Criminal Defence · Drug Trafficking (CDSA)

Drug Trafficking Lawyer in Toronto

Reviewed by Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law · Toronto criminal defence · Last reviewed: July 2026

A drug trafficking charge in Toronto can begin somewhere far less dramatic than the word "trafficking" suggests, a traffic stop that turns into a vehicle search, a warrant executed at an apartment shared with roommates, a phone seized at the border, or a handful of text messages the police read as a "dial-a-dope" line. Because the law defines "traffic" so broadly, people are often stunned to find that transporting or simply holding drugs "for someone else" can support the most serious drug charges in the Criminal Code framework.

At Kazandji Law, our criminal defence team represents people charged with trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and related drug offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. This page explains what you are actually facing under federal drug law in 2026, the difference between the two trafficking charges, what the Crown must prove, how prosecutors try to prove "purpose", and how that proof is challenged, the realistic range of penalties, the bail problem that makes these files urgent, and the Charter defences that most often lead to charges being reduced, excluded, or thrown out. If you would rather talk it through now, call 647-588-3234 for a free, confidential consultation.

An important starting point: trafficking is treated as one of the most serious offences in Canadian drug law, and for good reason the stakes are high. But two recent shifts matter enormously. First, in 2022 Parliament repealed every mandatory minimum jail sentence in the CDSA, restoring judicial discretion that had been removed a decade earlier. Second, the courts have continued to tighten the rules on police search powers, meaning the way the drugs and phones in your case were seized is frequently the whole ballgame. Early, strategic advice is the single most effective way to protect your liberty and your record.

What "trafficking" actually means under Canadian law

Drug offences in Canada are not found in the general Criminal Code. They live in a separate federal statute, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, almost always called the CDSA. Trafficking is created by section 5(1), which states that "no person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance."^[1]

The critical word is "traffic," and its legal meaning is far wider than ordinary speech. Under section 2(1) of the CDSA, to "traffic" means, in respect of a scheduled substance, "to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance," to "sell an authorization to obtain the substance," or "to offer to do" any of those things, in every case "otherwise than under the authority of the regulations."^[2] Read that list again: giving a drug to a friend, transporting it across town for someone else, or even offering to do so can all meet the definition. A commercial sale is not required. This is why so many Toronto trafficking prosecutions do not involve an organized operation at all, they are built from facts the Crown argues "look like" distribution.

There is one more feature worth understanding early. Because s. 5(1) also captures a substance "represented or held out" to be a controlled substance, a person can face a trafficking allegation even where what changed hands was not, in fact, a real controlled drug, for example, where someone offered to sell cocaine but the substance was something else.^[1] The scope of the offence is broad, and an experienced lawyer's first job is to pin down exactly which subsection you are charged under, which schedule the alleged substance falls into, and what conduct the Crown says amounts to "trafficking."

The two trafficking charges you see most in Toronto

Most "trafficking" files in Toronto fall into one of two categories under section 5, and the distinction shapes the entire defence.

Trafficking: CDSA s. 5(1)

This is the allegation that you actually trafficked, that you sold, gave, transferred, transported, sent, delivered, or offered to do one of those things. It does not require the police to have witnessed a hand-to-hand cash sale; an allegation of "delivering" or "transporting" for another person is enough to bring the charge. Cases are frequently built on surveillance, alleged controlled purchases, informant information, intercepted communications, and the contents of seized phones.

Possession for the purpose of trafficking: CDSA s. 5(2)

Here, the police may not claim to have seen any transaction at all. Instead, they allege you possessed a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking it. The Crown must prove the ordinary elements of possession, knowledge and control, plus the added element of purpose: that the drugs were held for distribution rather than personal use. As the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. Morelli (2010), "knowledge and control are essential elements" of possession.^[3] The battleground in a s. 5(2) case is almost always that final element, purpose, because purpose is usually proven indirectly, by inference, and inferences can be challenged.

