Bradley Robert Pearson

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (two firearms) found during a vehicle stop and search.

They alleged racial profiling, lack of grounds for the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) search, and violations of their s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no racial profiling and determined that the strong smell of fresh marijuana provided valid grounds for the CCA search.

While s. 10(a) rights were not breached, the court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to "lackadaisical" police conduct at the station, resulting in significant delays in facilitating access to counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the long-term repute of the justice system would be better served by admitting the evidence, given its reliability, the minimal impact of the breach on the accused (who eventually spoke to counsel), and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

This decision concerns a 90-day review of a detention order under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Mohammad Khodadad, previously denied bail, sought release.

The court, applying R. v. Myers, confirmed that the onus is not on the accused at this stage, even if a reverse onus applied initially.

Despite this, the court found the accused's continued detention justified on both secondary (public safety due to substantial likelihood of re-offending, strong Crown case, and unreliable surety) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the firearm-related charges, strong Crown case, and significant criminal record).

The application for release was dismissed.

The defendant brought an application challenging the constitutionality of section 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which provides for forfeiture of offence-related property.

The defendant argued that the forfeiture provision was ultra vires Parliament, violated the Charter prohibition on double punishment, was overbroad, and constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for purposes of trafficking and simple possession of cocaine, and the Crown sought forfeiture of his pickup truck.

The court rejected all constitutional challenges and upheld the forfeiture provision as valid federal legislation within the criminal law power, as a distinct but related component of the sentencing process.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, using an imitation firearm to commit robbery, and committing robbery while masked in a residential carjacking-style offence.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including the planned nature of the offence, use of imitation firearms to terrorize the victim, targeting of a vulnerable victim at her home, and the offender’s criminal record and lack of remorse.

The court also considered youth at the time of the offence and limited prior custody as mitigating factors, while prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court addressed credit for pre-sentence custody including time spent detained on unrelated charges later stayed, granting limited mitigation.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, resulting in a further 20½ months to serve after credit.