Kevin Michael Rawluk

The appellant, William James Epp, appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion of penetration was reasonable given the overwhelming evidence and the appellant's failure to testify.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no error in the seven-year imprisonment sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's age, the appellant's age and prior record, and the harm caused.

The appellant, Mikail Moolla, appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial, conducted remotely via Zoom from a correctional institution due to COVID-19 concerns, was fundamentally unfair.

He contended that distractions and inadequate facilities impaired his ability to participate and present his defence, or at least compromised the appearance of fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the less than ideal arrangements, the appellant failed to demonstrate that his ability to present a defence was impaired or that the trial was unfair.

The court noted that counsel had agreed to the remote format and did not raise objections during the trial, and the trial judge had actively worked to mitigate any issues.

The appellant, Michael Laforme, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and sought leave to appeal his sentence of life imprisonment with a 16-year period of parole ineligibility.

The conviction appeal alleged errors in the trial judge's jury charge, specifically regarding the understanding of legal principles, fairness, balance, and warnings about post-offence conduct evidence.

The sentence appeal argued that the trial judge failed to give meaningful effect to Gladue principles, resulting in an unduly harsh sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and affirming that the sentencing judge properly considered Gladue principles while balancing other relevant factors, including the brutality of the offence and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The accused was convicted at trial of second degree murder after stabbing the deceased six times during a bar altercation.

The majority of the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding an air of reality to the defence of provocation.

The Crown appealed as of right.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying a correctness standard of review, found no error in the trial judge's determination that there was no air of reality to the provocation defence.

On the evidence, the accused did not act 'on the sudden' before passion could cool — his reaction was the culmination of an altercation he both instigated and anticipated, and he had time and opportunity to reflect before stabbing the deceased.

The appellant, Ahmed Farah, appealed his convictions for multiple firearms offences, including trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, and his 12-year custodial sentence.

The main issue at trial was identification, as the Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the alias "Hurdaye" from wiretap investigations.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting Leaney identification evidence from police officers and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

He also challenged the sentence, arguing for more credit for harsh remand conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the admission of identification evidence, that the verdict was reasonable given the circumstantial evidence, and no error in the sentencing judge's discretion regarding pre-trial credit.

The moving party, Mr. Murray, sought a ten-month extension of time to appeal his criminal conviction and sentence for fraud over $5,000, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary due to his mental state and uninformed about collateral consequences, specifically the Law Society's use of the plea.

The court reviewed the principles for extending time to appeal and for withdrawing guilty pleas based on limited cognitive capacity and lack of informed consent regarding legally relevant collateral consequences.

While sympathetic to Mr. Murray's depression, the court found insufficient expert evidence to support his claim of an involuntary plea.

The motion was adjourned for three months to allow Mr. Murray to gather the necessary evidence on the merits of his proposed appeal.

The appellant, Ali Amiri, brought two appeals from Superior Court decisions concerning certiorari applications related to his criminal trial for threatening his wife.

The first appeal (C70004) challenged the dismissal of his certiorari application to quash a procedural order, which was deemed moot as the trial judge had since decided the underlying issues.

The second appeal (C70051) challenged the granting of certiorari applications by two subpoenaed witnesses (a lawyer and a Legal Aid Ontario employee) to quash their subpoenas, based on solicitor-client privilege and statutory privilege, respectively.

The Court of Appeal summarily dismissed both appeals under s. 685(1) of the Criminal Code, finding them frivolous or vexatious, emphasizing the limited scope of certiorari in criminal proceedings and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments regarding privilege exceptions.

The appellant, Cindy Ali, appealed her conviction for first-degree murder in the death of her profoundly disabled daughter.

The Crown alleged the appellant suffocated her daughter and fabricated a home invasion story to cover it up.

The defence argued the death was seizure-related or caused by a home invader, and that the home invasion was real.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in narrowing the jury's consideration of the cause of death to only suffocation and in unduly restricting the jury's consideration of alternative explanations for the fabricated home invasion narrative.

The trial judge's instructions effectively invited the jury to convict of murder if they found the home invasion story fabricated, without adequately considering other culpable acts (like failure to provide necessaries) or innocent explanations for the fabrication.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, S.P., appealed convictions for sexual offences against his daughters, which occurred approximately 40 years prior.

The appeal was based on alleged errors in the trial judge's credibility analysis and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, but this was later abandoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, upholding the trial judge's credibility findings, and rejecting the ineffective assistance claim and the admission of fresh evidence.

The appellant, Tola Paul, was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in refusing to put the defences of self-defence and defence of others to the jury, finding no air of reality to these defences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by making factual conclusions and credibility assessments that usurped the jury's role in determining the air of reality of the defences.

The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find that the defences of self-defence and defence of others had an air of reality.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

K.V. sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a Superior Court judge's decision to quash a subpoena issued to the prosecuting Crown counsel in his ongoing sexual offence trial.

The Crown opposed, arguing lack of merit and delay.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension, finding the appeal not frivolous and that K.V. had a right to appeal, despite concerns about trial delay, as the complainant's evidence was complete.

The appellant was convicted after a 70-day trial of two counts of fraud over $5000, two counts of fraud under $5000, one count of attempting to obstruct justice, one count of forgery, and one count of causing someone to use a forged document.

She was sentenced to 14 months in jail.

The appellant appealed her convictions on multiple grounds, including claims that the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment, that certain counts were void for vagueness, that the convictions were unreasonable, and that the burden of proof was reversed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending conviction appeal after being convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, choking, sexual assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment.

The court applied the three-part test under section 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was found to be not frivolous and the applicant demonstrated he would comply with release conditions, the court dismissed the bail application based on the public interest component, finding that the enforceability interest substantially outweighed the reviewability interest given the gravity and circumstances of the offences.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual offences against a single complainant.

The appeal addresses multiple errors arising from jury management during deliberations and the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The jury reported deliberation impasses, requested materials and evidence playbacks, and one juror indicated unavailability beyond the third day.

The trial judge provided transcripts of portions of the appellant's police interview used in cross-examination rather than replaying the cross-examination itself, failed to replay the appellant's testimony after the jury withdrew their request, exhorted the jury twice without clarifying that no time limit existed on deliberations, and failed to adequately relate the evidence to the defence position in the charge.

The cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care with permission to live in approved accommodation.

The appellant sought to quash the order and substitute a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding no error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety and that the detention disposition was the least onerous and restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a male dancer at a strip club, was convicted of sexual assault of a female customer.

The trial judge found that the complainant did not consent to fellatio and vaginal intercourse that occurred in the VIP room.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the trial judge relied on behavioural assumptions and stereotypes about how a young woman would act in a strip club setting to determine that the complainant did not consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's credibility analysis was tainted by impermissible reliance on stereotypes and assumptions about female behaviour in a sexualized environment.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for acts committed over five months and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

He appealed on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Trial counsel had presented telephone records purporting to show over 900 calls between the appellant and the complainant to support a defence of consensual contact, but failed to authenticate the records as required by law.

The trial judge disregarded the unauthenticated records, found the complainant credible, and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel's failure to address authentication fell below the standard of reasonable competence and prejudiced the appellant in a manner that might have impacted the verdict.

The court admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction on one count of counseling to kidnap and one count of counseling to rob, as well as his sentence of nine months imprisonment.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's evidence and accepted the Crown's evidence, including testimony from an undercover officer supported by intercepted communications.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and concluded that the evidence established either intent or recklessness as to the risk inherent in counselling, meeting the test established in R. v. Hamilton.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to address defence counsel's submissions regarding pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The sentence was reduced from nine months to eight months to account for a 14-day credit for nine days of pre-trial custody and an additional two-week credit for over a year of restrictive bail conditions.

The appellants were convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm, three counts of forcible confinement, and one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit robbery.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages discussing obtaining a firearm, cell phone tower evidence placing the "Flyd" phone near the robbery location, fingerprint evidence linking Miles to the scene, and Miles' prior employment at the store.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals and the sentence appeals, finding that despite a hearsay error regarding the post-it note evidence linking Miles to the phone, the curative proviso applied as the evidence against Miles was overwhelming.

The accused appealed convictions arising from an armed bank robbery, arguing the circumstantial evidence did not reasonably establish identity.

The Court held that, applying Villaroman, the evidence as a whole reasonably excluded alternatives to guilt, including in light of DNA found on two key items connected to the robbery and getaway car.

The appeal was dismissed.