The appellant appealed convictions for public nudity offences under s. 174(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, raising numerous grounds including alleged judicial bias, improper admission of evidence, lack of Attorney General authorization under s. 174(3), and failure to establish the required actus reus and mens rea.
The Superior Court rejected each ground, finding that defence counsel had consented to the trial judge remaining seized of the matter and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The court held that the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence and provided sufficient reasons supporting the convictions.
It also confirmed that s. 174(2) is a deeming provision extending the definition of nudity and does not constitute a separate offence.
The appeal was dismissed.
