Scott Bryan James Clarke

This is an appeal from a conviction for choking in committing sexual assault and sexual assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on the complainant's capacity to consent due to intoxication, the assessment of the appellant's credibility and mens rea, and the sufficiency of reasons for the choking conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, the appellant's testimony was not credible, and sufficient reasons were provided for the choking conviction.

The appellant, Michael Cady, appealed his convictions for possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime.

His wife had defrauded her employer of over $1 million, depositing funds into a joint account.

The trial judge found that the appellant either knew the funds were illegally obtained or was wilfully blind to their origin, citing several "red flags" including his wife's prior fraud conviction, bankruptcies, and the couple's lavish spending inconsistent with their declared income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of wilful blindness, stating it was not inconsistent with the appellant's claim of deferring to his wife's financial management, especially given his admission of suspicion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Christopher Morris, appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence.

The conviction appeal concerned whether an inoperable handgun, requiring a new firing pin, met the definition of "firearm" under the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction based on the principles of anti-Black racism established in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the handgun was adaptable as a firearm.

The court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the global sentence by one year, acknowledging the impact of anti-Black racism on the appellant's moral culpability and rehabilitation prospects, based on fresh evidence from an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault against a 12-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by relying on improper cross-examination, improperly analyzing witness evidence, failing to address inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and subjecting the appellant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or treatment of the evidence.

The appellant, Helder Sousa, appealed a 10-year sentence for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal considered three grounds: failure to consider potential immigration consequences, treating denial of the offence and lack of remorse as aggravating, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The court dismissed the first two grounds, affirming that immigration consequences are discretionary and denial of the offence relates to rehabilitation, not aggravation.

However, the court found the 10-year sentence demonstrably unfit, particularly for a first offender, despite the egregious nature of the crime.

Applying principles of parity, proportionality, and restraint, and comparing it to similar cases, the court reduced the sentence to eight years' imprisonment (seven years, eight and a half months after credit for presentence custody).

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, alleging that the trial judge made several errors, including failing to properly appreciate material evidence, applying uneven scrutiny to defence evidence, failing to address credibility issues, misapplying reasonable doubt principles, relying on inadmissible material, and providing inadequate reasons.

The appeal court found that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. test, made findings of fact contrary to the appellant's evidence, and sufficiently articulated how credibility concerns and contradictory evidence were resolved.

The trial judge's disbelief of the appellant's evidence, combined with the accepted evidence of the complainant, led to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

At trial, the judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the appellant touched her breast without consent after attempting to kiss her and asking about her sex life.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, misapplied the W.(D.) framework, and erred in finding the touching was sexual under Chase.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or legal application.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error in principle in declining to grant a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment against his former partner.

At trial, the appellant and the complainant gave conflicting evidence, making credibility the central issue.

The trial judge convicted the appellant but failed to make specific findings of fact, explain why he accepted the complainant's evidence despite inconsistencies, or address the appellant's credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol level over 80 mgs.

The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the Intoxilyzer results under s. 24(2).

On appeal, the court found the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by treating the appellant's acquittal on the companion impaired driving charge as an alternative remedy.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the appeal court concluded the s. 10(b) breach was minor and had minimal impact on the appellant's Charter-protected interests.

Given the high reliability and importance of the breath samples, the evidence was admissible.

The appeal was dismissed.

This ruling addresses a voir dire to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a statement made by the defendant, Dellan McMorris, to police regarding his cell phone number.

The statement was obtained during a traffic stop where McMorris was a passenger.

The Crown sought to admit this statement in a murder trial.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary, alleging a police threat to charge McMorris with possession of a stolen vehicle if he did not cooperate, and also sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter for alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10.

The court found the police officers' notes incomplete and their testimony less reliable, while the defendant's testimony regarding the threat was sufficiently credible to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

Consequently, the statement was deemed inadmissible.

The court declined to rule on the Charter application.

The applicant sought a bail review after a justice of the peace denied release on the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A new release plan with two sureties, strict house arrest, and $60,000 in pledged sureties was advanced as a material change in circumstances.

The reviewing judge accepted that the new plan constituted credible new evidence potentially addressing the secondary ground by mitigating the risk of re‑offending.

However, the court held that the new plan did not materially affect the tertiary ground analysis, which was driven by the gravity of the offences, the strength of the prosecution’s case, the presence of a loaded firearm alongside significant quantities of drugs, and the prospect of a lengthy custodial sentence.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded detention remained necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

This is a decision on committal to trial following a lengthy preliminary inquiry into Project Corral, an investigation by the Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force into alleged criminal organizations in northwest Toronto.

The Crown sought committal on 71 charges arising from evidence heard at the preliminary inquiry, including charges of trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, counselling, obstruction of justice, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzed voice identification evidence from intercepted communications, the meaning of coded language used by the accused, and the elements of possession, trafficking, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The court ordered most accused to stand trial on the majority of charges, with some discharges on specific counts.