R. v. Coffey, 2017 BCPC 449

Citation: R. v. Coffey 2017 BCPC 449 Date: 20171222 File No: 84711-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. PETER COFFEY ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. SOLOMON Counsel for the Crown: J. Le Dressay Counsel for the Accused : C. Terepocki Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Date of Hearing: December 8, 20, 21, and 22, 2017 Date of Judgment: December 22, 2017

[1] THE COURT: These are my oral reasons for judgment. I apologize in advance if they are not as organized as I wouldotherwise wish them to be, however, it is important for a decision to be rendered today due to the length of time that has transpired sincethe commencement of these proceedings and since the offence date. If a transcript of these reasons is ordered, I reserve the right to editfor grammar and general structure. [2] Mr. Peter Coffey is charged in a two-count Information, court file number 84711-1. Count 1 alleges that on January 13, 2016,at or near Deroche, in the Province of British Columbia, Mr.

Coffey did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, cannabis(marihuana), in an amount exceeding three kilograms, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs andSubstances Act. Count 2 alleges that on the same date, Mr. Coffey unlawfully produced cannabis (marihuana), contrary to s. 7(1) of theControlled Drugs and Substances Act. [3] I will briefly outline the law in this area that is summarized in a number of cases provided to me by Mr. Terepocki on behalf ofMr. Coffey. The Crown is required to prove each element of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

That onus never shifts to theaccused. The accused testified accordingly the principles of W.D. apply. The main point of these principles is to remind courts that theonus of proof never shifts to the accused even if he or she testifies. The W.D. principles, I will review them in detail later, essentiallystate that an accused must be acquitted if the court believes his evidence or if his evidence raises a reasonable doubt or, in the context ofall the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt. [4] Starting with the case of R. v.

Huang, [2013] BCSC 2237, at paragraph 51, at page 14, the court states: Many of the applicable principles are summarized in R. v.

Ngo, 2009 BCCA 301 at paras. 51-65: to succeed in a prosecution of possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that theaccused had possession of the substance, that is knowledge of its existence and an element of control over it; possession is not an included offence in the offence of production or cultivation, the “gravamen” of which is the active participation inthe growing of prohibited plants; a person may be convicted of production as either a principal or a party who aids or abets the principal.

In a “grow op” case, an accusedmay have been found to have aided and abetted in the production of the marihuana by maintaining the environment in which themarihuana is produced, with the purpose or intent to assist in the crime; the Crown may prove the essential elements of the offences of possession and production by direct or circumstantial evidence or acombination of the two.

Where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubtthat the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts; the criminal standard of proof is not to be applied to each piece of evidence. In considering whether the circumstantial evidence supportsan inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the trier of fact must not examine each piece of evidence in isolation.

Instead, the properapproach is to consider whether all the evidence, taken together, establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and isinconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion; and as far as competing inferences from circumstantial evidence that might be open to a trial judge are concerned, he/she is not expected to: ...treat real life cases as a completely intellectual exercise where no conclusion can be reached if there is the slightest competingpossibility.

The criminal law requires a very high degree of proof, especially for inferences consistent with guilt, but it does not demandcertainty. [R. v. To (1992), (BC CA), 16 B.C.A.C. 223 at para. 41 (C.A.), McEachern C.J.B.C., cited with approval in Ngo atpara. 55.] Paragraph 52 of the Huang decision states: In addition to the above, the following principles also apply: possession may be personal, constructive or joint. To establish constructive possession, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubtthat the accused knew of the presence of the substance and he had some measure of control over its location: R. v.

Fisher, 2005 BCCA444 at paras. 20-24; constructive possession is complete “where the accused: (1) has knowledge of the character of the object, (2) knowingly puts or keepsthe object in a particular place, whether or not that place belongs to him, and (3) intends to have the object in the particular place for his‘use or benefit’ or that of another person”: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at para. 17, Fish J.; mere presence, that is what certain of the authorities refer to as being a “found-in”, is not sufficient to establish guilt.

This is becausemere presence at the scene of a crime is not necessarily proof of guilt: R. v. Jackson, 2007 SCC 52 at paras. 3, 9, and R. v.Sylvestre and Dunlop, (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881, both cited in R. v. Liu, 2011 BCSC 1269 at paras. 28-29; in some cases, in the absence of a credible explanation, an inference of knowledge may properly be drawn from the circumstantialevidence: R. v. To, supra, cited with approval in R. v. Vu, 2002 BCCA 659 at para. 25; where an alternative inference is asserted, there needs to be some evidence to support it: R. v.

Vu, supra, at para. 26; the trial judge is entitled to apply ordinary human experience and common sense in his/her assessment of the evidence. He/she shouldnot apply speculative reasoning: R. v. Bi, 2011 BCCA 10 at paras. 15-16; and

while it is true that an accused is not called upon to explain suspicious things, “there comes a time when, circumstantial evidence havingenveloped a man in a strong and cogent network of inculpatory facts, that man is bound to make some explanation or stand condemned”:R. v. Jenkins (1908), (BC SC), 14 C.C.C. 221, cited with approval in R. v. Dae, 2010 BCCA 486 at para. 20. Also referring to the same decision, at paragraph 60, the court states: It is clear that each case must be decided on its own facts.

The limited or lack of utility in comparing the facts of one case decided oncircumstantial evidence with another was stated this way by Rowles J.A. in R. v. Ngo, supra, at paras. 57: [57] Reference to circumstantial evidence cases involving marijuana grow ops that may have factual similarities to a case underconsideration was the subject of comment in R. v. He, 2008 BCCA 418 , 237 C.C.C. (3d) 1. In He, the appellant had placedconsiderable reliance on the decision of MacKenzie J. in Tran, as the appellant does in this case.

The lack of utility of such comparisonswas explained by Bauman J.A. in He, at para. 48: [48] There, in a case with some similarities to that at bar, the learned judge held that the evidence did not support an inference of controlby the accused, to found a conclusion of possession. With respect, how one trial judge assessed the evidence in the case before her doesnot assist on appellate review of another trial judge's assessment of the evidence in a different case.

As Yebes holds, appellate review in acase like this calls for a determination “on the whole of the evidence whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed [trier of fact],acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered”. [5] Defence counsel also referred to R. v. Passon, [2011] BCSC 16, at paragraph 74, where the court states: In a circumstantial case, an inference, in order to lead to a finding of guilt, must be the only rational inference to be drawn from theaccepted facts. Reference is also then made to the case of R. v. Dae, as mentioned in the R. v. Huang decision.

Also, at paragraph 79, the court states: The Crown also contends that Mr. Passon is a party to the offences. The considerations which would go into an analysis of whetherMr. Passon aided or abetted the principals are the same as I have set out above. He may have known the grow operation was there, butthere is no evidence he exerted any control over it on his own behalf or on behalf of anyone else. The Crown has not proven beyond areasonable doubt that Mr. Passon was aiding or abetting the principals (whoever they might be) in growing the marijuana or possessing itfor the purpose of trafficking.

