Drug offences can generally be classified into three categories: possession; possession for the purpose of trafficking; and trafficking. Types of drugs range from marijuana, dode, hashish, cocaine and heroin, to name just a few. Each drug has been categorized in Schedules in the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, which is Canada's federal drug control statute. The Federal Department of Justice generally prosecutes drug offences under the Act.
The severity of the charge depends on the type of drug that is involved. The trend in Canada has been to treat drug charges quite seriously since the use and selling of drugs are considered to be a societal problem that can destroy lives.
We work aggressively to insure that your rights are not breached or otherwise compromised at any point during the legal process. Most drug cases involve issues regarding the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. We will be able to identify any violation of rights that occurs during search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, the subsequent collection of evidence, or any other instance of rights violations.
We will dedicate large amounts of time and energy into your case in order to best protect and maximize your legal rights in a criminal defence case. We will also provide a realistic and objective perspective about the anticipated course of legal proceedings and what can be expected during the case.
- Possession- The Crown must establish that the drugs were in your possession or in your control/knowledge
- Type of Drug- The Crown must prove the drugs have been tested by an analyst and it was infact a controlled drug
- Search Issues- Often there are grounds to argue, the police may have conducted an illegal search of your body, car or home
We have the experience, resource and tools required to provide you with the most effective legal defence, often not resulting in a criminal record. It is important to remember that every allegation of drug possession is a fact specific inquiry. Consulting a lawyer will assist you with identifying potential defences to this type of allegation.
R. v. M.H.
CaseOur client was a 20 year old person who was introduced to a girl for a possible marriage proposal. The girl was 18 years of age and attending High School. It was alleged that he met her at the High School and forced her to have sex in the back of his car. The girl did not go to the police until 3 months later.
Result We had cell phone records to show that the girl continued to have continued lengthy telephone conversations with our client after the incident of sex. They spoke on the phone for over one hour the day after the incident. She couldn't recall having these lengthy conversations (however, the telephone bills were clear evidence of the conversations). She admitted that it was our client who dumped her two weeks after having sex. She admitted that she was hurt when he dumped her. She said that at no time after the incident of sex did she confront our client and say that he had done something wrong and that she was mad at him.
It made no sense that if she had been raped by our client that she would have continued to talk to him afterwards and would have been hurt when she was dumped by him. The delay in reporting the incident was also problematic for the Crown. Further she was unable to explain how he forced her to have sex and how her tight jeans were removed in the back seat of the car. She came across as a person who was having our client charged because he had sex with her and promised her marriage, but didn't carry through with that promise.
After hearing the girls evidence, the Crown Attorney, withdrew the charges against our client.
R. v. V.J.
Case Our client was charged with having possession of 20 grams of Marihuana. Our client readily admitted that he had possession of the drugs, but wanted us to do everything we could to try to win the case.
Trial The Crown attempted to prove that the drugs were in fact Marihuana by relying upon a Certificate of Analysis as they commonly do. The Certificate was served upon our client's mother at our client's home. I brought to the attention of the Crown that service was flawed as our client never actually received the Certificate evidence. As a result the Crown decided to withdraw the charges against our client.
R. v. P.D.
Case Our client was apprehended with a small quantity of Marihuana. He was a University Graduate and held a very responsible job. I brought to the attention of the Crown the details about our client and the fact that a Criminal Record would adversely affect his employment situation. The Crown agreed that upon the making of a charitable donation the charges would be withdrawn.
Result Charges were withdrawn.
R. v. T.S.
Case The police had stopped our client's car because it had a loud muffler. The police officer became suspicious of our client as he appeared very nervous. The officer asked him if he could search the car. Our client felt he didn't have a choice and simply let the police search the vehicle. The police officer located $400.00 worth of cocaine and $150.00 worth of Marijuana.
Trial It was argued that the police had no authority to search the vehicle. The consent that the police relied upon was not an informed consent. Our client was unfairly treated in the manner in which the vehicle was stopped and subsequently searched.
Result The Court held that our client's Charter Rights had been violated and dismissed the charges.