Drug Lawyer Toronto
Defending Drug Possession Charges in Toronto
Have you been charged with possession of marijuana, hashish, cocaine, heroin, GHB, ecstasy (MDMA), magic mushrooms, ketamine or other illegal drug?
Daniel Brown is certified as a specialist in criminal law. He regularly defends people charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). As such, he is often sought out by local and national media outlets to comment on drug policy or drug cases in the news.
Our lawyers have defended drug offences in all corners of the province and often appear in courts across the GTA in addition to the Toronto courthouses including Newmarket, Oshawa, Brampton, and Milton.
Some recent example can be found here:
- CBC Radio: Metro Morning, “Pot Pardons?“
- Toronto Star, “Mayor Rob Ford: Cellphone video wouldn’t necessarily lead to charges, lawyer says.”
- The Lawyers Weekly, “Osgoode Hall professor says our pot laws are laging”.
Daniel Brown law also has a long history of successfully defending all types of drug charges though every case is different and unique and must be defended on its own merits. Previous successful results defending other drug cases do not necessarily dictate future outcomes.
If you are convicted under Canada’s drug laws, you could face the possibility of having a criminal record that could affect your ability to travel to foreign countries such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom. A drug record could also affect your future employability. You might also face the possibility of substantial jail sentence if you are found guilty of some more serious drug crimes..
Call Daniel Brown to arrange a consultation to discuss your drug related charge at (416) 297-7200.
To learn more about drug possession, or possession for the purpose of trafficking, please read the following article. For more information, please also read my articles on drug trafficking, drug importing and marijuna grow-operations.
Frequently asked questions about drug possession charges
- What must the prosecutor prove in a drug case?
- How can the crown prove actual possession?
- How is knowledge of the illegal drug proven?
- Must I own the drug to be found guilty of possessing it?
- How is control over the illegal drug proven?
- Can I be found guilty of possessing a drug not found on me?
- Can two people be found guilty of possessing the same drug?
- What if I was subject to an illegal search by police?
- Is it possible to challenge a search warrant?
- What is the difference between possession and a possession for the purpose of trafficking charge?
- What factors will the court consider in assessing whether a person was in possession of a drug for the purpose of trafficking?
- What are the sentences for possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking charges?
In any drug prosecution, the Crown Attorney must first prove that the item in question is actually an illegal drug as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Absent a specific medical exemption, It is illegal to possess any of the following drugs in Canada: marijuana, hashish, cocaine, heroin, GHB, ecstasy, magic mushrooms, ketamine, LSD, crystal meth, opium among other drugs
Typically, the Crown will prove the nature of the substance alleged to be an illegal drug by tendering into evidence the “Certificate of Analysis” of an analyst from Health Canada who has tested the narcotic. It is not enough for the police officer to testify that the item in question looked like an illegal drug.
Sometimes, the Crown Attorney neglects to tender the drug certificate, resulting in an acquittal.
The Crown Attorney must also prove that the person charged was in possession of the illicit drug.
To prove someone is in actual possession of a drug, the Crown must show (i) knowledge of what the item is; and (ii) some measure of control over the item.
Having an illegal drug in your pocket may not establish actual possession if a doubt can be raised on the issue of knowledge that the item existed. For example, one may wear an item of clothing (such as a jacket or pair of jeans) belonging to friend or relative without knowledge that drugs were left in the pockets of the clothing. This person cannot be said to have knowledge of the illegal drug.Without knowledge that the drug was there in the first place, one cannot properly be found guilty of the offence of possession.
Another scenario may exist where the person was aware of the item in their possession but they did not know the item was an illegal drug. For example, someone in possession of a bag of marijuana, mistakenly thinking it was a bag of oregano or another type of herb used for cooking cannot be said to have the requisite knowledge to establish possession of the illicit narcotic.
However, mistaking one type of illegal drug for another type of illegal drug is not a proper defense to possession of a narcotic. A person will not be acquitted of possession where he or she asserts that they believed they were in possession of cocaine when they were actually in possession of heroin.
Actual ownership of the drug is not important. One can be found in possession of something that belonged to or was “owned” by someone else.
Even if the Crown can prove that a person had knowledge of the illegal drug, the Crown must also prove that the person exercised some measure of control over the drug.
Even if someone doesn’t actually have drugs located on their person (actual possession), they can potentially be found to be in possession of the drugs if it can be determined that they had both knowledge and control over the drugs (constructive possession).
Because the accused is not in physical possession of the drugs in cases of constructive possession, the necessary knowledge and control must be inferred from other evidence.
