R. v. Chu
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's inference that the appellant possessed and controlled the marijuana plants was reasonable given the factual findings (house solely used for cultivation, appellant observed in the house for at least thirteen minutes, appellant had a key) and the absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 121
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Dieu Chu
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Possession, Drug Cultivation, Inference of Possession, Circumstantial Evidence, Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Dieu Chu
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge could infer possession (knowledge and control) of marijuana plants from circumstantial evidence
- 2 Whether the absence of evidence from the appellant undermined the inference of possession
- 3 Whether the nature and size of the cultivation operation justified an inference of ongoing human control and attention
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge's inference that the appellant possessed and controlled the marijuana plants was reasonable given the factual findings (house solely used for cultivation, appellant observed in the house for at least thirteen minutes, appellant had a key) and the absence of any rebutting evidence from the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Chu Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-02-09 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 121 Docket numbers C47948 Judges Doherty, David H.; Simmons, Janet M.; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Chu, 2009 ONCA 121 DATE: 20090206 DOCKET: C47948 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Simmons and Gillese JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent And Dieu Chu Appellant Ewan Lyttle, for the appellant Bradley Reitz, for the respondent Heard: February 5, 2009 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice B. Ryan of the Ontario Court of Justice dated June 22, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge found the following: 1) the house was being used for one purpose only – the cultivation of marijuana; it was virtually uninhabitable because of the temperature and smell; 2) the appellant was in the house for at least thirteen minutes; and 3) the appellant had a key to the front door. [2] The trial judge was entitled to infer possession (knowledge and control) of the plants. That inference was not unreasonable, particularly in the absence of any evidence from the appellant. [3] The trial judge observed that an operation of the size and nature of the operation found in this home required human “attention” and care. We see no error in this common sense observation. [4] The appeal is dismissed.