The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal to stand trial for offences relating to a large marijuana grow operation.
He argued there was insufficient evidence linking him to the property and insufficient evidence that the seized plants were marijuana because no certificate of analysis had been filed.
Applying the standard articulated in R. v. Arcuri, the court held that the reviewing judge’s role is limited to determining whether there was any evidence upon which the preliminary inquiry judge could conclude the evidence was sufficient to commit the accused to trial.
The court found there was some circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the property and vehicles observed at the grow operation, and some evidence identifying the seized plants as marijuana based on the officer’s observations and experience.
As a result, the application to quash the committal was dismissed.
