Jeffrey Pearson

The appellant was stopped for a traffic violation, which escalated into an arrest for marijuana possession.

Police committed multiple serious Charter breaches, including an unlawful public strip search, a 20-minute delay in providing the right to counsel, and a warrantless cellphone search.

The trial judge admitted the seized firearm and drugs, but the Crown conceded on appeal that the s. 24(2) analysis was flawed.

The Court of Appeal found the breaches to be egregious and highly impactful on the appellant's protected interests, outweighing the public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The evidence was excluded, the appeal allowed, and acquittals entered.

The appellant applied for leave to appeal a summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant after excluding evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police officer delayed administering the approved screening device test due to concerns about fresh mouth alcohol.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court overturned the acquittal, finding the trial judge's conclusion was based on speculation.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding there was no evidence the officer had such a concern and therefore no Charter breach occurred.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing he should have received enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown conceded that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Summers, the appellant was entitled to credit at a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

The Court of Appeal varied the period of incarceration to time served, but upheld the 10-year duration of the section 161 prohibition order.