Avik Ghosh

Police responding to a dropped 911 call entered the wrong residence in exigent circumstances and discovered an operating pill-press drug laboratory.

The accused challenged only the brief pre-arrest detention and delayed right-to-counsel advice, but the court held the officers' actions were reasonable in a dynamic public-safety search; alternatively, any technical breach would not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

On the merits, the court held the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the laboratory and possessed the drugs and equipment, rejecting a mere-presence defence.

Findings of guilt were entered on the drug and one probation count, while two other counts were dismissed on Crown concession.

The defendant sought a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the Crown's case on drug-production, possession-for-the-purpose, probation breach, and ammunition-storage counts.

Applying the directed-verdict test and the limited weighing approach for circumstantial cases, the court held that the evidence was capable of supporting reasonable inferences that the defendant was a participant in a large-scale operating drug lab and was residing at the address contrary to probation.

The court distinguished authorities cautioning against any presumption arising from mere occupancy, emphasizing the scale, visibility, and active operation of the lab, the defendant's sole presence in the residence, and documents linking him to the home.

The application for dismissal was therefore denied.