CDSA investigations, he has participated in court preparation including disclosure. He estimated that he was an OIC 10 times in the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit and 5 to 10 times in HEAT. He has conducted surveillance in various capacities, covertly observing drug dealers and users to determine their means of conducting business and lifestyle habits.
43He has been a searching officer, assisting with the execution of warrants for residences and vehicles, during which he has located drugs, weapons, cutting agents, debt lists, cell phones and other items. As a searching officer, Detective Constable Goch has found cocaine 50 percent of the time and fentanyl 50 percent of the time. In this role, he has observed how drug dealers conceal, package and store their product. He has been a searching officer 20 or more times in Major Drugs and Gangs and between 10 and 20 times in HEAT.
44Another task he has performed in both units is the review of mobile device downloads from devices which were seized during the execution of s. 11 CDSA search warrants. In this role, Detective Constable Goch has gained knowledge about the conduct of drug dealers including drug trends, pricing and packaging. In his testimony at the voir dire, the officer expanded on the knowledge he has gained from reviewing cell phone extractions, saying that:
…you see the terminology of various drugs, sometimes you see stuff you don’t necessarily recognize; you have to reach out to whether it’s coworkers or members. At that time when I was in the HEAT Unit, sometimes members in the Drug Unit with a bit more experience to see what different terminology and lingo means. And then you’re also seeing the manner in which they deal, again, whether it’s setting up a deal at their own house or meeting in a car. You also see the pricing that they set for different quantities, you get a sense of what quantities they most often deal with based on kind of the pattern that is shown in their messages and pictures.
45Detective Constable Goch’s Curriculum Vitae lists numerous courses he has participated in and training he has received. These courses include Introduction to Expert Witness (CISO) in May 2025 and Drug Investigator Training (OPC) in November 2024. The latter was a two-week course which provided information on investigating drug trafficking, and included case studies, warrant drafting, undercover operations, and current trends in the illicit drug market. Detective Constable Goch testified that the Drug Investigator Training course covered both cocaine and fentanyl and the drug trends associated with these substances.
46In addition to courses attended, Detective Constable Goch testified that he expands his knowledge about drugs and drug trafficking almost daily by consulting with colleagues in both the Major Drugs and Gangs Unit and the HEAT unit, as well as experts in the area. He said that they frequently talk about how they are doing investigations or the trends they are seeing, such as what drugs are most popular at any given time, different packaging methods, different textures and colours. Detective Constable Goch said that nearly every time he has these conversations with colleagues, they discuss cocaine and fentanyl which he said are “two of the most common drugs that we see in the city”. He said that “speaking about drugs specifically, it keeps us up-to-date on trends, pricing, investigative techniques, other experiences…”.
47In cross-examination, defence counsel asked Detective Constable Goch how often he would talk to other Hamilton drug officers who have provided expert testimony to ask them specific questions that would impact his ability to provide the opinion evidence he seeks to give in this case. Detective Constable Goch said this would happen weekly.
48When pressed by defence counsel who asked whether these were “like a tutorial”, Detective Constable Goch expanded on the types of discussions he would have with other officers. For instance, if an officer was assigned to do an expert report: “it’s very common that somebody says, ‘Oh, yeah, I have an expert that came up for kind of this set of circumstances, this is what I’m thinking’”. This evidence displays a willingness on the part of Detective Constable Goch to expand his knowledge base and ensure that he and other officers remain knowledgeable and informed on current trends. Based on the totality of Detective Constable Goch’s evidence, I remain satisfied that, although he consults with other officers, he is willing and able to provide the court with his independent, impartial and unbiased opinions, supported by his training and experience and not strictly the input of others.
49Detective Constable Goch gave evidence that personal observations he has made while, for instance, acting as an exhibit officer, are consistent with information he has learned in courses, in discussions he has had with other officers about their cocaine and fentanyl drug trafficking cases, and information he has received when debriefing users and traffickers about cocaine and fentanyl.