How penalties work: schedules, elections, and maximums

The maximum penalty for trafficking and PPT depends entirely on which schedule the substance falls into. Under section 5(3) of the CDSA, the ceilings are as follows. These are the maximums set out in the statute, they are the top of the range for the most serious cases, not typical sentences, and as explained below there is no longer any mandatory minimum.^[1]

A few points that matter in practice:

• The schedule is everything. Trafficking a Schedule I or II drug is a straight indictable offence with a maximum of life imprisonment; there is no "summary" option for those substances. Which schedule an alleged drug falls into is a technical, verifiable question, and it drives the penalty exposure, the bail regime, and the immigration consequences.
• These maximums are ceilings, not typical outcomes. A life sentence is not the going rate for trafficking. What a court actually imposes depends heavily on the substance, the quantity, the person's role, their record, and the circumstances, and, since 2022, on the full range of sentencing options available to the judge. A frank, individualized assessment of realistic exposure in your specific file is something we provide after reviewing the disclosure, not before.
• Related conduct carries its own maximums. Importing and exporting (s. 6) and production (s. 7) of Schedule I or II substances also carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment. If your charge involves those allegations, see our importing and exporting and production and cultivation pages.

Bill C-5 (2022): the repeal of mandatory minimums

This is one of the most important recent developments in Canadian drug sentencing, and it is frequently misunderstood. In November 2022, Bill C-5 received Royal Assent as S.C. 2022, c. 15. According to the official parliamentary summary, the Act amended the Criminal Code and the CDSA to, "among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences."^[4] For drug offences, this repealed the mandatory minimum jail sentences that had previously attached to trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting, and production.

The practical effect for a trafficking file is significant. Judges are no longer forced to impose a fixed floor of jail time regardless of the individual before them. They can now craft a proportionate sentence tailored to the offence and the offender, and, in appropriate cases, community-based options such as conditional sentences (a jail sentence served in the community, for example under house arrest) are available where they were previously blocked. This does not mean trafficking is treated lightly; serious cases still attract serious sentences. But it does mean the sentencing conversation is now a real, evidence-based conversation, and skilled advocacy at sentencing can matter more than it has in years. Any specific expectation about the likely sentence in your case should come from a lawyer who has read your disclosure.

Simple possession vs. possession for the purpose of trafficking

One of the most consequential decisions in any drug case is how the Crown characterizes it. There is a world of difference between simple possession under s. 4 of the CDSA and possession for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2).

Simple possession means possessing a controlled substance for your own use. It is a hybrid offence with comparatively modest maximums, and federal policy strongly favours diverting first-time simple possession out of the courts entirely, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada's Guideline 5.13 (August 2020) directs prosecutors that alternatives to prosecution must be considered in simple-possession cases unless they are inadequate.^[5] It is worth being precise about scope: that diversion guideline applies to simple possession under s. 4(1); it does not apply to trafficking or PPT. That is exactly why the possession-versus-purpose line is so important. If a file that is really personal-use possession is charged, or can be argued down, as simple possession, the entire outlook changes, from a life-maximum indictable offence to a charge that may never result in a conviction at all.

Where the drugs genuinely were held for personal use, a central defence objective is to show the Crown cannot prove purpose, and to have the matter treated as simple possession rather than PPT. If your case is really about personal use, our drug possession lawyers explain the simple-possession framework, diversion, and discharge options in detail.

How the Crown tries to prove "purpose": and how we challenge it

In a possession-for-the-purpose case, the Crown rarely has direct proof of an intention to distribute. Instead, it asks the court to infer purpose from circumstantial indicators. Police and prosecutors typically point to some combination of:

• the quantity of the substance said to be inconsistent with personal use;
• packaging, such as multiple small individually wrapped amounts ("points" or baggies);
• paraphernalia of distribution, digital scales, cutting agents, empty packaging;
• cash, particularly in small denominations;
• score sheets, "debt lists," ledgers, or coded entries;
• multiple phones and the content of text messages or DMs that appear to arrange sales or meet-ups; and
• patterns such as frequent short visits to a residence.

But an inference is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and each of these indicators has innocent or alternative explanations. Canadian courts have been clear that the amount of drugs alone cannot establish trafficking; where an accused is a user, a larger quantity can be consistent with heavy personal use or with buying in bulk to save money, and the amounts needed to sustain an addiction are relevant.^[6] In practice, the Crown often relies on expert opinion evidence to argue that the circumstances point to trafficking, and that opinion evidence can be tested, limited, or answered with expert evidence of its own.

A core part of the defence in these files is attacking the inference chain link by link. Was the quantity actually inconsistent with this person's own use? Is the "packaging" really indicative of anything, or is it how the drug was sold to the accused? Cash and phones are not contraband, is there an innocent source? Are the text messages properly attributed to the accused, and are they being read fairly or spun into something they are not? Where the evidence does not support the leap from possession to purpose, the case can be argued down to simple possession or defended outright. The difference in exposure is enormous, which is why this is where many trafficking cases are truly won or lost.

