R. v. Dinh, 2008 ONCA 62

ENDORSEMENT

1In our view, it was implicit in the trial judge’s reasons that the appellant’s guilt was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the fact that he was alone in the house containing the marijuana grow operation for some six hours, that he had a key to the house on his key ring and de facto free access to and control of the entirety of the house, that his car had been seen at the house on the previous day, that there was an absence of fingerprints on the premises and that the operation was one of such substance that it was unlikely that the owners would have granted sole possession of the premises to a person unconnected with the operation.

2The appellant argued that it had not been proven that he had knowledge of the drugs because there were alternative reasonable inferences from his presence in the house such as he was watching television and eating and/or sleeping during those six hours. In our view, the trial judge was entitled to reject those inferences as unreasonable in all of these circumstances.

3The appeal as to conviction is dismissed. The appeal as to sentence was abandoned.