S. Tsai

The applicant, previously acquitted by a jury in Bermuda of conspiracy to import fentanyl, applied for a stay of proceedings on a Canadian charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from the same events.

The applicant argued that issue estoppel applied because the Bermudan jury must have decided issues in his favour that would preclude a conviction in Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the identity of issues requirement, as the Bermudan jury's verdict could have been based on factors unrelated to the elements of the Canadian charge.

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.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of a statement made by the accused to RCMP officers while he was in custody in Bermuda awaiting trial for importing fentanyl.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive conditions, inducements, and police trickery.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the RCMP officers made no threats or promises, the conditions were not oppressive, and the accused maintained an operating mind throughout the interview.

The statement was ruled voluntary.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after returning to Canada from Jamaica with four tins containing the drug.

The accused admitted to importing the tins but claimed she did not know they contained cocaine, believing she was transporting non-drug items for a friend.

The defence sought to introduce expert psychological evidence regarding the accused's intellectual capacity to support her lack of knowledge, which the court ruled inadmissible as unnecessary for assessing credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt about her knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was acquitted.