I pause to note that Mr. Terepocki made a similar argument on behalf of Mr. Coffey in this case. [6] Mr. Terepocki also relies on R. v. Lee and Pang, [2011] BCPC 21; in particular, at paragraph 22 where the court states asfollows: The distinction between inference and conjecture is easy to state but sometimes difficult to apply in practice. It speaks to the court'smethod of reasoning, as the House of Lords acknowledged in Caswell v.

Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [citation omitted]where Lord Wright stated "... if there are no positive proved facts from which the inference can be made, the method of inference failsand what is left is mere speculation or conjecture". Then at paragraph 23, the court states: The overriding importance of the distinction between inference and conjecture in criminal cases in which the Crown relies oncircumstantial evidence is captured in the following passages from the governing authorities on this subject, all of which were recentlycited and applied in R. v.

Hehn, 2009 BCCA 170 : "I am respectfully of the view that the learned trial Judge's observations in the course of argument, taken with his reasons for judgment,establish clearly that he failed to distinguish between a rational conclusion, based on evidence, and a conclusion based on conjecture andunsupported by evidence; and that this is an error in law, and that he misdirected himself." [citation omitted] "The rule makes it clear that the case is to be decided on the facts, that is, the facts proved in evidence, and the conclusions alternative tothe guilt of the accused must be rational conclusions based on inferences drawn from proven facts.

No conclusion can be a rationalconclusion that is not founded on evidence. Such a conclusion would be a speculative, imaginative conclusion, not a rational one."[citation omitted] "In the result, it is my opinion that the learned trial judge failed properly to apply the rule in Hodge's case to the facts before him in thathe acquitted the appellant, not because he found that there was a rational conclusion on the facts inconsistent with his guilt, but becausethere was, in his opinion, a conjectural conclusion which he considered might be inconsistent with his guilt." [citation omitted] [7] Mr.

Terepocki relies on R. v. Chivers, [2014] BCSC 2594, which essentially sets out the same principles in the previous casesat paragraphs 42 to 47. I have reviewed those paragraphs and do not intend to read them into the record. [8] Counsel also relies on R. v. Polukoshko, [1999] CanLII 773 (BC SC), and, in particular, paragraphs 17 through 22. The sameprinciples discussed above are reviewed and the court in that case applied these principles in reaching a conclusion that the accused wasnot guilty. [9] Now, I will review some of the background and circumstances of the case against the accused.

On January 13, 2016, theRCMP executed a search warrant at 41351 Morton Road, Deroche, B.C. This is a seven-acre rural property. In the course of theirsearch, they located approximately 4200 marihuana plants in three stages of growth in nine separate growing rooms with relatedparaphernalia, including the necessary high-pressure sodium lights, metal halide lights and nutrients. All the rooms were set up in asimilar manner, with bamboo stakes and dehumidifiers. It is evident from the photographic exhibits and the evidence of witnesses,

including Mr. Coffey, that all the rooms were similar in nature. [ 10 ] The evidence from the expert in this case, and not disputed, and I find as a fact, is that this was a commercial grow operation for profit and not one for personal use. I also find as a fact that it had significant potential revenue from the sale of the finished product. [ 11 ] The accused was arrested on the property; more specifically, on the driveway at the north of the property. The north of the property was separated from the south by a fence with barbed wire on top.

At the north part of the property, there was a residence to which the accused is connected by way of his own admissions and documents, an electrical shed and an over-the-ground pool. The access to the south compound that contained the grow operation greenhouses was locked on police arrival. The padlock was broken by the police to gain access. At least four other individuals were arrested on the property. No evidence was led as to where they were located on the property.

The grow buildings and rooms also had locks or were locked at the time of police entry. [ 12 ] The accused was not found in possession of any keys or access cards that would allow him access to the south compound or the grow areas. None of his fingerprints were located on any grow equipment. The accused is not the owner of the property; it is owned by Joseph Coffey, who is his brother.

The accused was also in custody at various times over the course of the last number of years, including the time periods from July 2013 to January 17, 2014 and from February 6, 2015 to approximately April 3, 2015. [ 13 ] The evidence connecting this accused as a principal or party to the offences is circumstantial and I am mindful of the test for circumstantial evidence as set out above. [ 14 ] The Crown called Tara Tomasi as one of their witnesses. She is a community parole officer. She testified that on January 17, 2014, Mr.

Coffey was released to the community as part of a parole plan related to a federal sentence that he was serving. The release plan included allowing him to reside at the Morton Road property. Ms. Tomasi says she was aware that there were licensed grow operations on the property but was not told that the accused had one of those licences. She understood that he was not going to be involved with marihuana. She was advised by him that his brother, Joseph, owned the property and that he was living rent-free; however, he had some responsibilities for maintaining the property in lieu of paying rent.

He advised of the physical barriers to the grow operation. He also mentioned that there was a commercial grow operation application underway, later referred to as the MMPR application, and a plan to expand that business. According to Ms. Tomasi, Mr. Coffey moved to the Morton Road property on March 5, 2014. [ 15 ] On April 25, 2014, Ms. Tomasi was advised by Mr. Coffey that an individual by the name of Troy Giesbrecht was offering him employment around the property. He was to be paid approximately $75 per day with some meal and travel expenses. Mr.

Coffey's warrant expiry was July 4, 2015, and was no longer on parole after the date. [ 16 ] A copy of this business plan was given to Ms. Tomasi on or about April 25, 2014. He specifically told Ms. Tomasi that some of the bills for the property, like the Hydro account, were not his responsibility, they were paid by others and he simply earned enough money or had enough resources to pay his minimal living expenses. [ 17 ] On October 10, 2014, he provided Ms. Tomasi a letter from his brother, Joseph Coffey, confirming he was not required to pay rent and that he was earning $1500 per month.

She was also given a copy of a Hydro bill and, in her mind, no flags were raised. [ 18 ] On February 6, 2015, Mr. Coffey's parole was suspended for his own personal safety and he spent some 70 days in custody until his release. [ 19 ] During the time that Mr. Coffey's parole was suspended Ms. Tomasi learned for the first time that Mr. Coffey had his own legal licence to grow marihuana. This is referred to as an MMAR licence. She confronted him with that discovery on February 25, 2015, at Matsqui Institution. Mr.

Coffey explained that he had a 196-plant licence, he could possess 150 grams of marihuana on his person and he could store 6,000 grams of marihuana. He adamantly denied keeping any secrets from Ms. Tomasi and said it was well-known to Parole and to others that he had this MMAR licence. He also told her that each personal grow or MMAR licence was in a different room and that he had access to the grow rooms. [ 20 ] However, as I note later, and this is one of the issues that was raised in his defence, Mr. Coffey was not specifically asked if his access needed to be escorted or supervised. In his evidence Mr.

