In fact, it depends "entirely" on a canister of bear spray, prosecutor David Didiodato maintained in his closing argument.
The can was located at the scene and DNA found on it belongs to the accused Alexandre Eithier, he said.
Defence lawyer Jennifer Tremblay-Hall countered the case is "entirely one of circumstantial evidence."
There is no direct evidence of her client's involvement in the offences, she argued in a written submission she provided to the court last week.
Ethier, 25, has pleaded not guilty to six charges stemming from the incident, including administering a noxious substance, armed robbery, and break and enter to commit an indictable offence.
During the Oct. 29 and 30 trial, Superior Court Justice Edward Gareau heard testimony from the two men who resided in the Hergott Avenue residence, police officers and expert forensic witnesses.
The complainants testified that two masked men awoke them during the night.
A 31-year-old man detailed how he was sprayed in the face by one person who came into his bedroom.
A second masked individual then entered the room, struck him with a metal pipe, Bradley Grier said.
One of the men, went to his closet, grabbed a safe and ran out, he said.
Grier was unable to identify his attackers, and couldn't remember what was in the safe.
Gareau also heard police found a significant amount of drugs and money in Grier's room.
In his submission, Didiodato conceded the two primary witnesses couldn't identify the perpetrators, but suggested the court could draw two inferences from the evidence it heard.
The can of bear mace an Ontario Provincial Police officer found on the ground outside the front door of the home was used in the home invasion is the first, he said.
The second inference would be that the DNA found on the handle of the canister was placed there by a the person who committed the crime, the Crown argued.
Didiodato said this was a supported by the evidence of a forensic sciences expert, who testifed that the DNA on the can came from a single source.
"It is not a case where there are multiple sources or a mixture of the DNA of various persons," he told the judge.
"When you take all the pieces of circumstantial evidence it is very clear this can of bear spray was used in the break and enter."
Tremblay-Hall argued that the fact that Ethier's DNA was found on the can at the scene of the crime doesn't even establish he was at the home
It simply indicates his DNA was on the can, not that he was there at the time or participated in the crime, she said.
As well, it doesn't establish that her client had a motive, any knowledge of the safe containing anything valuable and that "he is the perpetrator of the crime."
There is no further forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, linking Ethier to the inside of the residence, Tremblay-Hall said.
Neither of the complainants could identify the assailants, she reminded the court.
Gareau will give his decision on Dec. 13 — the same day another judge will rule on an Elliot Lake gas station robbery Ethier is accused of committing on Aug. 28, 2018.
EDITOR'S NOTE: SooToday does not permit comments on court stories