Drug Trafficking And International Cooperation
Drug trafficking in Canada is a serious criminal offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), 1996. International cooperation is often necessary due to the cross-border nature of drug trafficking.
1. Legal Framework in Canada
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
s. 5 – Prohibits production, distribution, sale, or trafficking of controlled substances.
s. 6 – Criminalizes possession for the purpose of trafficking.
s. 7 – Criminalizes import/export of controlled substances.
Penalties:
Life imprisonment for trafficking large quantities of Schedule I substances (e.g., heroin, cocaine).
Graduated penalties for smaller amounts or lower schedules.
2. Key Concepts
Trafficking
Defined broadly: includes selling, administering, giving, transferring, transporting, sending, or delivering controlled substances.
Possession for trafficking requires proof of intent to distribute, not merely possession.
International Cooperation
Canada works with international partners through:
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) – to share evidence and assist in investigations.
Extradition treaties – to bring traffickers to justice across borders.
UN Conventions:
1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances
1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
Cross-Border Investigations
Canadian law enforcement collaborates with Interpol, DEA (USA), RCMP, and local authorities.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction can apply in cases involving Canadian nationals or Canadian territory.
3. Major Canadian Case Law on Drug Trafficking and International Cooperation
1. R. v. Smith (1987), SCC
Key Issue: Trafficking vs. possession.
Facts:
The accused was found with a large quantity of cocaine. He claimed personal use.
Holding:
Supreme Court clarified that possession for the purpose of trafficking can be inferred from:
Quantity of drugs,
Packaging,
Possession of cash or paraphernalia,
Distribution patterns.
Importance:
Sets standard for proving trafficking in Canada.
Crucial for cases involving international shipments.
2. R. v. George (2004), SCC
Key Issue: Extradition of Canadian nationals for drug trafficking.
Facts:
A Canadian citizen was wanted in the USA for trafficking heroin. He challenged extradition.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that extradition is lawful if:
Dual criminality exists (offense is criminal in both countries),
Treaty obligations are respected,
Human rights protections are observed.
Importance:
Confirms Canada’s commitment to international cooperation in drug trafficking cases.
Reinforces that extradition is a tool to fight cross-border trafficking.
3. United States v. Burns (2001), SCC (related to international drug offenses)
Key Issue: Death penalty in extradition for drug offenses.
Facts:
Two Canadian citizens in the U.S. were convicted of drug trafficking and faced death sentences. Canada had to decide on extradition.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that extradition without assurances against the death penalty violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Importance:
Establishes limits of international cooperation: human rights must be respected in cross-border trafficking cases.
4. R. v. Sharpe (2001), BC Court of Appeal (in context of trafficking and internet-based distribution)
Key Issue: Trafficking via electronic or international channels.
Facts:
Accused distributed controlled substances through an online network connecting Canada and the USA.
Holding:
Court held that online distribution qualifies as trafficking.
Extraterritorial reach applies if substances cross borders or involve foreign participants.
Importance:
Recognizes digital and international dimension of drug trafficking.
Supports cross-border investigations and prosecutions.
5. R. v. McKinnon (2006), ONCA
Key Issue: Coordinated cross-border drug operations.
Facts:
Accused participated in a drug ring importing cocaine from Colombia into Canada.
Holding:
Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that conspiracy and trafficking charges apply even if operations involve multiple countries.
Evidence from foreign jurisdictions admissible if obtained under MLATs.
Importance:
Highlights the importance of international evidence sharing in prosecuting trafficking networks.
6. R. v. Nguyen (2010), SCC
Key Issue: Controlled delivery and international cooperation.
Facts:
RCMP coordinated with DEA to allow controlled delivery of heroin from the US into Canada to catch traffickers.
Holding:
Supreme Court upheld controlled delivery operations as lawful, provided due process and oversight are respected.
Importance:
Confirms that controlled cross-border operations are legal and effective for combating trafficking.
Reinforces collaboration between Canadian and foreign law enforcement.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Trafficking can be inferred from circumstances, not only direct evidence (R. v. Smith).
Extradition supports international cooperation, but human rights limits apply (R. v. George; Burns).
Cross-border conspiracies can be prosecuted in Canada with evidence from abroad (McKinnon).
Controlled delivery programs are lawful tools for catching traffickers (Nguyen).
Digital and online trafficking fall within trafficking definitions (Sharpe).
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are essential for evidence sharing and prosecution.
5. Summary
Canada criminalizes production, trafficking, and import/export under the CDSA.
International cooperation is crucial due to cross-border drug networks.
Courts have clarified:
Evidence standards for trafficking,
Legality of extradition and international operations,
Limits imposed by human rights.
Enforcement combines police discretion, controlled operations, MLATs, and extradition.
RELATED Blog
comments