Coffey denied having any open access to the grow operation or keys to the grow operation, and any time he attended to his own area where his plants were being grown, he needed to be escorted for security purposes. [ 21 ] In cross-examination, Ms. Tomasi testified that Mr. Coffey made it clear to her that his residence on the property is separate from the compound where the marihuana was being grown and he was to have no access. What I take from that is no unescorted access and only access to his area.

He advised her that he did some maintenance around the property, helped out as needed but, once again, his access was limited. [ 22 ] Police officer witnesses on this trial described the property and indicated what was located and seized. The south end of the property was where the marihuana plants were grown. There were also horses on the property and a barn for them. The residence itself contained several documents that have been entered into evidence. The implications of the documents or what inferences can be drawn from them are highly contentious. [ 23 ] The residence where Mr.

Coffey was residing as at the date the warrant was executed is to the north of the compound. I note again, and this was confirmed in evidence, that no keys or access cards were seized from the residence and the gate was locked on police entry; the lock had to be broken to gain access. Also, one of the officers testified that the grow rooms might have been locked as well. [ 24 ] The documents that were seized are found in Exhibit 7 at tabs 2 to 16. Tab 1 of Exhibit 7 contains documents that were found in one of the grow rooms.

However, tabs 2 to 16 of Exhibit 7 are documents seized from various areas of the residence in which Mr. Coffey was residing.

[ 25 ] I should also note that men and women's clothing were found in the residence. Mr. Coffey testified that he was residing with a female person and their area of the house where they slept was the master bedroom. [ 26 ] At tab 2 is a Form R Renewal form where a “Peter Coffey” is applying to renew his licence to possess marihuana for medical purposes. I note that Mr. Coffey signed this document at page 10 of the exhibit on May 31, 2013. Under his signature, he printed his name and, in my view, the way he prints his name is very distinctive, most particularly the way he writes the letter “f”.

A similar type of print is found on a number of documents. [ 27 ] This renewal form or application was mailed, it appears, on June 4, 2013, to Ottawa. There is a Canada Post receipt in the name of “Peter Gerard Coffey” at page 14 of the exhibit. [ 28 ] At tab 3 is a Form R Renewal form, that is an application for renewal of an authorization to possess marihuana for medical purposes, for a William Charles Drake. It is signed on June 13, 2013. I should note that all the renewal forms or applications require the consent of the property owner. The property owner in this case, as indicated above, is Joseph Coffey.

He appears to have signed the property owner's consent on all these forms. These are medical marihuana applications in relation to growing marihuana for medical purposes and all in relation to the Morton Road property. [ 29 ] As of January 13, 2016, when the warrant was executed, it is conceded, and the evidence indicates, that there were three MMAR licences related to the property that permitted approximately 500 plants to be grown.

As indicated above, there were over 4,000 plants found on the property and, as a result, the persons involved were overgrowing the amount of plants allowed to be grown on the property. [ 30 ] At tab 4 is a blank application to become a licensed producer for medical marihuana purposes. On page 28 of tab 4, it is written “blank LP App - LP App short filled out by Jeff n me”.

I note there are the distinctive “f”s in the word Jeff and, in my view, an inference can be drawn that this is a document related to Jeff Tinevez, who will become better known to this case later, and the accused Peter Coffey. [ 31 ] At tab 5, page 60, there is a document entitled “blank R+D App completed R+D App”. This is a document in relation to an application to cultivate marihuana for research and development projects related to the MMPR process. There are some handwritten notifications on this document. [ 32 ] At tab 6, there is a renewal application.

It is a Form A application for authorization to possess marihuana for medical purposes in relation to an individual by the name of Ove Kirk Rasmussen. This is the third person that I have heard about who had an MMAR production licence for medical purposes in relation to the Morton Road property. Of note, at page 89 there is a cover page that says, “Pete side send out March 1 st ”. On page 90, there is a Canada Post indication that this was mailed out March 1, 2010.

This document also has the consent of the owner of the property, Joseph Coffey, but this appears to be some mixture of documents because the date next to Joe Coffey's signature is February 18, 2010. [ 33 ] In any case, starting at page 93, there is another renewal application. This one is also dated February 10, 2010. It refers to the Morton Road property. Of interest is that these documents are found in the residence -- sorry, I should be clear here. Tabs 2 to 5 are the renewals. At tab 2, is Peter Coffey's renewal. Mr. Drake's renewal is at tab 3.

The blank LP forms at tab 4 and 5 were all found in the top drawer in the basement office space of the residence in which Mr. Coffey was residing. I do note, and I will address this later, Mr. Coffey adamantly denies having anything to do with the basement office space and says that was the working space of others, not him. [ 34 ] Starting at tab 6 are documents regarding Mr. Rasmussen found in the briefcase in the master bedroom. This is the bedroom where Mr. Coffey was residing. The application for renewal of a licence and perhaps the initial application of Mr.

Rasmussen were found there. [ 35 ] Referring to Exhibit 7, tab 7, at page 11, there is a B.C. Hydro bill in the name of “Peter G. Coffey” for the greenhouse located at 41351 Morton Road. This is in reference to Meter 2843279. The document indicates a billing date of March 27, 2013, and an account of $6,957.58. It also shows the last account was paid in the amount of $8,267.99. This is part of a series of documents at tab 7 that were found in the dresser drawers in the same master bedroom. This document indicates that the bill was paid on May 6, 2013.

There is a BMO bank stamp and there is a bank receipt which showed this bill was paid through account 25691003-200. This is the account related to Mountaintop Production Consultant Corporation (hereinafter “MPC Corp”), which I will discuss further below. It is a corporation that Mr. Coffey was a director of at all material times since 2012, along with Jeff Tinevez. Mr. Coffey was out of custody as at the date this bill was paid. [ 36 ] At page 112, there is another Hydro bill to Peter Coffey at the same residence, 41351 Morton Road. This is for a different meter, 1172916.

This is the meter related to the residence. It indicates it was paid at Cashplan Mission Cheque Cashers. However, I do note that it is not clear who paid it or even whether that receipt, 3255, on page 12 for $184.79 is necessarily related to that particular bill. It is close but it could be -- no, I apologize. It has a billing date of May 30, 2013 and was paid June 21, 2013, in the amount of $184.79. That receipt does show a payment through Cashplan Mission Cheque Cashers for $184.79 so it does match. [ 37 ] At page 113, there is a letter to Peter Coffey dated February 26, 2013.

It is an account for ADT Security Services Canada Inc. and it indicates that a payment of $228.41 was made. This bill was registered to Peter Coffey at 41351 Morton Road, the target property. [ 38 ] At page 114, there is a property tax assessment addressed to “Pete Coffey” at 41351 Morton Road in relation to an account. Under the account number is the name of “Joseph Coffey”.

What I infer from this is that the property tax statements were being sent to the attention of Pete Coffey at 41351 Morton Road; however, the owner of the property is Joseph Coffey. [ 39 ] At page 115, there is another Hydro bill to “Peter G. Coffey” at 41351 Morton Road. This appears to be related to the residence. It is dated July 26, 2012, and it looks like the account of $69.83 was paid at the Cashplan Mission Cheque Cashers on August 8, 2012.