Bail in Toronto: why trafficking cases can be harder to get out of

If you are arrested, the first crisis is usually getting home. In Toronto, adult criminal matters commonly proceed through the Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street, and bail is dealt with through the Toronto bail court process.

Here is the part many people do not realize. For most criminal charges, the Crown bears the onus at a bail hearing of showing why the accused should be detained. But for certain trafficking-related allegations, that default flips. Under section 515(6)(d) of the Criminal Code, where a person is charged "with having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment for life under any of sections 5 to 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the offence of conspiring to commit such an offence," it is the accused who must "show cause why the accused's detention in custody is not justified."^[7] In plain terms: for trafficking, PPT, importing/exporting, or production of a Schedule I or II substance (all life-maximum offences), the burden at the bail hearing is on you. This is called a reverse onus, and it makes preparation decisive.

At the same time, the Charter guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause (section 11(e)), and a reverse onus does not mean detention is automatic. Effective bail planning for a Toronto trafficking file usually comes down to:

• a realistic, structured release plan, a suitable address, supervision, and daily structure;
• strong, properly prepared sureties who understand what they are undertaking;
• anticipating and shaping proposed conditions (residence, non-association, no-go areas, abstention, device restrictions); and
• directly addressing the Crown's concerns about public safety or alleged "commercial" activity.

Because bail can shape how the entire case unfolds, and because a reverse onus is a serious hurdle, this is one of the main reasons people look for a defence lawyer immediately. If you need a hearing, our bail hearing lawyers prepare release plans and sureties for exactly these situations.

How Toronto trafficking investigations are built: and where they break

Trafficking cases are typically assembled from a mix of surveillance, alleged controlled purchases, cell-phone and digital evidence, confidential informants, and search warrants. On paper the narrative can look airtight. Under scrutiny, it often is not. The most common fault lines include the following.

Search and seizure problems (Charter s. 8)

Nearly every trafficking case depends on a search, of a person, a car, a home, or a phone. Police need lawful authority for a search: a valid warrant, a lawful search incident to arrest, genuine exigent circumstances, or valid consent. Section 8 of the Charter protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the courts recognize a heightened expectation of privacy in the home and, especially, in the vast personal contents of a cell phone. A warrant obtained on insufficient or misleading grounds, a search that exceeds its lawful scope, or a phone dump conducted without proper authority can render the resulting evidence inadmissible, and in a trafficking case, the drugs and the phone are usually the heart of the Crown's case.

Arbitrary detention and pretext stops (Charter s. 9)

Many drug cases begin with a vehicle stop. If a detention was arbitrary, or a lawful traffic stop was used as a pretext to investigate and search without proper grounds, the evidence that flowed from it is vulnerable to challenge.

The right to counsel (Charter s. 10(b))

On arrest or detention you must be advised, without delay, of your right to speak to a lawyer, and given a genuine, private opportunity to do so before questioning. A failure to comply with s. 10(b) can lead to the exclusion of statements, and sometimes of evidence discovered as a result.

Knowledge, control, and shared spaces

"It's not mine" is not a complete answer, but ownership is not the whole case either. Trafficking allegations frequently involve shared spaces, condos with roommates, vehicles with several occupants, family homes, short-term rentals. The real question becomes: who had knowledge and control of the substance, and can the Crown prove it against this accused? Drugs found in a common area do not automatically belong to everyone present. The knowledge-and-control requirement, confirmed in cases such as Beaver v. The Queen (1957) and R. v. Morelli (2010), is often the weakest link in a possession-based prosecution.^[3][8]

Reliability of informants and "project" narratives

Some files lean heavily on confidential source information or an overarching theory that sounds compelling until you examine what was actually seen, recorded, and seized. Disclosure, read carefully, is a roadmap to contradictions, not just a pile of paper.

Exclusion of evidence (Charter s. 24(2))

Where a Charter breach is established, the court decides whether to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) using the three-part framework from R. v. Grant (2009): the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the accused's protected interests, and society's interest in an adjudication of the case on its merits.^[9] In drug cases, a serious breach that produced the drugs or the phone evidence frequently leads a court to exclude that evidence, which typically ends the prosecution.

These are issues that may be available depending on the disclosure, not guarantees. No responsible lawyer promises a result before reviewing the evidence. What we promise is a rigorous, honest assessment and a defence built around the specific facts of your case.

