Brian Ross, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer

DRUG OFFENCES

Drug offences are enumerated in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. They include: Trafficking, Importing, Producing a Substance, and both “simple” Possession and Possession of a Drug for the Purpose of Trafficking.

Brian Ross is a founding partner at Canada’s largest criminal Law firm, Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross & Angelini, LLP.

THE OFFENCE

For a complete listing of drug offences, please refer to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1996-c-19/latest/sc-1996-c-19.html. Often, those charged with drug related offences, are also charged with Possession of Proceeds of Crime, which is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. A complete listing of Criminal Code offences can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html.

What follows is a brief summary of the law relating to drug offences. While it is not, and should not be relied upon as legal advice, it may assist you with some of the questions you might have. As always, consult a criminal lawyer should you need criminal advice.

Drug Trafficking

In order to find someone guilty of trafficking in a drug, the Crown must prove that: (a) the defendant trafficked in a substance, (b) the substance was one prohibited under the Controlled and Drugs Substances Act: for example, cocaine (c) the defendant knew the substance was a substance prohibited under the Controlled and Drugs Substances Act, and (d) the defendant intentionally trafficked in that substance. To “traffic” in a substance means to sell, give, administer, transfer, send, or deliver something to someone, or to offer to do so. The Crown can prove the defendant had “knowledge” of the nature of the substance by proving that (a) the defendant actually knew or was aware of what it was, or (b) was aware of the need to make an inquiry about the nature of the substance but deliberately failed do to so because he or she did not want to know the truth about it.
Possession of a Drug for the Purpose of Trafficking

To find someone guilty of Possession of a Drug for the Purpose of Trafficking, the Crown must prove that: (a) the defendant was in possession of a substance (for example: ecstasy, (b) that the substance was a substance prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, (c) the defendant knew that the substance was a substance prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and (d) the defendant had possession of the substance for the purpose of trafficking in it. It should be noted that under the law, a person has possession of an item when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly: (a) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or

(b) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or another person. Further, where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, the law deems it to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them. Finally, of course, the Crown must prove that the drug was not for “personal use”; the Crown must prove that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking. To “traffic” in a substance means to sell, give, administer, transfer, send, or deliver something to someone, or to offer to do so.

Importing Drugs

It is, of course, illegal to bring a prohibited drug into Canada. To find someone guilty of Importing a substance, the Crown must prove that: (a) the defendant imported a substance into Canada: for example, heroin (b) the substance was a substance prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, (c) the defendant knew that the substance was a substance prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and (d) that the importing was intentional. The Crown therefore must prove that the defendant either brought the substance, or caused someone else to bring in the substance from outside Canada into Canada. To prove that the defendant knew the substance was prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Crown must prove actual knowledge on the part of the defendant or that the defendant was suspicious as to its nature/was aware of the need to inquire about its nature but deliberately failed to do so because he or she did not want to know the truth about it. This is often called “wilful blindness”.

Producing a Substance

Producing a substance is a serious criminal offence and carries with it, strict penalties. To find someone guilty of Producing a Substance (for example, marijuana), the Crown must prove that: (a) the defendant produced marijuana, (b) the substance was marijuana (c) the defendant knew that the substance was marijuana, and (d) the defendant intended to produce marijuana. To “produce” a substance means to make it or mix it with some other substance and includes cultivation, propagation, and harvest. To prove that the defendant knew the substance was prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Crown must prove actual knowledge on the part of the defendant or that the defendant was suspicious as to its nature/was aware of the need to inquire about its nature but deliberately failed to do so because he or she did not want to know the truth about it. This is often called “wilful blindness”.

There are numerous ways to defend against these charges and I have successfully defended people against them numerous times – please refer to my Recent Successes page. The consequences to receiving a conviction for any drug offence can be very severe with a maximum penalty for certain offences being life imprisonment.

Again, the foregoing is only a summary. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. For a free consultation to discuss your case, please call me at
(416) 658-5855.

RECENT SUCCESSES

Drug Offences

Client found not guilty by a jury after a lengthy trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. M.C.

Client charged with Importing Opium, the largest opium importing case in Canada. Opium imported from Iran, hidden in various objects in industrial shipping containers. Client allegedly confessed to it and several items linking client to the shipment seized by police.