[ 40 ] At page 116 is a Hydro bill to “Peter Coffey” for the greenhouse located at 41351 Morton Road. The billing date is May 31, 2013. The amount of $12,801.68 is to be paid by June 24, 2013. There is an indication that the last payment made was $6,957.58. On this particular bill, there is a BMO stamp indicating payment on June 27, 2013, with a transaction record showing that the source of payment was the account 25691003-200. This is the chequing account of MPC Corp. We know that that is the account of MPC Corp. by reference to cheques or a cheque in particular found at, for instance, tab 8, page 133.

Cheque number 0070 indicates account #25691003-200 and the name on the cheque is “Mountaintop Production Consultant Corp”. This bill was paid at a time when Mr. Coffey was out of custody. [ 41 ] At tab 7, page 117, there is a BMO transaction record receipt. It indicates two cheques and some cash were deposited into the MPC Corp. account #25691003-200. [ 42 ] On the same date, June 14, 2013, there are Cashplan money orders for $1,000 each and, if I recall correctly, Mr. Coffey gave some evidence with respect to being the person responsible for obtaining those cheques. I am mistaken. Mr.

Coffey gave evidence with respect to Cashplan cheques found at page 134. Those were cheques he said were obtained from Cashplan and purchased in relation to a retainer for an immigration lawyer. In any case, deposits were made; going back to pages 117 and 118, to the BMO account on June 14th and that was the account of MPC Corp. [ 43 ] I will return to the MPC Corp. issue but just so it is clear there were two directors after it was incorporated in 2012 and those were Peter Coffey and Jeff Tinevez. As of March 1, 2014, Mr.

Coffey became the sole director of that company. [ 44 ] At tab 8, page 120 and following, there are a number of cheque stubs that are related to MPC Corp. Cheque stub 1, January 14, 2013, indicates Becker and Company was retained; there are several other cheque stubs related to this law firm with amounts totalling in excess of $17,500 by my calculation. The accused testified that these payments were for retainers related to various MMARs and MMPRs for three companies.

I do not recall whether he clarified which three companies but I took his evidence to mean Green Leaf, which we will hear more about shortly, MPC Corp. and maybe Coffey Pot, which was some type of retail outlet for marihuana. [ 45 ] There are also a number of cheque stubs in the name of Peter Coffey. MPC Corp. was paying him starting in 2014, bi-monthly it seems, in the amount of $550 and that was increased to $750. This is consistent with what Mr. Coffey told his parole officer, Ms.

Tomasi, that he was earning approximately $1500 a month. [ 46 ] At tab 9 is a business plan prepared on behalf of Green Leaf Natural Care Products Inc. related to a proposed MMPR plan that would involve Green Leaf and MPC Corp. in developing a facility to produce medical marihuana for commercial sale at this location on Morton Road. [ 47 ] Documents under tabs 8 to 12 were found in that same location, the kitchen cabinet. [ 48 ] Also at tab 9, page 167, there is another greenhouse Hydro bill.

There is only page 2 of the bill so it is difficult to decipher the entire nature of this account but the billing date is November 27, 2015. There is an indication of a balance owing of $12,337.96. Attached to it is a receipt from Cashplan Mission Cheque Cashers dated December 9, 2015, which shows an amount of $4,612.09 paid to B.C. Hydro. [ 49 ] At tab 10 is an application for Mr. Coffey to join EDEN, which from what I recall, is a medicinal society of some sort. It is signed by him and dated June 20, 2014. It gives his email address as Mountaintop Production.

Pete Coffey’s name is hand printed and, in my view, he prints the letter “f” in a distinctive manner. [ 50 ] At tab 11 is a Health Canada letter to Green Leaf, attention Jeffrey Tinevez “proposed senior person in charge” at 41351 Morton Road, Deroche, B.C. This is the residence where Mr. Coffey resides. This letter and the letters following appear to indicate that Green Leaf Nature Care Products had submitted an application to become a licensed producer under the MMPR regulations and their application was refused. The letter explains what deficiencies were found in the application process.

Of note, Jeffrey Tinevez's address appears to be one in Surrey, British Columbia, and not Morton Road. There is another document that indicates that. This issue will be canvassed later in these reasons. [ 51 ] At tab 12 are a series of staff job descriptions and duties that are consistent with workers on a grow operation. The staff includes Troy, who I infer to be Troy Giesbrecht, and he has a number of tasks that appear to be inconsistent with someone who is the controller or principal operator of a 4,000-plant grow operation.

The list includes “check list, do upgrades, generator maint, clean rooms, disinfect, clean bulbs, move plants in, soil down hill, stake, transplants, adjust light heights”, etc. These duties suggest that he is a worker on the property. [ 52 ] There is Tammy, who appears to be responsible for clones and transplants. Murray has a number of tasks, including “look for and note bug location, spray bugs, regular maint rooms -water, feed veg and bud rooms”, etc. Marino’s tasks include “spray bugs, transplants, pruning, soil out of rooms”, etc. Lynn’s tasks include, “trim room, pruning, stake, calendars -

schedule spray, leaf pick, manage, organize veg, board”, etc. In any case, these are a list of tasks of parties involved in ensuring the health and well-being of this grow operation. [ 53 ] At page 182, there is a sticky note that one can infer was written by Pete Coffey. It says “double-check all calendars, Pete”. Then there is a note underneath it saying “Done, Lynn”. Crown suggests, and it seems the only logical inference, that Pete gave some direction to Lynn to double-check all calendars. [ 54 ] At tabs 13 to 15 are documents seized from a closet in the master bedroom.

At Tab 13 is a document that appears to be an accounting of a business transaction involving a number of parties that I could only infer was written by the accused or else it would not make sense otherwise. I will explain why that is. I think it is important to indicate what this letter says. Starting at page 193: All about $. Greedy! Likely thieves! We will pay your dad the 60 he wants to blackmail us for. Instead of the 50 and we will return all his tools and stuff and he can also keep his 25 percent biz interest. He is never allowed on the property! Or your mother. Can they at

least accomplish that??! Stay the fuck outta the way! No more stealing. No more accusing us! No more threatening us! No more lying to us! This is bullshit. Grow up! Then over at page 195, there is a document that appears to be related. It says “FYI”, next to that is a word cut off, and under that is the word “in”. The accused testified that the word cut off on the top of the page is “gear”.

Under the words “gear in” is a calculation as follows: “28.5 LB 16 LB 44.5 x 21 = $93.6” Adjacent to this addition are the words: “Where the last $ are going simplified!” Below these words are listed a number of items of expenses that are said to total “$93,600”. I infer that the “$93.6” at the top of the page is shorthand for “$93,600”.

