In Canada, the offence of obtain, offer to obtain, alter or offer to alter cannabis is created by the federal Cannabis Act, not the Criminal Code. It is classified as a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can choose to prosecute it either summarily (for less serious cases) or by indictment (for more serious cases). Under Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Code 4951, this violation covers situations where someone, without proper legal authorization, obtains cannabis, offers to obtain cannabis for someone else, alters cannabis (for example by changing its form or concentration), or offers to alter it. Understanding how obtain cannabis Canada law rules work is crucial because acts that seem minor or informal—like getting cannabis for a friend without a licence—can lead to criminal liability with potentially serious consequences.
The Legal Definition
“Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited — … (e) to obtain, offer to obtain, alter or offer to alter cannabis.”
(Cannabis Act, s. 12(1)(e))
This definition from section 12 of the Cannabis Act sets out a very broad prohibition. The key phrase is “unless authorized under this Act.” The law does not criminalize all dealings with cannabis; rather, it criminalizes dealings that fall outside the tightly controlled legal framework (such as licensed retail stores, authorized medical cannabis regimes, and personal possession or cultivation within legal limits). If you are not acting under one of those specific authorizations, then obtaining cannabis, arranging to obtain it, or altering its form can be an offence.
In plain English, this provision means that you can only obtain or modify cannabis in ways that are expressly allowed by the Cannabis Act and its regulations. “Obtain” can include purchasing, acquiring, or otherwise getting cannabis into your possession. “Offer to obtain” covers promising or agreeing to get cannabis for another person, even if the transaction has not yet happened. “Alter” can involve processing, changing, or transforming cannabis—for example, turning dried cannabis into concentrates—if done outside the rules of the Act. Because the wording is broad, normal-looking conduct can fall foul of the law when it is done without proper licences or outside the authorized channels.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Offence type: Hybrid (can proceed by indictment or summary conviction).
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None.
- Maximum penalty (indictable): Up to 7 years’ imprisonment.
- Maximum penalty (summary – individual): Fine up to $5,000 or up to 6 months’ imprisonment, or both.
Because this is a hybrid offence, the Crown prosecutor decides whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction based on the seriousness of the conduct, the quantities involved, the offender’s role, prior record, and the broader public interest. Proceeding by indictment exposes an accused to a much higher maximum sentence—up to seven years in prison—reflecting Parliament’s concern about unauthorized cannabis activities that resemble commercial or organized distribution, or that involve vulnerable people or large-scale operations.
For less serious cases, the Crown may proceed summarily. On summary conviction, an individual faces a maximum of a $5,000 fine, six months in jail, or both. Even though there is no mandatory minimum penalty, the presence of a criminal conviction can still bring serious consequences, including a criminal record, employment and travel restrictions, and potential immigration or professional licensing impacts. Sentencing courts will consider factors such as whether the conduct was for personal use or commercial gain, whether youth or vulnerable persons were involved, whether there was any connection to organized crime, and the offender’s prior criminal history.
The absence of a mandatory minimum gives judges flexibility to tailor the sentence to the case. For a first-time offender involved in relatively minor, non-commercial obtaining or altering of cannabis, a fine, probation, or even a discharge may be possible depending on the circumstances and the applicable sentencing principles. On the other hand, where obtaining or altering cannabis is part of a larger illicit supply chain, or where substantial quantities or sophisticated processing are involved, sentences closer to the higher end—particularly under the indictable option—may be imposed to reflect deterrence and denunciation.
Common Defenses
-
Lawful authorization under the Cannabis Act
Because the offence is framed as “unless authorized under this Act,” one of the central defenses is showing that the accused was in fact legally authorized to obtain or alter cannabis. This might include holding a valid licence to sell, distribute, process, or produce cannabis under the Cannabis Act or its regulations, or acting within the scope of a medical authorization or a provincially regulated retail scheme. If a person’s conduct falls squarely within the permissions granted by their licence or the Act—for example, an employee of a licensed cannabis producer altering cannabis as part of authorized processing—then the prosecution cannot prove the “unless authorized” element. The defence will often focus on the wording and scope of the licence or authorization, and on whether the accused’s conduct remained within those authorized limits.
-
Mistake of fact regarding authorization status
Another potential defence is mistake of fact about authorization. The law generally distinguishes between a mistake about the law (which is usually not a defence) and a mistake about facts. If an accused honestly and reasonably believed in a state of facts that, if true, would mean they were authorized under the Act, this can undermine the prosecution’s case. For example, someone might reasonably believe they are operating under a still-valid licence when, in reality, the licence has expired or been suspended. If the mistake is about factual matters—such as the existence, scope, or validity of a specific authorization—rather than ignorance of the law itself, it can help negate the mental element of the offence. Courts will look closely at how the belief was formed, whether it was objectively reasonable, what documents were available, and whether the accused took steps to verify their authorization.
-
Charter of Rights challenges (e.g., s. 8 – unreasonable search)
Like many drug- and cannabis-related prosecutions, cases involving obtaining or altering cannabis often arise from police searches of homes, vehicles, businesses, or electronic devices. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 8, protects individuals against unreasonable search or seizure. If police obtained evidence of unauthorized obtaining or altering of cannabis through a search that violated section 8—for instance, without a valid warrant, without proper grounds for a warrantless search, or by exceeding the scope of a warrant—the defence may bring a Charter application. If a court finds a Charter breach, it can order the exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter where its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. If critical evidence (such as seized cannabis, records of transactions, or communications showing offers to obtain cannabis) is excluded, the Crown may be unable to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.
Real-World Example
Consider the example of Jane: she offers to obtain a larger quantity of cannabis for her friends, but she has no licence or other authorization under the Cannabis Act to buy cannabis for others or to distribute it. She contacts an unlicensed source, arranges the purchase, and collects payment from her friends. Even if Jane does not see herself as a dealer, under section 12(1)(e) she has offered to obtain cannabis, and then actually obtained it, without authorization. Police might discover this through surveillance of the supplier, a traffic stop revealing the cannabis, or messages on her phone showing the arrangement. From a legal perspective, the focus is not just on whether Jane physically possessed the cannabis, but on the fact that she engaged in the prohibited obtaining and arranging conduct outside the authorized legal retail system. If charged, the Crown could proceed summarily if the quantities are modest and there is no evidence of broader commercial activity, or by indictment if the circumstances suggest more serious, organized or repeated conduct. The court would then assess sentencing based on Jane’s role, the amount involved, her record, and whether she has any lawful connection to the legal cannabis system.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
If a person is convicted of the offence of obtaining, offering to obtain, altering, or offering to alter cannabis, that conviction will usually appear on their criminal record. Under current federal policy, eligibility for a record suspension (pardon) generally begins 5 years after completion of the sentence for a summary conviction, and 10 years after completion of the sentence for an indictable conviction. Completion of sentence includes any jail term, probation, and payment of fines or surcharges. Because this is a hybrid offence, the applicable waiting period depends on how the Crown proceeded in the original case. A record suspension does not erase the conviction, but if granted by the Parole Board of Canada, it separates the record and can significantly reduce the impact on employment, volunteering, and travel. However, until a record suspension is obtained, the conviction for this cannabis offence remains part of a person’s criminal history and may be disclosed in criminal record checks.
Related Violations
- Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Distribute
- Unauthorized Production of Cannabis
- Illegal Sale of Cannabis