Paul A. Bailey

The appellants appealed their summary convictions and sentences for various regulatory offences under the Fish Inspection Act and Food and Drugs Act relating to the commercial importation of fish products.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, permitted an abuse of process, failed to assist the self-represented accused, and that their right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, that the trial judge provided reasonable assistance, and that the delay was largely attributable to the appellants themselves.

During a trial for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert witness on the consumption and distribution of fentanyl.

The defence challenged the officer's admissibility, arguing a lack of necessity, qualifications, and independence due to his involvement in the execution of a search warrant in the case.

Applying the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, the court found the officer was qualified and capable of fulfilling his duty to the court, given his minor role in the investigation.

The officer was accepted as an expert, but prohibited from opining on the ultimate issue of whether the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicants, charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The case had a complex history spanning over five years, including two mistrials.

The court applied the Morin framework to assess the delay.

For one applicant, the court found the institutional delay exceeded the guidelines and he suffered significant prejudice, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

For the other applicant, the court found no violation due to his express waiver of a substantial period of delay, his counsel's scheduling conflicts, and lesser prejudice, dismissing his application.