For example, if drugs are found in the glove box of a motor vehicle owned and driven by the accused at the time the drugs were seized, it may be argued that the driver had the requisite knowledge and control over the vehicle, thus establishing he was in possession of the drugs located within the vehicle. The same can be said for an item found inside an accused person’s bedroom or suitcase.
However, in the same scenario where drugs are located in the glove box, a passenger in the vehicle may not be found guilty of constructive possession as they may be able to raise a doubt as to whether they had either knowledge or control over the illegal substance or the vehicle in which the substance was found.
Joint possession of an illegal drug can be found where one of two or more persons is found in possession of a drug with the knowledge and consent of the others.
The key difference between joint possession and constructive possession is that constructive possession requires an element of control over the item whereas joint possession does not require control but rather the consent that someone else exercise control over the item.
A person may be found guilty of joint possession where the evidence reveals that they permitted someone else to hide drugs inside their apartment or store drugs in the glove box of their motor vehicle.
Quite often, the issue at trial is not whether the Crown can prove the item is an illegal drug or prove that the accused was in possession of the drug. The issue becomes whether or not the police legally obtained the evidence used to establish proof of possession of the narcotic in accordance with constitutional standards.
In Canada, every citizen enjoys the right to be free from unreasonable police searches and the right not to be stopped and detained by the police without a valid reason. Despite these protections, Canadian citizens, especially those from minority groups, are frequently subjected to arbitrary police stops and illegal searches of their homes, vehicles and personal property.
When the police obtain evidence through the violation of a person’s constitutional rights, the Court may conclude that any evidence obtained from the illegal stop or search should not be admitted in the accused person’s trial. This is a special type of application brought before the judge at trial called a “Charter challenge”, referring to the constitutional protections found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Daniel Brown has argued several successful charter challenges resulting in the exclusion of evidence in drug cases on the basis that the police lacked a valid reason to stop and search the person leading to the discovery of the drugs.
Even if the police have a valid warrant issued by a judge to search a specific location where drugs are found, it may be possible to challenge the basis for issuing the warrant. If the judge on review finds that the officers who obtained the original warrant relied upon unreliable or inaccurate information when they obtained the warrant, the warrant may be ruled invalid and the results of the search warrant may be excluded from the evidence at trial. In most cases, a successful motion to invalidate a search warrant will result in a finding of “not guilty”.
If someone is charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must first prove that item found was an illegal drug and that he or she was in possession of that drug.
Additionally, the Crown must prove that the person possessed the drugs with the intention to sell (or give) it to others.
in determining whether or not a person is in possession of a drug for the purpose of trafficking, the Court will examine a number of factors including:
a) the quantity of drugs involved;
b) the value of the drugs involved;
c) the drug paraphernalia found;
d) the amount of money found;
e) the denomination of the money found;
f) any statement of the accused;
g) any association with known drug traffickers;
h) any unexplained wealth; and
i) the credibility of defence witnesses.
Simply being found in possession of a large amount of any drug may lead to a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking, but it will not necessarily lead to a conviction on that charge. For example, an accused person may testify at trial that they regularly consume a particular drug and therefore possessed a large amount of it to ensure they would have a continuous supply of the illicit substance for their personal use. An admission such as this will not provide a defense to a possession charge, but may lead the judge to reduce the charge from possession for the purpose of trafficking to the less serious charge of simple possession. This type of reduction in the charge may have a significant impact on the type of sentence imposed by the Judge.
The charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking is based on the likelihood that the drugs would be trafficked in the future. it is not necessary for the Crown Attorney to prove that the drugs were actually sold.
It is difficult to estimate the type of sentence a judge may impose for being in possession of a narcotic. Generally, the Court examines the circumstances of the offender in conjunction with the type of drug, the quantity of the drug and the reason the accused was in possession of the item. The Court generally treats drug addicts with more leniency than those persons alleged to possess or sell drugs for commercial gain. Each case is fact specific and requires a detailed analysis of all of the factors in order to determine an appropriate sentence range. Typically, a person found in possession of “hard drugs” such as cocaine and heroin are more likely to attract a jail sentence than those found in possession of “soft drugs” such as marijuana or hashish. Those found in possession of large quantities of jail could face multiple years in jail. However, it is possible for someone facing a minor drug charge to avoid a criminal record or have their charge withdrawn.
Canadian courts are now required to impose minimum sentences of imprisonment for certain drug offences. To learn more about which types of drug charges attract minimum jail sentences, read my article on the new mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug offences in Canada.
If you, or someone you know if facing a drug possession charge in Toronto, or anywhere else in Ontario, you should immediately contact Daniel Brown Law to discuss the best way to successfully defend against the allegation. For a consultation, he can be reached at (416) 297-7200.