J. Scott Cowan

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting his videotaped statement to police.

He claimed he had equivocally invoked his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter during the interview.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual determination that the appellant had not expressed a desire to consult counsel.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge improperly treated the case as a credibility contest, accepted the complainant's evidence without adequate explanation, and rejected the appellant's exculpatory evidence without considering whether it raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a new trial was ordered due to the trial judge's failure to apply the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The appellant was convicted of two counts of invitation to sexual touching of a child and acquitted of sexual assault.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the verdicts were inconsistent because there was no evidence the child did not comply with the invitations, which would have constituted sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no necessary logical inconsistency.

The court noted the jury may have misunderstood that the appellant's participation in the physical contact amounted to an assault, but this error would have enured to the appellant's benefit and did not undermine the convictions.