The list of expenses include: “Gary 23, Sheila 10 Sheila back pay; Sheila 5 Sheila April Main, Hydro 5 aside Hydro, Amy/Sheila 10.5 pay back stolen $, Kirk 5 Kirk, Mike 7 Electrician; Guy 15 Guys / Brad debt, New biz 6 payback food + trimming; old biz 7 Float for costs.” Under the $93,600 total there is a further addition: “$0 Jeff, $0 Pete, $48.5 Gary / Sheila, $5 Kirk, $40 something called bills must be paid.” Under this list is the total of “93.5”. [ 55 ] Over on page 196 is written: “The only ones that have gotn a dime out here is you and your dad to the tune of 60+G or so?!!!! Jeff $0!

Me $0! [ 56 ] There is a letter written to a “Pete” from a “Gary” that is dated August 10, 2012, and these documents were found together. This letter says: I would contradict your accusations but you do not deserve it or warrant it. There is only one side and obviously you think it is yours. It is time immediately to deal with your handwritten notice and commitment by you. We expect you to live up to your written agreement. We have lived up to your wants. Now, it's your turn to live up to your commitment, as written by you. Step up to the plate and do as your handwritten commitment say you have.

One week to reply at August 10, 2012. This followed by “pay up”, followed by “Gary”. [ 57 ] When read in context, the above documents relate to a relationship between Pete, and perhaps Jeff, and Gary and Sheila. By deduction, it could only be Pete who prepared the documents at pages 195 and 196. At page 196, there is an indication of “Jeff” receiving zero and “me” receiving zero. The “me” must be Pete since on page 195 it is stated that “Jeff” and “Pete” receive zero.

I also note on page 196, Jeff is written with the letters “f” that are strikingly similar to how the accused prints his “f”s. [ 58 ] This batch of documents includes at page 198 the authorization to possess dried marihuana for medical purposes issued to a “Peter Gerard Coffey”, with an issue date August 6, 2012. [ 59 ] At page 194 is a document that recommends that someone attend to a Dr. Colin Leech-Porter, who is an MD. There is an address in Vancouver and a list of symptoms including depression, bipolar, arthritis, alcoholism, painkillers addiction, chronic pain, insomnia and no appetite.

It appears that someone is recommending this particular doctor and we do know that from a subsequent document that Mr. Peter Coffey's doctor, at some point, is Dr. Colin Leech-Porter. [ 60 ] At tab 14, there are further renewal applications for MMARs. There is one for William Charles Drake which appears to be dated August 8, 2012. That is the sole document at tab 14. [ 61 ] At tab 15, there is a renewal form for Ove Kirk Rasmussen, who resides in Surrey, and it is dated October 12, 2012.

The designated location is 41351 Morton Road as the proposed production site. [ 62 ] At tab 16 are photos of construction of some of the buildings that were found to be housing the marihuana on the facility site. At page 236 is a photo of the accused working on the buildings. In his testimony he admitted to working on the property and being involved in construction there in 2012 and 2013. [ 63 ] A number of other documents have been filed in this proceeding. Before I get there, I wanted to add this to the previous description of the property.

There was a building labelled as building 6, which was a small wooden Hydro shed near the residence on the north side of the compound. In that building was found a digital meter. There was an analogue meter attached to the residence but in this building there was a digital meter. A fan was blowing on the equipment when the police attended. There was a safety inspection document with Pete Coffey's name on it dated August 2, 2011. We will get back to that shortly. [ 64 ] Continuing with the description.

To the west of the fence on Crown land was a large reservoir, six feet tall, six to eight feet wide approximately. Pipes from there led to the grow operation buildings. From there, pipes and tubes continued on the east side of the property, passing the residence to the above-ground swimming pool, which was to the southeast of the residence. From there, a discharge of water came down an embankment into Deroche Creek. The pool noted above is on the north side of the property like the residence and the electrical room.

There is no fence between the residence and these areas. [ 65 ] The residence itself is a split-level. The main area has a kitchen and a living room. Upstairs had two bedrooms. One room has a bed that appears occupied. Both men and women's clothing were found in this room. Downstairs has an office and miscellaneous items. There were no locked cabinets or areas in this building. [ 66 ] Now, to review some of the other documents. Exhibit 1 is a business plan by Green Leaf. This document was given by

Mr. Coffey to his parole officer, Tara Tomasi, in April 2014. It indicates a proposal and cooperation between two businesses, Green Leaf and MPC Corp. Starting at page 12 of this document, it says under the heading Lease or Ownership Details: Green Leaf Natural Care Products is composed of commercial production licence holders, clients and investors who are employing MPC to manage, consult, construct, research, develop and expedite the alternative medicines required by our clients. Troy Giesbrecht is our primary corporate manager and is responsible for the proper licensing and administration of the company.

MPC is an independent corporation which owns and operates a commercial alternative medical facility. The new director and manager is Peter Coffey, who comes with over 13 years of experience in the production of alternative medicines and the construction and development of facilities capable of producing the highest quality products by the most efficient means possible. MPC consists of 10 acres of land with five production facilities. Each facility is 1800 square feet and contains 64 to 1,000 watt greenhouse lamps used for the production of plant-related product.

Each facility also contains an elaborate pump system and holding tanks used for the mixing and application of various natural fertilizers to enhance the growth of plants. There are also two, five-ton air exchange systems in each facility. This was a document, as indicated above, that Mr. Coffey provided to his parole officer to indicate what his business intentions were on parole and once he completed parole. [ 67 ] Exhibit 3 is formal admissions with respect to the number of plants found in each room and the total number of plants. [ 68 ] Exhibit 5 is a book of photographs.

The first two photographs provide an overview of the buildings on the property and which buildings were being used to produce marihuana. Page 17 of the document shows room H which contained 341 plants. Mr. Coffey testified that his plants were at the back of this room. Although one cannot see a division between the plants, he testified there was a divider further down towards the back dividing his plants from Mr. Drake's plants. There is also a calendar on the door of room H that matches the calendars on all the doors of all the other grow rooms. [ 69 ] Exhibit 6 contains photographs of the residence in which Mr.

Coffey resided and potentially with two others, a girlfriend at the time and another individual that he said was staying there, Troy Giesbrecht. [ 70 ] Exhibits 9 and 10 are B.C. Hydro records. Exhibit 9 are the records for the greenhouse at 41351 Morton Road. They show a very high rate of Hydro consumption. This account is in the name of Peter Coffey. The account was opened on September 9, 2011, after the electrical permit was obtained. [ 71 ] An installer by the name of Mike Vetter testified on the trial. He installed the equipment for this new Hydro facility.

He testified, and I will get to his evidence shortly, about Mr. Peter Coffey dealing with him directly with respect to this matter. However, Mr. Coffey was in custody in Manitoba at the time, not necessarily in custody but on bail and under a curfew condition in Manitoba on the date Mr. Vetter says he met with him personally. [ 72 ] In any case, there is no dispute that Mr. Peter Coffey went on the Hydro account for the greenhouse on September 9, 2011. I accept that anyone could call to put someone else's name on a Hydro account so it was not necessarily Mr.

