1. EXPERIENCE


R. v. I.

  1. I. was charged with Trafficking Cocaine. The police were watching a known drug dealer who was parked in a department store parking lot. I. approached the passenger side window.  One of the officers testified that he watched though binoculars and saw I. accept money and then hand the passenger a baggie of crack cocaine.  The police immediately rushed in and arrested all of the men.  The alleged buy had a baggie of crack cocaine.  I. had $2100 in his pocket.  I. testified that he went to the car to collect a debt that was owed to him.  He received $2100, said good bye and began to walk away when the police came rushing in.  He adamantly denied selling crack cocaine.  During cross examination, the officer was caught in several contradictions and it was established that it would have been very difficult for see the things he claimed given his vantage point, the lighting in the parking lot, and the distance.  The trial found his evidence unreliable.  The trial judge found I. “NOT GUILTY” of Trafficking Cocaine.


R. v. R.

  1. R. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking,  Possession Loaded Restricted Firearm, Careless Storage of a Firearm. The police began following R client on King Street West near Bathurst. They claimed they suspected that he was wanted for a robbery.  After stopping him in parking lot they alleged that he began reaching into the center console of the vehicle.  They arrested him and discovered a loaded handgun and crack cocaine in the center console of the car. There were two defence raised at trial.  The first defence was that the police were not  being  truthful about the reason for stopping R. and that the evidence should be excluded.  The second defence raised was that the police were not being truthful about R. reaching in the center console.  He was not the owner of the vehicle and was only using it for a short period of time. He did not know the gun  and drugs were in the car. The trial judge found R. “NOT GUILTY” of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm, and Careless Storage of a Firearm.


R. v. X.

  1. X. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking.  X. was living with another man in small one bedroom downtown apartment.  The police got a  search warrant after an anonymous source told them there was cocaine in the apartment.  They discovered approximately 2 kilograms of cocaine, and both H. and his roommate were charged.  Several months after their arrest my client’s roommate gave a statement to the police stating that the drugs belonged to my client. As a result, his charges were withdrawn and my client was forced to go trial on the charge.  X. was adamant that he did not know the drugs were there, and the duffle bag where they were found belonged to his roommate.  The case was very stressful for him because he did not have a criminal record and was at the top of his university class. During cross examination at trial Mr. Gorham caught the roommate in several lies and was able to undermine his credibility in front of the jury. “NOT GUILTY” of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine.


R. v. V.

  1. V. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm, Careless Storage of a Firearm. The police began to follow V because they saw him pay for gas with a large roll of cash. They ran the plate of the car on their database and saw a warrant for someone who was associated with the  registered owner.  The warrant was actually old and the person had already been arrested and was in jail. The police claimed that they thought M. might be the person wanted for the warrant.  They stopped him, arrested him, and discovered a small amount of cocaine in the car.  The police then applied for a  warrant to search M.’s apartment but it was rejected by the Justice of the Peace.  After being rejected, one of the officers claimed that V. confessed to have more drugs in the apartment. They sent that new information to the Justice of the Peace and the warrant was granted.  They searched the apartment and found a handgun loaded with a high volume magazine, and nine ounces of cocaine.  The defence was that the police had violated my V.’s rights and the evidence had to be excluded. The trial judge found V. “NOT GUILTY” of Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm, Careless Storage of Firearm and Possession  of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking.  The trial judge decided that the officer concocted the alleged statement and that the evidence had to be excluded.



R. v. F.

  1. F. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime. The police obtained a search warrant for an apartment that F. was staying in.  While they were waiting for the search warrant to arrive they saw my client go into the front door wearing a tan coloured jacket.  A short while later they saw him leave wearing a black jacket.  They arrested him and then searched the apartment. The found several ounces of crack cocaine inside of the barbeque on the balcony.  The police claimed that they found an ounce of cocaine and picture addressed to F. inside of the tan jacket that my client had worn into the apartment.  F. explained that he had been staying in the apartment for a few days because he was in between apartments.  It belonged to his friend and he no idea that there was cocaine stored in the barbecue.  Finally, he swore that he did not have any cocaine in his jacket. F. testified before the jury and explained that he did not know about the cocaine in the barbeque and that he did not have cocaine in his jacket.  The defence theory was the that police officer believed F. was guilty and was trying to make his case stronger by lying about cocaine being found in the jacket.  During cross examination the defence caught him in several contradictions and inconsistencies.  The jury found F. NOT GUILTY of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime.


R. v. Q.

  1. Q. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking.  The police followed Q. as he left a club in the downtown.  One officer claimed to see him put something in the headrest of his seat when he was getting into the car.  The police arrested him because they believed that he had a gun.  When they searched the headrest they discovered crack cocaine and charged Q. with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.  Q. was driving his uncle’s car for the evening and had no idea that their were drugs in the headrest.  The challenge for the defence was to undermine the officer’s claim that he saw Q. putting something in the headrest.  The defence was able to establish contradictions between his evidence and the other officers, as well as inconsistencies in his evidence. The trial judge found Q. NOT GUILTY of Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime.


