Scott Clarke

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.

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.