2 total
Selling legal goods knowing they will be used illegally does not establish conspiracy without mutual objective.
The appellant operated a garden supply business and sold legal products to customers who used them in marijuana grow operations.
He was convicted of conspiracy to produce and traffic marijuana, as well as the substantive offences of production and possession for the purpose of trafficking.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conspiracy convictions, holding that selling legal goods with knowledge of their intended illegal use does not make one a party to a conspiracy without a shared mutual objective.
However, the court upheld the substantive convictions on the basis that the appellant actually aided and abetted specific grow operations.
The Crown's appeal against the appellant's acquittal for money laundering was dismissed.
Partial forfeiture of a residential property used for a marijuana grow operation was ordered.
The Crown applied for forfeiture of the defendant's townhouse under section 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the defendant's guilty plea to production of marijuana.
The defendant operated a sophisticated grow operation with 303 plants in the residential property.
The court found the property was offence-related property but applied the proportionality test under section 19.1(3).
The court determined that full forfeiture would be disproportionate given the defendant's lack of criminal record, sole operation of the grow-op, and absence of organized crime involvement.
The court ordered partial forfeiture of 50 percent of the remaining equity after accounting for the defendant's father's interest in the property (the mortgage amount paid to prevent foreclosure).