R. v. L.

  1. L. was charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. The police received an confidential tip that L. was going to be picking up a large quantity of cocaine in a parking lot near a particular hotel in downtown Toronto.  They set up surveillance on him and followed him to the parking lot.  He parked his car, got out, left the truck open and the went across the street.  A short while later another man approached the car and put a backpack in the truck.  A few moments later L. returned and was arrested as he was opening the truck.  The police charged him with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  L. had been approached by a friend who want help collecting a debt.  About a week before his arrest he went with his friend to meet the person who owed the money.  They set a meeting time and place.  L. was told that he was going to be picking up money.  He was shocked to find out that it was cocaine in the bag and not money.  He had no prior criminal record. NOT GUILTY of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.


R. v. H.

  1. H. was charged with Trafficking cocaine, and possession of property obtained by crime. The police snuck into the bag of an apartment building and hid behind the dumpster.  They claimed to see my client meet with another man and hand him a bag and receive money in return.  That man was arrested a short distance away in his truck.  A search of truck revealed cocaine.  The police then arrested my client for trafficking cocaine.  The police officer claimed that the area was well lit and that he was watching from a distance of about 15 feet.  He denied the suggestion that there was no street lights in the area of the apartment complex and that he was a much greater distance away. The  defence led photographs and a video to establish that there were not street lights and the dumpster were more than 100 feet away from the place where E. had been standing.  The judge accepted the defence evidence and concluded that the police officer had fabricated parts of his evidence. The trial judge found H. NOT GUILTY of trafficking cocaine and possession of property obtained by crime.


R. v. V.

  1. V. was charged with Possession of Heroin for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime. The police claimed that they received a “community complaint” about a person matching V.’s description who was selling drugs.  They arrested him, searched him and his car, and found a large amount of heroin and cocaine. At trial the defence made a section 8 and 9 Charter of Rights and Freedoms application to exclude the evidence because the police had been dishonest about their reasons for searching V.  The defence theory was that the police had searched him without reasonable and probable grounds, and that after they discovered the heroin and cocaine they made up their reasonable and probable grounds. The trial judge found V. NOT GUILTY of Possession of Heroin for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime after all of the evidence was excluded from trial because the police violated V.‘s rights under section 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


All information is true but names are changed to protect the identify of former clients.

NATHAN GORHAM 
TORONTO DEFENCE LAWYER
  1. TORONTO | DRUGS | LAWYER


Nathan Gorham is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who defends Possession, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Trafficking, Importing, and Producing all controlled drugs and substances, including Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, MDMA, AND Ecstacy in Toronto, Brampton, Newmarket, or Whitby. He is one of the founding partners at RORRGA LLP, which is the largest and leading criminal defence law firm in Toronto.


The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act defines offences for Possession, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Trafficking, Importing, and Producing many drugs and substances including Cocaine, Marijuana, Ecstacy, Heroin, and MDMA.  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.


Below you will find some of Mr. Gorham’s experience defending drug charges.   Names have been abbreviated to the protect the privacy of former clients. 

MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - Sitemap


  1. CONTACT


tel: 416.410.4814

fax: 416.598.3384

office: 416.598.1811

36 Lombard Street, Suite 100

Toronto, ON, M5C 2X3

gorham@criminaltriallawyers.ca

shapeimage_8_link_0
shapeimage_8_link_1
shapeimage_8_link_2
shapeimage_8_link_3
shapeimage_8_link_4
shapeimage_8_link_5
shapeimage_8_link_6
  1. DEFENCES


There are several potential defences to a drug charge, which include:

  1. lack of knowledge;

  2. lack of control;

  3. Entrapment;

  4. Duress; or

  5. exclusion of the evidence.

shapeimage_8_link_7
  1. THE LAW ON DRUGS IN CANADA


The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act defines offences for Possession, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Trafficking, Importing, and Producing controlled drugs and substances, which include Cocaine, Marijuana, Hash, Ecstacy, Heroin, Crystal Meth. and others.  Penalties range from discharges to life in prison. 


Proof of Possession requires that the defendant knew the substance was there, knew the nature of the nature of the substance, and had some measure of control over the substance.  Possession can be personal possession, constructive possession or joint possession as define by the Criminal Code.  Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking requires proof of the same elements as in Possession with the additional element that the purpose of the possession was to traffic the substance. Trafficking is defined broadly and includes, transferring, selling, giving, exchanging and others.  Importing simply means bringing the substance into Canada.  Producing means growing, producing or otherwise manufacturing the drug. 

shapeimage_8_link_16
shapeimage_8_link_0
MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - SitemapHome.htmlRecent_successes_main_page.htmlFees.htmlConsultations.htmlAbout.htmlToronto_Murder_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drinking_and_Driving_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Domestic_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Theft_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Firearms_Lawyer.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlshapeimage_8_link_0shapeimage_8_link_1shapeimage_8_link_2shapeimage_8_link_3shapeimage_8_link_4shapeimage_8_link_5shapeimage_8_link_6shapeimage_8_link_7shapeimage_8_link_8shapeimage_8_link_9shapeimage_8_link_10shapeimage_8_link_11shapeimage_8_link_12shapeimage_8_link_13shapeimage_8_link_14shapeimage_8_link_15shapeimage_8_link_16