Analysis Of Drug Offences Under Controlled Drugs And Substances Act
I. OVERVIEW OF DRUG OFFENCES UNDER THE CDSA
The CDSA is the principal federal statute governing illegal drugs in Canada. It criminalizes activities involving controlled substances listed in various schedules (I–VIII).
The most common offences include:
1. Possession (s.4)
To convict, the Crown must prove:
The substance is a controlled drug,
The accused knew of its existence,
The accused had control or joint control over it.
2. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (s.5(2))
The Crown must prove:
Possession, plus
Intent to traffic (e.g., quantity, packaging, scales, cash).
3. Trafficking (s.5(1))
“Trafficking” includes:
Selling, administering, giving, transferring,
Offering to traffic, even if no drugs actually exchanged.
4. Production (s.7)
Covers growing, manufacturing, or synthesizing controlled substances.
5. Importing/Exporting (s.6)
Severely punished because it involves international drug movement.
Key Legal Themes in CDSA Cases
Charter rights (especially s.8: unreasonable search and seizure)
Knowledge and intent
Circumstantial evidence for trafficking
Constructive possession
Police investigative methods (sniffer dogs, wiretaps, surveillance)
II. IMPORTANT CASES (Explained in Depth)
Below are five major Canadian cases that shape drug-offence law under the CDSA.
1. R. v. Grant (2009, SCC)
Primary Issue: Whether evidence obtained after a detention was admissible under the Charter.
Relevance to CDSA: Defines when drug evidence found during searches must be excluded.
Facts
Police approached Grant, questioned him, and found him acting nervously. After more probing, he admitted having marijuana and a loaded pistol. The issue was whether Grant was detained before he confessed.
Decision & Principle
The Supreme Court held:
Grant was psychologically detained when officers questioned him in a manner implying he had no choice.
The statement and evidence were obtained in violation of s.9 (arbitrary detention).
However, the gun was ultimately admitted because police acted in good faith.
Importance
For drug cases:
Evidence from police questioning can be excluded if the detention is coercive.
Courts use the Grant test to determine exclusion of drug evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.
2. R. v. Terry (1996, SCC)
Primary Issue: What constitutes “possession” under s.4 CDSA.
Facts
Terry was found in a house where drugs were discovered. He argued he did not “possess” the drugs because he didn’t own them.
Decision
The SCC held:
Possession includes knowledge plus control (actual or constructive).
Even joint possession or shared control counts.
Importance
Key case in defining possession:
Being in a place where drugs are present can be enough if the accused exercises control or some authority.
Courts often use Terry where drugs are found in vehicles, bedrooms, or shared apartments.
3. R. v. Smith (2015, SCC)
Primary Issue: Whether the prohibition on cannabis derivatives (edibles, oils) violated the Charter.
Facts
Smith was authorized to possess dried marijuana for medical purposes, but he produced cannabis cookies, oils, and gels. Under the former regulations, only dried marijuana was permitted.
Decision
The SCC declared the restriction unconstitutional:
The law violated s.7 of the Charter (life, liberty, security of the person).
Patients must have access to reasonably required forms of medication.
Importance
For CDSA offences:
Constitutional limits apply to drug prohibitions.
Defence lawyers often use Smith to challenge overly broad drug laws or restrictive medical exceptions.
4. R. v. Boudreault (2012, SCC)
Primary Issue: Whether mandatory minimum penalties for certain CDSA trafficking offences were constitutional.
Facts
Boudreault faced mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking. He argued they were grossly disproportionate.
Decision
The SCC held:
Mandatory minimum penalties can violate s.12 (cruel and unusual punishment).
Courts may strike down mandatory minimums if they produce unjust results for “reasonable hypothetical offenders”.
Importance
Many mandatory minimums under the CDSA were later struck down using the reasoning in this case.
Judges now exercise greater discretion in sentencing for drug offences.
5. R. v. MacKenzie (2013, SCC)
Primary Issue: Use of drug-sniffing dogs and s.8 of the Charter (unreasonable search).
Facts
Police used a sniffer dog on MacKenzie’s vehicle without prior reasonable suspicion. The dog alerted, leading to the discovery of cocaine.
Decision
The SCC held:
Sniffer dog searches are searches under s.8.
Police must have reasonable suspicion before using a dog.
Here, police did not have sufficient grounds → search violated the Charter.
Result
The evidence was excluded.
Importance
A foundational case for:
Roadside drug stops,
Bus terminal searches,
Airport luggage dog searches.
Now police cannot rely on intuition; they need objective, articulable facts to justify a dog sniff.
III. BONUS CASES (Short Summaries)
6. R. v. Goldhart (1996, SCC)
Clarified rules for excluding evidence based on temporal, causal, or contextual connection between Charter breach and discovered drugs.
7. R. v. Oakes (1986, SCC)
Although not a CDSA case, it involved narcotics trafficking and established the Oakes test used for all Charter s.1 analyses.
IV. CONCLUSION
Drug offences under the CDSA involve detailed analysis of:
Knowledge and control (possession),
Intent (trafficking),
Police conduct (search & seizure),
Constitutional protections (s.7, s.8, s.9, s.12),
Sentencing discretion.
The cases above are core precedents that shape how Canadian courts interpret the CDSA today.
RELATED Blog
0 comments