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, 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.

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.

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.