Coffey who made that call but he certainly did not oppose having his name on the Hydro account. For instance, the hydro records for 2012 indicate total charges of $61,000 on the account; 2013, $73,000 approximately; 2014, $81,000; and, 2015, approximately total charges of $73,000. We do know that Mr. Coffey's corporation paid for some of those accounts. [ 73 ] Exhibit 10 are the B.C. Hydro records for the residence at 41351 Morton Road. Mr. Coffey was the subscriber on that account since October 1, 2009.

It also shows considerable Hydro consumption over time: for 2014, there appears to be total charges of approximately $10,000 and for 2015, $15,000. [ 74 ] Exhibit 11 is a series of blown-up photographs of the grow operation. Of note, at page 5 of 13, there is a poster of Mark Emery, who appears to be smoking something, and a personal handwritten note on it: To Pete, Free at last. Plant the seeds of freedom. Overgrow the government. There is a signature and under the signature there is a date of January 15, 2015.

This poster appears to be in a common area of the grow operation which supplies equipment of various sorts. [ 75 ] Exhibit 12 is the electrical contractor authorization declaration of compliance and electrical inspection request dated August 2, 2011. It has Mike Vetter's name on it and the installation name is Pete Coffey. [ 76 ] Exhibit 15 is a safety authority electrical contractor installation permit with an issue date of July 26, 2011. The installation name is “Pete Coffey”, and it’s for the greenhouse at 41351 Morton Road, Deroche.

The permit fee was $568.32. [ 77 ] Exhibit 17 is an application for a Crown land tenure. This document relates to one of the buildings that was constructed on the property by Mr. Peter Coffey and others. Accidentally, it appears, this building encroached on Crown land. Actually, I am not clear if this was one of the buildings Mr. Coffey worked on himself. In any case, it was a building that encroached on Crown land. This is an application by the owner of the property, Joseph Coffey, to deal with the issue. The contact person for Mr. Joseph Coffey is Peter Coffey at 41351 Morton Road.

The agent name and mailing address is Chris Terepocki, who is counsel for the accused in these proceedings. Essentially, they are seeking permission to keep their building on Crown land. [ 78 ] Exhibit 18 is a letter to Mr. Joseph Coffey dated April 2, 2015, from the Fraser Valley Regional District dealing with the lack of permits for some buildings on the property. [ 79 ] Exhibit 19 is a letter dated June 2, 2016, to Mr. Joseph Coffey from Planning and Development at the Fraser Valley Regional

District by-law enforcement in relation to 41351 Morton Road. This letter addresses the lack of permits for the buildings and that there are stop-work and no-occupancy notices. [ 80 ] Exhibit 21 is an affidavit filed by Peter Coffey in relation to litigation where he is the plaintiff against the Fraser Valley Regional District. It was put to Mr. Coffey in cross-examination for the purpose of confirming that fact. At paragraph 2 of the affidavit he stated: At all material times, I have been a tenant at 41351 Morton Road, the property. The property is owned by my brother, Joe Coffey.

The question is what legal, if any, meaning is there to the word tenant? Does it describe something greater than Mr. Coffey has suggested in these proceedings? In my view, this affidavit does not assist me at all and it has no probative value in this case. [ 81 ] Exhibits 22, 23, 24 and 25 are recognizances of bail from Alberta, which help establish when Mr. Coffey was in British Columbia and when he was not. [ 82 ] Exhibits 26 and 27 are just blow-up photographs of room H and the door of room H. [ 83 ] Exhibits 28, 29 and 30 deal with the signatures of Mr.

Joe Coffey and whether or not they were forged on some of the MMAR applications. As I indicated during submissions, whether those were forged or not, I do not attribute much weight to it.

It appears that Joe Coffey was a willing person in allowing others to have medical marihuana licences on this property so whether or not those extensions bear his actual signature or not is not of great concern in this case. [ 84 ] Exhibit 13, I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but this is a notice of change of directors for MPC Corp., which indicates that, as of March 1, 2004, Jeff Tinevez has ceased to be a director and the only director as at that date, is Pete Coffey of 41351 Morton Road. [ 85 ] The search of the property did not disclose any other commercial endeavour on the property that could account for the electricity being consumed in such great quantities. [ 86 ] This is a circumstantial case and, as indicated earlier, the law is quite clear.

The only path to conviction is if the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from this body of evidence is the guilt of the accused. The accused testified and the principles of W.D. are applicable. He gave evidence with respect to most of the circumstantial evidence presented against him. [ 87 ] I find the following to be the material pieces of circumstantial evidence tying Mr. Coffey to the illegal marihuana production and the offences charged: 1. He has been associated with the property since the year 2009 when he went on the Hydro account. That was October 1, 2009. 2.

His name went on the second Hydro account from September 9, 2011, and this was the Hydro account in relation to the greenhouses. 3. Some Hydro bills were found in his bedroom dresser drawer including ones paid from MPC Corp at a time that he was a director of the corporation. For example, Exhibit 7, tab 7 at page 111, there is a Hydro bill for a greenhouse dated March 27, 2013, in the amount of $6,957.58. That was paid May 6, 2013. This was paid from MPC Corp.'s account at BMO. Mr. Coffey explained that these Hydro documents were likely in his possession due to the need to report finances to his parole officer.

His own counsel then pointed out this was before he was on parole. Then Mr. Coffey testified that he was on the same requirements for his bail and that he had 56 bail conditions. The bail documents were filed as exhibits and it is clear that there is no such requirement. Mr. Coffey then added that Green Leaf paid the Hydro bills and there would be no other reason for him to possess the bills. Later in his evidence, he testified that MPC Corp. sometimes paid the Hydro bills. That is clear from the documents reviewed earlier, that MPC Corp. did pay some of those Hydro bills. 4.

Exhibit 7, tab 7, page 113, ADT Services Canada invoice dated February 26, 2013, to Peter Coffey. 5. Exhibit 7, tab 7, page 114, property tax statements addressed to Pete Coffey at the residence. I do note Joseph Coffey's name also appears on that document under the account number. 6. Exhibit 7, tab 12, page 182, there is a sticky note that says “double-check all calendars, Pete”. “Done, Lynn.” I infer from this that Pete, the accused, was giving instructions to Lynn. I also infer that Lynn is an employee of the grow operation from page 180 which lists her duties that include calendars.

I do not accept the accused's explanation regarding this document that perhaps it was in relation to him simply being asked to do a check of calendars as a task. This is inconsistent with his evidence that he only dealt with his personal grow operation. 7. Exhibit 11, page 5 of 13, there is the Mark Emery poster pinned up in a common area of the grow operation utility room that says: “To Pete, Free at last. Plant the seeds of freedom. Overgrow the government. January 15, 2015.” 8. The MPC Corp. issue. This, according to Mr.

Coffey, was a business started by Jeff Tinevez and Troy Giesbrecht and they made him part of it in 2012 to help him out. He said they also gave him work doing construction on the property. This helped him to deal with his depression.

