Brampton Drug Charge & Possession Lawyer
Michelle Johal is a Brampton drug lawyer who defends Possession, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Trafficking, and Producing all controlled drugs and substances, including Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, and Ecstasy. Michelle Johal has defended numerous defendants accused of drug-related offences in Brampton and Newmarket.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act defines offences for Possession, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Trafficking, Importing, and Producing many drugs and substances. Potential sentences range from discharges right up to life in prison depending on the offences, the nature of the drug, and other aggravating factors as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the common law. As a result of the new Conservative Omnibus crime bill, judges will be required to issue minimum sentences for some drug-related offences, a change that is expected to dramatically increase the number of people in provincial and federal prisons. If you are charged with possession of a controlled substance, you should get legal advice from an experienced drug lawyer. An experienced drug lawyer can advise you whether or not there is a defence to the charge, and whether proper procedures were followed by the police.
It is not an uncommon occurrence for the police to conduct illegal searches, and for this to result in the evidence being excluded following a successful Charter application. Drug cases are often very technical. The Crown has to prove that the substance was in fact the controlled substance they are alleging. They have to produce a certificate of analysis for the controlled substance, which must be served upon you before trial. If this does not occur, arguments can be made which prevent the Crown from successfully proving the charge against you. It is important to consult an experienced drug lawyer early in the process for sound legal advice.
Below you will find some of Michelle Johal’s experience defending drug charges. Names have been abbreviated to the protect the privacy of former clients.
O.A. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of Cocaine. Mr. O. and his co-accused had an encounter with the police in the parking lot of a community centre in Brampton. Mr. O.A. vehicle was searched by the police without a warrant and approximately 100 grams of cocaine was located. Counsel Michelle Johal applied to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the evidence was obtained in breach of his rights under Section 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter. Justice Molloy concluded that the search of the vehicle violated the Section 8 and 9 rights of the accused and excluded the evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter. The charges against Mr. O.A. were dismissed.
R. v. T.V.
T.V. was charged with produce marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds. After a month long trial, the Judge found that the evidence failed to show that the accused committed the offence of production of marijuana at two residences either by her direct actions or by aiding and abetting. The judge also found that in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of knowledge of any criminal source of the funds from unnamed sources, resulting in the purchase of the named properties in possession of the accused, or any linkage of those funds or properties beyond reasonable doubt to criminal conduct, that the proceeds charges should also be dismissed. All charges against the client were dismissed.
R. v. J.S.
J.S. was charged with production of marihuana. The police located a grow operation in the basement of her residence. The Crown initially took a position of 9 months jail as a result of the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. The charge of production of marihuana was ultimately withdrawn by the crown. Read a testimonial from the client here.
R. v. H.S.
H.S. was charged with trafficking marihuana and possession of proceeds. York Region Police officers arrested him in his vehicle in the parking lot of a busy retail establishment. After successful resolution discussions with the Crown, the criminal charge against him was withdrawn.
R. v. H.S.
H.S. was charged with trafficking marihuana a second time. Police officers arrested him in his vehicle of the parking lot of a busy retail establishment. After successful resolution discussions with the Crown, the second criminal charge of trafficking against him was withdrawn.