Consequences of a trafficking conviction beyond the sentence

Clients naturally focus on jail, but a trafficking conviction carries consequences that can outlast any sentence:

• A serious criminal record. A trafficking conviction is a significant record that appears on background and vulnerable-sector checks and can affect employment, bonding, security clearances, and regulated professions for years.
• Immigration status, often the highest stake of all. For a permanent resident or foreign national, a trafficking conviction can mean loss of status and removal from Canada. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, "serious criminality" includes being convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years, or receiving a sentence of more than six months. Trafficking of a Schedule I or II substance carries a maximum of life imprisonment, and even Schedule III/V trafficking carries a 10-year maximum, so these offences fall squarely within serious criminality, and the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division can be lost where the offence carries a 10-year maximum and a sentence of six months or more is imposed.^[10] If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately: avoiding a conviction, or the shape of any sentence, may matter far more than anything else in the case.
• Travel, especially to the United States. U.S. border officers treat controlled-substance offences very seriously, and a trafficking record can bar entry to the U.S. and complicate travel to other countries.
• Forfeiture of property. The CDSA allows the forfeiture of "offence-related property," and cash, vehicles, or other assets alleged to be connected to trafficking can be restrained and forfeited.^[2]
• Family, housing, and reputation. The collateral impact on relationships, tenancy, and standing in the community is real and lasting.

The drug trafficking court process in Toronto, step by step

Understanding the sequence helps you see where a defence is built. Trafficking matters may proceed through the Ontario Court of Justice and, for certain proceedings and elections, the Superior Court of Justice (the Toronto criminal Superior Court sits at 361 University Avenue).

1. Arrest, search, and the first hours

Most files begin with a search and arrest. What you say and what you consent to in the first hours can shape everything that follows. You have the right to silence and the right to counsel, use both.

2. Bail

For life-maximum trafficking offences, expect a reverse-onus bail hearing. Arriving with a workable release plan and prepared sureties is often decisive.

3. Disclosure

Your lawyer obtains disclosure, the Crown's evidence. The constitutional duty to disclose all relevant material comes from the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Stinchcombe (1991).^[11] In a trafficking file this typically includes the grounds and any warrant for the search, officers' notes, surveillance and continuity records, the certificate of analysis identifying the substance under s. 51 of the CDSA, phone-extraction reports, and any informant-related material (subject to privilege).^[12] Careful review of this material is where most winning defences begin.

4. Crown pre-trial and charge screening

Your lawyer tests the strength of the case with the Crown, addresses the mode of prosecution and any election, raises weaknesses, and explores whether the charge can be reduced (for example, from PPT to simple possession) or resolved on favourable terms.

5. Charter applications and trial

If the case does not resolve and there are viable issues, it proceeds toward trial, frequently built around one or more Charter applications to exclude the drugs, the phone evidence, or statements. If key evidence is excluded, the Crown is often left with no viable case. From first appearance to conclusion, a contested trafficking case commonly takes many months.

How Kazandji Law defends drug trafficking charges

Trafficking cases are won on detail, and the right strategy depends entirely on the disclosure in your file. The issues our lawyers most often pursue include:

• Reducing "purpose" to simple possession. Where the Crown alleges PPT, we challenge whether the quantity and surrounding indicators truly prove an intention to distribute rather than personal use, and press to have the charge treated as simple possession.
• Unlawful search and seizure (Charter s. 8). We scrutinize the warrant and the grounds behind it, the scope of any search incident to arrest, and, critically, the authority for any search of a phone.
• Arbitrary detention (Charter s. 9) and pretext traffic stops that were really fishing expeditions.
• Denial of the right to counsel (Charter s. 10(b)), which can exclude statements and derivative evidence.
• Exclusion of evidence (Charter s. 24(2)) under the Grant framework where a breach is established.
• No knowledge or no control, especially where drugs were found in a shared vehicle or residence, as Beaver and Morelli require.
• Challenging the substance analysis and continuity, the Crown must prove the substance actually was a controlled drug, and that the exhibit's chain of custody is sound.
• Testing informant and surveillance evidence for reliability, attribution, and gaps.
• Sentencing advocacy, using the discretion restored by Bill C-5 to argue for the most proportionate outcome where a conviction cannot be avoided.

These are issues that may be available, not promises. What we commit to is a careful, candid assessment and a defence built around the evidence in your case.

Common myths about drug trafficking charges

"Trafficking means I sold drugs for money." Not necessarily. "Traffic" includes giving, transferring, transporting, sending, delivering, or even offering to do those things. No sale, and no money, is required.

