What is the test for knowledge and control of possession in a search warrant entry situation?

[58] The Regina v. Thompson, supra, case focuses on the control aspect of possession in a search warrant entry situation. An extensive review of case law with respect to knowledge and control resulted in a not guilty finding based upon the following. There was no dominant controlling occupant; all four persons had equal rights to the premises. All were regular occupants; none were transient or occasional visitors. Occasional or past use of the room by the accused could not lead to a guilty knowledge of well-hidden cocaine in a camera case. But marijuana seeds were in plain view and therefore guilty knowledge of them was made out for all. Drugs in a cookie jar were not in plain view but in a common area. People had ongoing use of the dining room area as a bedroom as well as a common area. Knowledge was imputed to three as a result. One occupant was excluded as a bedridden person. From time to time others had access to the premises including party-goers, but stored drugs of value placed by a mere visitor amounted to merely speculation and not probative fact. No evidence as to ownership of the camera case or the cookie jar was in evidence. No evidence of actual drug trafficking. No direct evidence such as fingerprints or DNA. As a result of this set of circumstances the logical inferences include the third tenant as an owner and possessor without knowledge of the accused persons, or with knowledge, characterized by mere indifference or passive acquiescence, where the other possible possessor was the third occupant of the premises.