He and Jeff incorporated this business in 2012 and then Mr. Coffey became the sole director on March 1, 2014. This is important because MPC Corp. paid some of the large Hydro bills for the greenhouse. They also paid thousands of dollars to Becker Law Corp. Mr. Coffey admitted this was for all three companies to apply for the MMAR and MMPR licences and business aspects. One can infer that, and I do infer, that MPC Corp. was actively involved in the business plan for the commercial licence for medicinal marihuana. Mr. Coffey also admitted to participating in the meetings at Becker Law Corporation.

Also, MPC Corp. commenced paying Pete Coffey $550 a month then $750 bi-monthly starting early 2014 when he was on parole. He testified that he was working for Jeff Tinevez at Action Tire doing tire separation and classifications. He said he was working for Action Tire but was being paid from MPC Corp. This, of course, makes very little sense. He testified that he did not know why he was being paid from MPC Corp. for work done for Action Tire even though he was the sole director as at March 1, 2014. He testified that Jeff Tinevez continued to sign his pay cheques.

In my view, that is not very likely or believable; it makes no sense. 9. The accounting papers at tab 13, pages 193 to 198. As indicated above, at the top of the document, there is an indication of “gear in” and an indication of pounds. To be clear, this is the part of the document found at page 195. Under gear in, it says “28.5 lb” and “16 lb”, then “44.5 x 21 = $93.6”. Mr. Coffey testified that this was related to berries and a business deal that went south. He testified in regard to this on June 20, 2017, transcript page 42, starting at line 30: Q Okay.

Now, I want you to look at, I guess, 193, 195, 196 and 197 because I believe these are all connected to each other in some way. What can you tell us about -- and again, starting at 193, what's your understanding of what has been written here? A I was -- during this business deal that went south between all the parties that are listed in here, so Troy, Jeff, myself, Gary, Sheila and Kirk. As an aside, there is no mention of Troy in this document that I noted. In any case, going over to page 43, starting at line 32: Q Okay. And you mentioned about a business deal going sideways.

What did that business deal involve exactly? A Well, it -- when I was in Manitoba from October of 2010 'til November is when this incident happened but I can speak to it because I was very well aware of the things that were going on between the parties and originally, if you want to look at the building, I forgot what it's referred to in. Q Would you like to refer to Exhibit 6? A Is that the overview? Q Yes, Exhibit 6. A Yes, so Exhibit 6? Or is it 5 or 6? Q Oh, sorry. Going on to page 44: A Exhibit 5 on page 2. Q Yes. A I'll be referring to building 3. Q Okay.

A Which is a mobile processing like a mobile kitchen processing-style plant with a generator built within it. Q Okay. A So I'll give you a little bit of background is Sheila was working for Tri-Mor Sales, which is a big marketing department from marketing into Costco. THE COURT: Sorry, working for what company? A Tri-Mor Sales. THE COURT: All right, thank you. That's related to what? A Related to -- it's the middle marketing so people that have products would go to her to get her to try to market them into Superstore or Costco or any of the big outlets.

Sometime in 2010, Sheila and Gary wanted to start producing a powerbar which they called a gear bar. It was to gain energy and revitalize. And they went to purchase the -- this building number 3, which is the mobile trailer, in order to produce the bar. And I was supplying the berries for it from Manitoba. There's a C buckthorn berry and a miracle berry. And if you go to page 195, at some point, this has been brought up earlier in the trial, is what the numbers related to. Q Yes, yes, 195.

A And I would agree with the Crown's witness on his first impression of the number 21 not meaning -- sorry. Q Sorry. Where's 21 on? A Just up at the top, page 195. Q Okay. A Up at the top where it shows the gear ingredients. Q Yeah. A So it has the bar and then the initials for the ingredients was that the 21 did represent the price of marihuana because the 28.5 is 28.50 dollars a pound. Q Okay. A That was the seed -- buckthorn berry. Over to page 45, line 13: THE COURT: All right. Twenty-eight-fifty per pound? A And the miracle berry was $16. THE COURT: All right, thank you.

Q Those were the key ingredients in this bar then? A There were other ingredients mixed in with the packages but those were the key ingredients. Q Okay. A And in my involvement -- sorry, and I -- my involvement in this was providing them. I had contacted Manitoba, the [indiscernible] Federation -- Q Yeah. A -- to provide the berries. The berries are a big thing with the Native community. Q Right. A I supplied the berries for the bar to everyone out here. Q Okay.

A And at some point, Sheila's contacts or promises being able to market the bar through Costco -- it was through something to do with Samsung -- fell apart and that was the beginning of the whole end of their business relationship. Q Okay. A There became arguments about who was supposed to be paying who in relation to -- so earlier on, they were trying to put money aside for paying off their debts. Q Yeah. A But the final part was when the parties -- when this happened. Q So if we look at 195, I see your name is written down with a big zero beside it. Why? Like does that relate to your profit from -- tell me.

What's your understanding? What do those numbers relate to there? A I was -- what I was -- what I was supposed to get out of -- there was no expectation. I think Troy was just writing in his frustration is the only people that were going to get anything back out of the failed business were Gary and Sheila. And that's in relationship to -- to the letter that he wrote on 193. Q Okay. A But I would say that when these documents here, 193, 194 -- sorry -- 193, 195 and '96 would have been -- would have been a letter, okay? THE COURT: Sorry, 193, 195 and 196 would have been one letter? Is that what you said?

A Just by looking, that would be what I would say would have because this other thing got put in between -- 194 got put in between. MR. TEREPOCKI:

Q And what can you tell me about 197? Is that connected with this as well or is this a completely separate document? A No, this is connected. This is a letter that Gary had written to me and in relationship to resolving the problems between which now became two parties and I was the common denominator. Q Right. A Between Jeff and Troy and Kirk basically and Gary and Sheila. Not using last names. I mean I could. And then further on down the page. Then at page 47, line 7: Q Right.

A I just made promises that when I got back from Manitoba, I would try to resolve the issues between the parties. [ 88 ] At the very least, or at the best, what I can say about the answers given to these questions is that they are perplexing. It makes no sense whatsoever that this document is related to a berry business or that Troy is somehow involved and/or drafted this document. It is clearly a document prepared by Mr. Pete Coffey and in response he was written a letter by “Gary”.

There are a number of difficulties in explaining this letter in any other way. [ 89 ] First, the suggestion that “28.5” and “16” refer to prices per pound is inconsistent with what is written. There are no dollar signs or any suggestion this is per pound.

If that was the cost of buying berries, the total of $93,600 would be an expense as opposed to an accounting of where revenue was going. $93,600 is clearly revenue from which a number of items were deducted, including Kirk who, for some reason, received “5” and Mike, the electrician, received “7”. [ 90 ] This document only makes sense in the context of the balance of the evidence in which it is found. It is found along with a medical marihuana authorization in the name of Peter Coffey. It is found in the context of a very large commercial grow operation.

