41 total
Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove accused knew of rural marihuana grow operation.
The accused was charged with production of cannabis and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from a large marihuana grow operation discovered in rural Grey County.
The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the property and to individuals involved in the operation through agreements, documents, fuel accounts, and equipment purchases.
The court accepted that the accused had prior property and financial connections with certain individuals and properties but found no reliable evidence placing him at the grow operation or proving knowledge of the illegal activity.
The evidence was equally consistent with the possibility that the accused held an interest in the property but was unaware of the grow operation.
As the Crown failed to prove knowledge or participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on both counts.