Attack on the warrant successful; charges dismissed

R. v. P.C.

Client was charged with Producing Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police executed a search warrant at his home and found approximately 400 marijuana plants growing. The client did not deny this. At trial, I attacked the search warrant itself and argued that the police lied in their grounds to obtain the warrant.

Client found “not guilty” after a trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. L.B.

Client allegedly trafficked a substance held out to be cocaine to an individual on the porch of a house. Police were conducting surveillance and claimed to have seen the whole thing. A police officer testified that he was certain the individual who trafficked was L.B.

Jury could not reach a unanimous decision and the Crown subsequently chose not to proceed on the case.

R. v. J.C.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine after he allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. Although this deal was allegedly witnessed by other officers, the client testified that he was not involved. In fact, his position was that the officer was lying and that he told the officer to get lost.

Client found “not guilty” of trafficking cocaine by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. R.B.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine and other offences after he allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover officer. Client testified that he did not sell the officer anything but instead, told him where he could find cocaine as he had just located some himself.

Charges withdrawn after a preliminary hearing.

R. v. D.Y.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking, and two counts of Possession of Proceeds of Crime. Client alleged to have sold a quantity of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. The police subsequently executed a search warrant at the client’s residence and discovered marijuana and money which they claimed was proceeds from selling drugs.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. A.P.

Client charged with Trafficking Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime. It was alleged that he was a drug dealer and had sold marijuana to a student in a high school washroom.

Charter application successful; all charges dismissed at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. D.B.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Proceeds of Crime. Police received information that the client had stabbed someone the day before and went to his place to arrest him. They knocked on his door and lied about their identity. Upon opening the door, naked at the time, D.B. was arrested. He asked to put on pants and the police claimed that cocaine and money were in his pants pocket. I argued that the client’s rights under the Charter rights were infringed as the police entered unlawfully and further, that they had no right to arrest him in the first place.

After two days of trial, the Crown “stayed” the charges.

R. v. C.G.

Police entered a bar and searched all of its occupants. Police claimed that they observed the client throw a bag containing a large amount of cocaine and that the client fought the police upon his arrest. Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking and Assaulting a Police Officer.

Charter argument successful; Charges dismissed after trial.

R. v. T.C.

Police arrested T.C. after a chase through the hallways of an apartment building. Upon stopping him, they searched his pockets. I argued that they violated his rights as they had no grounds to stop and search him.

Charges withdrawn after Charter application filed.

R. v. A.F.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking and Possession of Cocaine. Police stopped the client’s vehicle and upon searching the vehicle, discovered a quantity of cocaine and indications of trafficking. Client claimed that his rights under the Charter were violated.

Charge withdrawn after successful discussions with the Crown Attorney.

R. v. S.G.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Upon executing a search warrant at the client’s address, police locate a quantity of cocaine hidden in the rafters in the basement. Client maintained that he had no idea that the cocaine was there.

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney.

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police arrested client and upon searching him, discovered a large quantity of crack cocaine.

Charge withdrawn at trial.

R. v. K.F.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police officers found a vehicle parked suspiciously on the side of the road. There was nobody inside. Police officers went inside the vehicle and found a duffel bag full of marijuana. They later saw K.F. come to the vehicle with a can of gas. He was arrested.

All charges dismissed after trial

R. v. S.H.

Client charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault Police Officer, and Possession of Cocaine. It was alleged that the client got into a fight at a festival. When police intervened, it was alleged that the client fought with the police. Upon arrest, police discovered cocaine on the client.

Charge was withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. O.P.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police stopped the client in his vehicle and after a search, located a quantity of crack cocaine. It was our position that the police violated the client’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that there were no grounds to stop the vehicle or conduct a search.

Charge withdrawn after Crown pre-trial.

R. v. J.G

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police allegedly stopped the client and upon searching him, discovered a quantity of cocaine.

Charge withdrawn after successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. N.T.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police were conducting surveillance on a known drug dealer. They observed my client enter this drug dealer’s vehicle and exit a short time later. Police stopped client and arrested him and discovered a quantity of cocaine on him.

