Possession
4. (1) Possession of substance – Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
The proclamation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 1997 introduced the term “controlled substance.”
“controlled substance” means a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, or V, and includes all of the commonly known drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, along with dozens of lesser known substances.
“possession” adopts the definition from the Criminal Code of Canada and means
– personal possession;
– knowingly having anything in the possession or custody of another person, or
– knowingly having anything in any place for the use or benefit of himself or of another person.
Any criminal conviction can have far-reaching consequences which extend beyond the courtroom. A drug conviction can be particularly devastating. Any result less than an absolutedischarge can permanently prevent a person from travelling to, or through, the United States.
Wade Jenson is an experienced drug lawyer with a reputation for achieving exceptional results for his clients.
CASE EXAMPLES:
1) R. v. J.
Client arrested in vehicle outside of Revelstoke in possession of over 198 grams of marijuana, along with scales. With extended family residing in the United States, the accused feared any conviction would prevent her from ever again crossing the border. Needing nothing short of the best possible result, she retained criminal lawyer Wade Jenson. Wade Jenson obtained an ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE for his client. No fine, no probation, no record (and no travel restrictions).
2) R. v. B.
Following up a complaint, police arrested accused on downtown Kelowna street. The accused resisted arrest, and upon being searched incidental to arrest, was found to be in possession of cocaine. He was charged with assault of a peace officer, obstruction of a peace officer, and possession of a controlled substance. Kelowna criminal defence lawyer Wade Jenson was hired to defend. Wade Jenson successfully argued that the arrest was unlawful, that a person is entitled to resist an unlawful arrest, and that the drug evidence obtained directly as a result of the unlawful arrest was therefore inadmissible. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED.