William Scott Clifford Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2017 SCC 9

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Clifford, 2017 SCC 9, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 164 Appeal heard: February 17, 2017 Judgment rendered: February 17, 2017 Docket: 37140 Between: William Scott Clifford Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario and Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada Interveners Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2) Abella .J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring) R. v. Clifford, 2017 SCC 9, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 164

William Scott Clifford Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario and Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Clifford 2017 SCC 9 File No.: 37140. 2017: February 17.

Present: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law — Evidence — Alibi — Similar fact evidence — Fire set to garage and trees destroyed on victims’ property — Trial judge finding that accused deliberately provided false alibi — Trial judge assessing defence theory that someone other than accused was responsible for prior acts of vandalism against victims — Court of Appeal finding that deliberately false alibi could properly be relied upon by trial judge as evidence of guilt — Court of Appeal concluding that trial judge did not make improper use of

prior vandalism evidence as similar fact evidence supporting conviction — Convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Newbury, Willcock and Fenlon JJ.A.), 2016 BCCA 336 , 339 C.C.C. (3d) 276, [2016] B.C.J. No. 1644 (QL), 2016 CarswellBC 2150 (WL Can.), upholding the accused’s convictions for arson and mischief entered by Macintosh J., 2015 BCSC 435 , [2015] B.C.J. No. 535 (QL), 2015 CarswellBC 745 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Rowe J. dissenting. Dane F. Bullerwell and Jeffrey W. Beedell , for the appellant. John M. Gordon , Q.C. , for the respondent.

Michael Dineen and Jonathan Dawe , for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario. Janna A. Hyman and François Lacasse , for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [ 1 ] Abella J. — A majority of this Court would dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of Willcock J.A.

While we appreciate the suggestions of the intervenors that the law be re-examined, we are not satisfied that such re-examination is warranted in this case, particularly where neither party has asked us to depart from the jurisprudence of this Court. [ 2 ] Justice Rowe would have allowed the appeal, based on the dissenting reasons of Newbury J.A., as set out in paras. 22-26 of her reasons. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Pringle, Chivers, Sparks, Teskey, Edmonton; Gowling WLG, Ottawa. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario: Dawe & Dineen, Toronto. Solicitor for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Winnipeg and Ottawa.