50Detective Constable Goch has been designated by the Hamilton Police Service Training Branch as an approved instructor for the Drug Presentation Seminar for groups of new HPS recruits, Hamilton EMS paramedics and for youth in community outreach programs.
51I find that Detective Constable Goch has the requisite level of knowledge to testify and provide expert opinion evidence of the nature and scope proposed by the Crown for both cocaine and fentanyl. He has gained knowledge through personal work experiences, debriefs of drug users and traffickers, handling of confidential human sources/informants, attendance at courses and conversations with fellow drug officers and drug experts. The knowledge he has accumulated is outside the knowledge and experience of this court.
52Defence counsel’s challenge to Detective Constable Goch’s qualifications focused on dissecting the tasks he performed and courses he attended individually, saying that certain tasks and courses would not assist him in providing the case-specific evidence he is being asked to give in the accused’s case. For instance, being an affiant for a search warrant would not assist with gaining knowledge about pricing and packaging of fentanyl or cocaine. With respect, it is necessary to consider the officer's training and experience holistically to determine whether he is qualified to give the proposed expert evidence. Having done so, I find that he is a properly qualified expert in the areas delineated by Crown counsel.
Discretionary Gatekeeping
53At the second discretionary gatekeeping step, “the judge balances the potential risks and benefits of admitting the evidence in order to decide whether the potential benefits justify the risks”.19 In White Burgess, the SCC said this about the case-specific cost-benefit analysis that happens at this stage:
The required balancing exercise has been described in various ways. In Mohan, Sopinka J. spoke of the “reliability versus effect factor” (p. 21), while in J.(J.-L.), Binnie J. spoke about “relevance, reliability and necessity” being “measured against the counterweights of consumption of time, prejudice and confusion”: para 47. Doherty J.A. summed it up well in Abbey, stating that the “trial judge must decide whether expert evidence that meets the preconditions to admissibility is sufficiently beneficial to the trial process to warrant its admission despite the potential harm to the trial process that may flow from the admission of the expert evidence”: para. 76.20
54Despite satisfying the Mohan criteria, the proposed expert evidence may still be ruled inadmissible where its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The SCC put it this way in White Burgess:
At this point, relevance, necessity, reliability and absence of bias can helpfully be seen as part of a sliding scale where a basic level must first be achieved in order to meet the admissibility threshold and thereafter continue to play a role in weighing the overall competing considerations in admitting the evidence.21
55In Abbey, Justice Doherty explained the “benefit” and “cost” sides of the analysis as follows:
The “benefit” side of the cost-benefit evaluation requires a consideration of the probative potential of the evidence and the significance of the issue to which the evidence is directed. When one looks to potential probative value, one must consider the reliability of the evidence. Reliability concerns reach not only the subject matter of the evidence, but also the methodology used by the proposed expert in arriving at his or her opinion, the expert’s expertise and the extent to which the expert is shown to be impartial and objective.
