It depends on how you define victory. Could the Americans have defeated the British in such a way as to have gained Canada in the peace treaty? Probably not.
But then again, was that their primary goal? Why would America want Canada in the first place? Following the Louisiana Purchase, the USA had more land that it could shake a stick at or find settlers to fill. The idea behind invading Canada (initially) was not to annex it, but rather to use it as a hostage to gain concessions from the British in regards to issues in the Northwest (arming/supplying the natives), and issues on the high seas (impressment, trade etc.) which were far more pressing concerns. Though it is true that some of the "War Hawks" indeed wanted Canada annexed, these men were but a radical minority and could be silenced should America's other concerns be addressed in the peace treaty.
Operating under these constraints, then I think the Americans might have a slim chance of "victory". The key here would be for the Americans to focus on controlling the Great Lakes rather than invading via Detroit and the Niagara peninsula. This strategy was not unheard of and was proposed as early as the Chesapeake affair in 1807. This strategy, coupled with the right commanders, could bring an end to the campaign in Upper Canada almost immediately.
A strike on Kingston early in the war, with enough troops, would effectively sever the supply line to British forces in Upper Canada. Brock would be forced to retreat and the vital alliance between Tecumseh and him would most likely be severed. (Brock would of course attempt to convince Tecumseh to follow him into Canada, however to do so would be incredibly difficult for Tecumseh politically as it would isolate him from most of his support. Should he agree with Brock this would probably result in most of his confederacy choosing to defend their homelands rather than retreat into Upper Canada.) With control over Kingston and by extension Upper Canada, the Americans could then move on Lower Canada. Here too we must take into account the personality of Governor General George Prevost. In OTL following Brock's victory at Detroit he arranged an armistice with the Americans in the hopes of negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Americans. Given American control of Kingston and the Great Lakes, in TTL would he not do exactly the same thing, if only to buy time to prepare the defences of Lower Canada?
With the Americans in a much better place to negotiate from in TTL, this armistice might actually lead to a lasting peace. Britain's pre-occupation with Europe, coupled with it's willingness to compromise on issues of impressment and trade, as well as the severing of the alliance between Brock and Tecumseh due to Brock's forced retreat. No territory would change hands, but most of America's concerns would be addressed and in exchange Britain would be rid of a pesky distraction and feel free to concentrate on the war in Europe, not to mention guarantee peace on the North American continent.
Then again, Prevost's armistice could lead to nothing of the sort and America and Britain could spend the next year or two slugging it out in Lower Canada. Personally, I don't see either side getting the upper hand in such a campaign until the British are able to invest significant resources following the defeat of Napoleon. Should the Americans manage to secure a peace prior to Napoleons defeat they stand a chance at "winning". However it would be a victory without the annexation of Canada.