"They only found drugs on me, so it's just possession." Maybe, but if the Crown says the quantity, packaging, cash, or messages point to distribution, it may charge possession for the purpose of trafficking. Whether it can prove purpose is a separate, contestable question.

"There's a mandatory minimum, so I'm going to jail no matter what." No. Bill C-5 repealed all of the CDSA's mandatory minimum penalties in 2022. Judges now have discretion, and in appropriate cases community-based sentences are available.

"Bail will be routine." For life-maximum trafficking offences it usually is not. Section 515(6)(d) puts a reverse onus on the accused, you have to show why you should be released, which makes preparation essential.

"The amount alone proves I'm a trafficker." It does not. Canadian courts have held that quantity alone cannot establish trafficking, and a large amount can be consistent with heavy personal use.

"If I just explain to the police, they'll sort it out." Explaining rarely helps and often supplies the knowledge, control, or intent evidence the Crown was missing. Exercise your right to silence and speak to a lawyer first.

"A charge is basically a conviction." No. Trafficking cases turn on what police were allowed to do, what the evidence actually shows, and whether the Crown can prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Many are reduced, excluded, or withdrawn.

What to do if you are under investigation or charged

1. Do not try to talk your way out of it. Investigators may sound casual; your words can become the Crown's best exhibit. Be polite, identify yourself if required, and otherwise exercise your right to silence.
2. Do not consent to searches "to be helpful." Valid consent can eliminate issues that would otherwise be challengeable. You are entitled to decline.
3. Exercise your right to counsel as soon as you are detained or arrested, before answering questions.
4. Preserve evidence that helps you, receipts, banking and income records, tenancy documents, medical records, and messages that add innocent context. Do not delete anything.
5. Take bail conditions seriously. A breach creates a second legal problem and can make release harder later.
6. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately, it can change the entire defence strategy.

Why choose Kazandji Law for your drug trafficking defence

Kazandji Law is a Toronto criminal and family law firm built on a proactive, no-nonsense approach with a genuine personal touch. Trafficking files reward preparation, a close reading of search grounds and warrants, a working command of Charter litigation, the judgment to know when to fight a s. 8 application and when to press the Crown to reduce a charge, and the advocacy to make the most of the sentencing discretion the courts now have. Our team brings that preparation to every drug file, from a single-transaction allegation to a complex "project" prosecution the Crown is treating as commercial trafficking.

We appear in the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court locations across the Greater Toronto Area, including the criminal courts at 10 Armoury Street and 361 University Avenue in downtown Toronto, and we defend trafficking charges wherever they arise: downtown Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Hamilton, Oakville, and beyond. You can meet our team, review our case results, and explore our full range of drug offence defence services, from drug possession and prescription drug crimes to paraphernalia offences.

Frequently asked questions

What counts as "trafficking" under Canadian law?

Under section 2(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to "traffic" means to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send, or deliver a controlled substance, to sell an authorization to obtain it, or to offer to do any of those things, otherwise than as authorized by the regulations. A cash sale is not required, giving, transporting, or even offering can be enough.

What is the difference between s. 5(1) trafficking and s. 5(2) possession for the purpose?

Section 5(1) alleges that you actually trafficked (sold, delivered, transported, offered, etc.). Section 5(2) alleges that you possessed a controlled substance with the intention of trafficking it, even if no transaction was observed. In a s. 5(2) case the Crown must prove knowledge, control, and, critically, purpose, which is usually inferred from circumstances and can be challenged.

What is the maximum penalty for drug trafficking in Canada?

It depends on the schedule. For a Schedule I or II substance (such as cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, or methamphetamine), trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking are indictable offences with a maximum of life imprisonment. For Schedule III or V, the maximum is 10 years on indictment or 18 months on summary conviction. For Schedule IV, it is 3 years on indictment or 1 year on summary conviction. These are maximums, not typical sentences.

Are there mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking?

No. Bill C-5, which received Royal Assent in November 2022, repealed the mandatory minimum penalties in the CDSA, including those that formerly applied to trafficking, possession for the purpose, importing and exporting, and production. Judges now have discretion to impose a proportionate sentence, and in appropriate cases community-based options such as conditional sentences are available.

How does the Crown prove I intended to traffic rather than use the drugs myself?

Usually by inference. The Crown points to indicators such as quantity, packaging into small amounts, scales, cash, score sheets, multiple phones, and messages that appear to arrange sales, and often relies on expert opinion evidence. None of these is conclusive. Canadian courts have held that the amount of drugs alone cannot establish trafficking, and a heavy user may possess a large quantity for personal use. Each indicator can be challenged and explained.

