COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Grove, 2016 ONCA 824

DATE: 20161103

DOCKET: C57621

MacPherson, Cronk and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Paul Grove

Appellant

Jill Presser, for the appellant

Allyson Ratsoy, for the respondent

Heard: November 2, 2016

On appeal from the convictions entered on October 30, 2012 by Justice J.A. Morneau of the Ontario Court of Justice.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals from his convictions by Morneau J. of the Ontario Court of Justice for production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to sections 1(1) and 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the “CDSA”).

[2] The police executed a CDSA search warrant at the appellant’s farm. They found 2,925 marijuana plants in four of the property’s fields. In his police interview, the appellant denied any knowledge of the marijuana. He did not testify at trial.

[3] On appeal, the appellant contends that the verdicts are unreasonable. He says that the Crown case was circumstantial and that guilt is not the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence before the court. He posits two alternative scenarios: the evidence at trial left open the reasonable inference that (i) the appellant did not know of the marijuana plants growing on his property, or (ii) a third party, the appellant’s son or Paul Galbraith, the owner of a backhoe found on the property, was responsible for the marijuana crop.

[4] We do not accept these submissions. The evidence against the appellant was very strong. The marijuana was found on his farm. It was growing on four of his seven fields. There was a lot of it – almost 3,000 plants. The truck that had been equipped to water the plants was the appellant’s truck. It was found in one of the fields where the marijuana plants were growing.

[5] In addition, the trial judge was entitled to rely on the testimony of the appellant’s neighbour who testified that he saw the appellant driving the truck with the water tank on his property within weeks of the day of his arrest. The neighbour also testified that the appellant met him several days after the police raid on the appellant’s property and told him that the police had taken his (the appellant’s) marijuana plants.

[6] The appellant also argues that the trial judge erred in her assessment of his credibility and that of the appellant’s neighbour. We disagree.

[7] The trial judge was alert to the factors bearing on the credibility and reliability of the appellant’s and the neighbour’s testimony. Her description of these factors in her reasons, albeit brief in some instances, confirms that she addressed the pertinent issues in making her credibility findings. We see no reversible error in her approach to these issues or in her findings, which attract deference from this court.

[8] Taken together, the evidence relied on by the trial judge overwhelmingly supports her findings of guilt on the two charges. Her verdicts were entirely reasonable.

[9] The appeal is dismissed.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”