Charge withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. T.C.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police attended at a known “crack house” and found my client within. A large quantity of cocaine was found there as well as indicia of trafficking.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Possession of Ecstasy and Fail to Comply with Undertaking. Police officers stopped A.M. and began questioning him. They learned that he had earlier been charged and released on an Undertaking. Upon his arrest for this offence, they located ecstasy. It was our position that the police violated his Charter rights and had no reason to stop and detain him in the first place.

Charges withdrawn after preliminary hearing.

R. v. S.A.

Police were conducting undercover buys with several people and began a large scale investigation into a drug ring. Client charged with Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine and Trafficking in Cocaine.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. S.W.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana. Police arrested my client and found a quantity of marijuana on him.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. O.P.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana. Police allegedly observed client committing Highway Traffic Act violations and stopped his vehicle. Upon speaking to client, the police officer alleged he could smell marijuana emanating from within. The officer discovered marijuana after a search of the vehicle. I alleged that the police had no right to stop the vehicle, question the driver about marijuana or search the vehicle.

Brian Ross is professional, straightforward, and honest. After we reviewed my case I didn't have high hopes for a positive outcome because there really wasn't much for him to work with. However, come court date, charges were withdrawn!! It had all happened so fast. I am so grateful for Brian Ross and his team. He didn't give up on my case and he definitely made lemonade out of like a 1/4 of a lemon. I would 100% use their services again - hopefully I won't have too.

Kate Rice

Money well spent! With all the issues with my case Brian gave me hope. I would definitely recommend spending the cash to hire Brian as he is an amazing lawyer. Watching him work I knew I had great chances. I feel like I have a new lease of life now with this behind me. All charges dropped which I could not imagine. Thank you to you and your team on helping me with this. Best lawyer in the city!!!

Jan Lane

I had a great experience hiring Brian for my case. From the beginning he was very direct and honest. He was confident in his prediction and his prediction was correct. Brian did an incredible job. He is highly knowledgeable in his field. He was thorough and very well experienced. I do highly recommend Brian!!

Anita Wong

As a young professional, the weight of a conviction was staggering, and would have greatly affected my ability to work in my chosen profession. Hiring Mr. Ross was the best way to guarantee against such effects. Throughout, Brian was present, helpful, positive, and supportive; hard-working and diligent. It was truly a pleasure to work with him, and a relief to get the call that Mr. Ross had accomplished what he initially set out to do. Consider this a sincere “Thank You” and commendation.

Kylie S

Nominated in 2023 for the Best Lawyers Award in Criminal Law

Candidates who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Our awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers.

REQUEST A CONSULTATION

A criminal record can have lifelong ramifications. Don't take a chance with an inexperienced attorney. I will fight to get your life back as I have done with countless others before you.

(416) 658-5855

Brian Ross, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer

DRUG OFFENCES

Brian Ross is a founding partner at Canada’s largest criminal Law firm, Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross & Angelini, LLP.

THE OFFENCE

Producing a Substance

RECENT SUCCESSES

Drug Offences

Client found not guilty by a jury after a lengthy trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. M.C.

Attack on the warrant successful; charges dismissed

R. v. P.C.

Client found “not guilty” after a trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. L.B.

Jury could not reach a unanimous decision and the Crown subsequently chose not to proceed on the case.

R. v. J.C.

Client found “not guilty” of trafficking cocaine by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. R.B.

Charges withdrawn after a preliminary hearing.

R. v. D.Y.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. A.P.

Charter application successful; all charges dismissed at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. D.B.

After two days of trial, the Crown “stayed” the charges.

R. v. C.G.

Charter argument successful; Charges dismissed after trial.

R. v. T.C.

Charges withdrawn after Charter application filed.

R. v. A.F.

Charge withdrawn after successful discussions with the Crown Attorney.

R. v. S.G.

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney.

R. v. G.M.

Charge withdrawn at trial.

R. v. K.F.

All charges dismissed after trial

R. v. S.H.

Charge was withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. O.P.

Charge withdrawn after Crown pre-trial.

R. v. J.G

Charge withdrawn after successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. N.T.

Charge withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. T.C.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. A.M.

Charges withdrawn after preliminary hearing.

R. v. S.A.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. S.W.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. O.P.

Nominated in 2023 for the Best Lawyers Award in Criminal Law

REQUEST A CONSULTATION

QUICK LINKS

LOCATIONS

WHAT I DEFEND

CONTACT INFORMATION