Why is bail harder in a trafficking case?

Because of the reverse onus. Under section 515(6)(d) of the Criminal Code, where you are charged with a life-maximum offence under sections 5 to 7 of the CDSA (or conspiracy to commit one), you must show cause why your detention is not justified, rather than the Crown showing why you should be detained. A well-prepared release plan and sureties are essential, and the Charter still guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.

Can the police search my phone in a trafficking investigation?

Not automatically. The contents of a cell phone attract a high expectation of privacy, and a search generally requires a warrant or must fall within a recognized exception. If your phone was searched improperly, the evidence, and any case built on it, may be challenged under section 8 of the Charter and potentially excluded under section 24(2).

What happens if the search that found the drugs was illegal?

If a court finds the search breached the Charter, it can exclude the resulting evidence under section 24(2) using the three-part test from R. v. Grant. Because the drugs and the phone are usually the core of a trafficking prosecution, exclusion frequently results in the charges being withdrawn or dismissed.

Can a trafficking charge be reduced to simple possession?

Sometimes, yes. Where the evidence does not prove an intention to distribute, the defence can press to have a possession-for-the-purpose charge treated as simple possession, a much less serious offence for which diversion and discharge outcomes may be available. Whether this is realistic depends on the disclosure in your specific case.

How does a trafficking conviction affect immigration or travel?

It can be severe. A trafficking conviction can render a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality, because these offences carry maximums of at least 10 years, and the right of appeal can be lost where a sentence of six months or more is imposed. A record can also bar entry to the United States and complicate travel elsewhere. If you are not a Canadian citizen, raise this with your lawyer at the very start.

Do I need a lawyer if the police only want to "ask a few questions"?

Yes. A request for a "quick chat" is part of the investigation. Anything you say can be used against you, and trafficking files often harden around early statements. Politely decline to discuss the allegation, exercise your right to counsel, and get advice before you say anything.

How much does a drug trafficking lawyer cost?

Fees depend on the complexity of the case, the number of charges, whether there is a contested bail hearing, and whether the matter resolves early or proceeds to a Charter application and trial. Kazandji Law offers a free initial consultation and will give you a clear picture of the process and the likely cost before you decide anything.

Sources & legal references

1. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (S.C. 1996, c. 19), s. 5 (trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and punishment. Schedule I/II liable to imprisonment for life): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/section-5.html.
2. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 2(1) (definitions of "traffic," "sell," and "offence-related property"): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/page-1.html.
3. R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 (knowledge and control as essential elements of possession): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc8; decisions.scc-csc.ca.
4. Bill C-5 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act), S.C. 2022, c. 15. Royal Assent Nov. 17, 2022; summary: "repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences": parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-5/royal-assent.
5. Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook, Guideline 5.13, "Prosecution of Possession of Controlled Substances Contrary to s. 4(1) of the CDSA" (Aug. 17, 2020), applies to simple possession, not trafficking: ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p5/ch13.html.
6. On the inference of "purpose": Canadian courts have held that the quantity of a drug alone cannot establish an intention to traffic, and expert evidence is commonly used to address whether the circumstances support that inference (see discussion collected at CriminalNotebook, "Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking," and the authorities cited there): criminalnotebook.ca. [Secondary source, verify the specific governing appellate authority for your case before relying on it.]
7. Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46), s. 515(6)(d) (reverse onus at bail for a life-maximum offence under CDSA ss. 5 to 7 or conspiracy to commit one); s. 11(e) of the Charter (right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-515.html.
8. Beaver v. The Queen, 1957 CanLII 14 (SCC) (knowledge of the character of the substance is essential to possession): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1957/1957canlii14.
9. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (three-part test for exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2)): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32; justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art242.html.
10. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), s. 36(1) ("serious criminality", offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years, or a term of imprisonment of more than six months) and s. 64 (limits on the right of appeal): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-36.html.
11. R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC) (Crown's duty of disclosure): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45.
12. Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 51 (certificate of analysis as evidence): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/section-51.html.

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Canadian and Ontario drug trafficking law and is not legal advice. Laws, penalties, sentencing ranges, and prosecutorial policies change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts of your case. Maximum penalties described here are statutory ceilings and are not predictions of any particular outcome. For advice about your situation, contact a lawyer. Contacting Kazandji Law does not create a solicitor-client relationship until a retainer is signed.