It is dated from 2012, however, the Hydro records and this evidence is consistent with the grow operation being in place for some time. To suggest that a person, Troy, wrote this document or that Mr. Coffey is just a peacemaker between parties makes absolutely no sense. He is clearly extensively involved in this enterprise. [ 91 ] Mr. Coffey admitted to paying the electrician, Mike. At page 58 of the same transcript from June 20, 2017, starting at line 18, he testified as follows: Q So with respect to the electrician, we heard evidence that you had paid him cash at some point.

Can you please elaborate the circumstances as to what was happening there? A Well, for the time period which, if I can go back, is why I feel very confident that Mr. Vetter didn't meet with me, as he had thought that he did, in July of 2011. I believe he claimed of July or August was because I was in Manitoba. I was there. I was in custody there -- custody, on strict bail restriction at my mother's. That time period was from October sometime in 2010 through November of 2011. During that time period is when the business plan and fallout of that business plan happened, which we were talking about earlier.

Because of that fallout, Mr. Vetter didn't get paid for the electrical stuff that he had done on the property. In contact with the parties while I was in Manitoba, I made promises to them that I would make sure that the issues were resolved when I got back. Q So let me understand this. Let me understand this. You're referring to that business enterprise you had with the energy bars or whatever, is that right? A Yes. Q Okay. And just help me understand how that relates to Mike Vetter.

A A portion of the -- if I recall right, a portion of the funds that he was promised by Green Leaf for the work had been paid out at a certain point and I'm not sure of that point. There was a falling out between the parties. The portion of the money owed to Mike Vetter was for the electrical hook-up of that one particular building number -- building number 3. So the parties were in disagreement of who was to pay what portion. And then starting at line 22: Q So I note that there's a mention of Hydro about a third of the way down the page with the words aside Hydro.

Now, is there any connection between this document and what you're telling the court now? A No. Other than I would say that the one, two, three, four -- Q Or sorry, perhaps it's down Hydro. Is that the electrician, Mike? A Yeah, where? Q It's the number 7 about, uh -- A Yeah, it's actually the seventh one down on the list of expenses. I would say that's related to the debt owed to Mr. Vetter. Q Okay, thank you. That helps clarify some things. So again, an outstanding debt was owed to Mr. Vetter. And then, pardon me, how does it come to pass that you are the individual handing him cash? A Neither.

Neither party was in agreement for some time and I was kind of the common denominator between the parties because

of my relationship with Troy and Jeff and my relationship with Sheila and Gary. So upon returning, I made arrangements. By that time, so much time had gone by. Mike was demanding cash payment and I went to see both parties and got cash from both parties in order to pay Mike. In my view, once again, this evidence is perplexing and makes no sense whatsoever. It is clearly related to paying Mike Vetter for the electrical work done in 2011 at a time that Mr. Coffey was most likely, for the most part, in Manitoba since he was on strict bail conditions. Nonetheless, this was money paid at some point by Mr.

Coffey to Mike Vetter in relation to the Hydro electrical work done in 2011 for the greenhouses. [ 92 ] I also note with respect to the document at page 195 in addition to a reference to Mike being paid “7”, there also is an indication of “new biz 6”, which I have heard is money paid back for food and trimming. Trimming clearly is a task involved with marihuana plants so in my view this is all related to production of marihuana and not related to a berry business. [ 93 ] There is also a curious piece of testimony from Mr. Coffey that this berry business was going to be run by some generator.

I am not sure why a business being run by a generator would need $7,000 to pay an electrician or $5,000 for Hydro. In any case, the whole thing makes no sense. [ 94 ] The evidence of the accused essentially is that he had no knowledge of anything illegal happening on this grow operation, that his access was extremely limited, he was not in possession of any keys or access cards and his attendance in the compound where the grow operation was located required an escort. I do not accept this evidence. In my view, it is completely unreasonable that a person in Mr.

Peter Coffey's position of being the Hydro subscriber, being connected with the property since 2009, having his own MMAR licence to produce marihuana in the compound, being the brother of the owner of the property and being actively involved in the application for an MMPR licence would somehow be restricted on this property. It makes no sense and accordingly I reject his evidence for all the reasons stated above. [ 95 ] The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming. The web of evidence suggests that Mr.

Coffey was either a principal or party to the offences in this case. [ 96 ] To return to the principles involved in cases of this nature, Crown has the onus to prove each element of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of the offences are set out in the case law that I reviewed earlier. Referring to the Huang case, at paragraph 51, the principles coming from the R. v.

Ngo case, [ 2009] BCCA 301 at paragraphs 51 to 65: To succeed in a prosecution of possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had possession of the substance, that is knowledge of its existence and an element of control over it. In the case at bar, I find that the Crown has proven that this accused was in possession of the substance, the marihuana, the 4200 plants, he knew of its existence and had an element of control over it, as evidenced by the numerous documents and his association to the property.

Moving on to bullet point 2: Possession is not an included offence in the offence of production or cultivation, the “gravamen” of which is the active participation in the growing of prohibited plants. I find that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peter Coffey was actively involved and participated in the growing of the prohibited plants. The third bullet point: A person may be convicted of production as either a principal or a party who aids or abets the principal.

In a “grow op” case, an accused may have been found to have aided and abetted in the production of the marihuana by maintaining the environment in which the marihuana is produced, with the purpose or intent to assist in the crime. [ 97 ] In my view, alternatively perhaps, because I believe in this case the evidence suggests Mr. Coffey is a principal of this grow operation, he clearly was aiding and abetting the operation.

He provided the Hydro account under his name, he paid some of the Hydro bills through his corporation or had others pay it for him and he was there to assist, as indicated by the number of records and documents in relation to this property that have his name on it. [ 98 ] I find as a fact that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence is the guilt of this accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no other rational alternative explanation for the body of circumstantial evidence presented in this case through the documents and through the other evidence taken. [ 99 ] This is a case where the accused testified and the onus of proof never shifts to him. The principles of W.D. are applicable. In the event that a court believes the accused, the accused must be acquitted. In this case, I do not believe the accused.

His evidence is not credible and, at times, as indicated by reference to the transcripts, is beyond perplexing, makes no sense whatsoever, and is inconsistent with any rational conclusion except with his participation in this illegal grow operation. In any case, I do not believe the evidence of the accused or his denials of involvement in this grow operation. [ 100 ] Secondly, the question is whether his evidence raises a reasonable doubt in the context of the evidence taken as a whole. In my view, it does not raise a reasonable doubt. It is not reasonable.

It is not consistent with the body of circumstantial evidence that is overwhelming in this case. [ 101 ] Third, even if I do not believe the accused or his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt, I must look at the entirety of the evidence to determine whether or not the Crown's case proves the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the Crown's case is overwhelming in support of the only rational conclusion that Mr. Coffey is guilty of the offences of production and possession for the purpose of trafficking, as alleged on the Information. [ 102 ] Accordingly, I find Mr.

Coffey guilty of both offences.

(REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)