What is the evidentiary test for possession of a quantity of methamphetamine hidden in a bedroom baseboard?

[54] In Regina v. April, 2017 SKPC 402, another case similar to ours, there was search warrant entry, as a result of which were found a number of persons and two plastic bags of methamphetamine hidden in a bedroom baseboard in sufficient quantity for trafficking. The sole issue was accused’s possession as demonstrated by the requisite knowledge and control. The fortified nature of the house, the presence of the accused with plain view indicia of trafficking were evidence of knowledge or willful blindness as to knowledge of drug trafficking. Specific knowledge as to type of drug and location of drug was not a requisite element of knowledge on the facts. With respect to control the evidentiary elements were these: a barricaded house and a hidden stash, leading to a conclusion that someone was a designated guardian of the drugs in that location, the guardian had specific knowledge of the hidden location of the drugs, someone in the house tried to destroy a cell phone, and the evidence contained on it, as the police were entering. One or more persons who were guarding the stash had control. However the identity of the knowledgeable in-control-guardian reduced down to two people, the accused and/or one other. The result was at least one inference was exculpatory, namely that the other person was in control, and as a result there was a not guilty finding.

[55] The defence also offers Regina v. McConnell, supra, for consideration. It sets out the law of possession with requisite elements of knowledge and control. The finding of not guilty was the result of lack of control by reason of the fact that there was insufficient evidence to show the accused was a resident or otherwise long-term connected to the residence, despite being present and fleeing entry. However this is not our factual situation.