The “cost” side of the ledger addresses the various risks inherent in the admissibility of expert opinion evidence, described succinctly by Binnie J. in J.(J.-L.) at para. 47 as “consumption of time, prejudice and confusion”. Clearly, the most important risk is the danger that a jury will be unable to make an effective and critical assessment of the evidence. The complexity of the material underlying the opinion, the expert’s impressive credentials, the impenetrable jargon in which the opinion is wrapped and the cross-examiner’s inability to expose the opinion’s shortcomings may prevent an effective evaluation of the evidence by the jury. There is a risk that a jury faced with a well presented firm opinion may abdicate its fact-finding role on the understandable assumption that a person labelled as an expert by the trial judge knows more about his or her area of expertise than do the individual members of the jury: J.(J.-L.) at para. 25.22
56Justice Doherty went onto say this about the need to consider whether the expert evidence is necessary at this gatekeeper stage of the admissibility inquiry:
The cost-benefit analysis demands a consideration of the extent to which the proffered opinion evidence is necessary to a proper adjudication of the fact(s) to which that evidence is directed. In Mohan, Sopinka J. describes necessity as a separate criterion governing admissibility. I see the necessity analysis as a part of the larger cost-benefit analysis performed by the trial judge. In relocating the necessity analysis, I do not, however, depart from the role assigned to necessity by the Mohan criteria.23
57The proffered evidence is relevant to the issue at the very core of the case which is the reason for which the accused was in possession of the fentanyl and cocaine. The evidence Detective Constable Goch will give is reliable in the sense that it has been attained by various means including professional experience, training and consultation with colleagues and the defence concedes that he is able and willing to give impartial, independent and unbiased evidence. The evidence is necessary as it is outside the knowledge and experience of the court. The costs associated with receiving the evidence do not outweigh the benefits in receiving it. The testimony of Detective Constable Goch will not consume undue trial time and is not complex. This type of evidence is routinely received in cases where the central issue is possession versus possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Conclusion
58Detective Constable Goch is permitted to testify as an expert in relation to cocaine and fentanyl drug trafficking generally, and specifically pricing, quantity, street terminology and language, consumption habits of users, purchase patterns, conduct of drug trafficking and indicia of trafficking.
Released: November 26, 2025
Signed: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci
Footnotes
- During submissions, Crown counsel, Ms. Ormond, conceded that storage habits of drug traffickers is not relevant in the context of the accused’s case and is perhaps subsumed in the conduct of drug trafficking.
- R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, at para. 71.
- Modern Criminal Evidence, Matthew Gourlay, Brock Jones, Jill Makepeace, Glen Crisp, Justice Renee Pomerance, Toronto, Ont.: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2022, Chapter 4, pp. 93-94. See R. v. Mohan, 1994 SCC 80, at paras. 17-21. Where an opinion is based on contested science or on science being used for a novel purpose, a fifth threshold requirement must be established, which is that the underlying science is sufficiently reliable for that purpose. This fifth threshold requirement has no applicability to the accused’s case.
- White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, at paras. 16 and 24.
- R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, at para. 82.
- R. v. J. (J.-L.), 2000 SCC 51, at para. 47, citing D.M. Paciocco and L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (1996), at p. 19.
- Ibid, at para. 47.
- R. v. Mohan, supra, at para. 26, citing R. v. Abbey, 1982 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24.
- R. v Mohan, supra, at para. 26.
- R. v. D.(D.), 2000 SCC 43, at para. 21.
- Ibid, at para. 47, citing J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed. 1999), at p. 620.
- R. v. Bryan (2003), 2003 CanLII 24337 (ON CA), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 285, [2003] O.J. No. 1960 (Ont. C.A.).
- The authors of Modern Criminal Evidence, supra, at p. 98, note that “[m]ost, if not all, expert opinions are based in part on hearsay evidence in the form of academic sources, out-of-court interviews, and other second hand information that may never be tested in court”, and that, “[a]lthough the exclusionary hearsay rule may be invoked to limit an opinion based on such evidence, in almost all cases this information will find its way before the trier of fact based on the principle that if an expert is allowed to give their opinion, they ought to also be permitted to give the circumstances upon which that opinion is based”. Hearsay that forms the basis of the expert’s expertise are “considered part of the tools of the trade of the expert, including knowledge that comes from secondary sources, such as books and articles, as well as from attending lectures and interacting with colleagues”: See R. v. Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, at 898-99; R. v. Sheriffe, 2015 ONCA 880, at para. 113.
- R. v. Mohan, supra, at para. 31.
- White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., supra.
- Ibid, at paras. 47-49.
- Qualifying and Challenging Expert Evidence, Eric V. Gottardi, Jennifer A. MacLellan, Michael Lacy, and Robin Flumerfelt, Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2022, Toronto, ON, Chapter 3, p. 53.
- R. v. Bingley, 2017 SCC 12, at para. 19.
- White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., supra, at para. 24.
- Ibid, at para. 24.
- Ibid, at para. 54.
- R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, at paras. 87 and 90.
- Ibid, at para. 93.