Kevin Michael Rawluk

The appellant appealed his convictions on multiple firearm and drug offences.

The central issue was whether evidence seized during a warrantless search on March 6, 2012 should have been admitted despite a prior illegal warrantless search on February 29, 2012.

The trial judge had excluded evidence from the first search but admitted evidence from the second search, which was conducted pursuant to a warrant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his section 24(2) analysis by impermissibly diminishing the seriousness of the Charter breach and considering irrelevant factors.

The court held that the deliberate and ongoing nature of the police misconduct required exclusion of the evidence to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon, raising three grounds of appeal.

First, he argued the trial judge misused a hospital report by relying on it for its truth; the court found the trial judge's reasons did not support this submission as the complainant testified to inconsistencies in her own evidence and confirmed the appellant gave her a false story.

Second, he argued the trial judge was required to make a specific factual finding on whether he threw or stabbed the complainant; the court disagreed, finding the real issue was whether the injury was intentionally or accidentally inflicted, and the trial judge's finding of intentional infliction was sufficient.

Third, he argued the trial judge failed to properly caution himself about the complainant's admissions of public mischief and perjury; the court found the trial judge appropriately cautioned himself on the complainant's previous false accusations.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the appellant's full criminal record.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision in Mississauga.

He appealed on two grounds: first, that the 31-month delay from charge to trial violated his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under the new framework established in R. v. Jordan; and second, that the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus of dangerous driving by impermissibly inferring excessive speed from the consequences of the driving rather than the manner of driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay was reasonable for a transitional case and that the trial judge properly focused on the manner of driving in establishing the actus reus.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to two years' imprisonment following a trial in which the trial judge found that the complainant fell asleep and awoke to find the appellant engaged in non-consensual intercourse with her.

The appellant appealed his conviction on three grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in assessing evidence of prior sexual activity; (2) the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn; and (3) the trial judge reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal on the ground that the trial judge erred in finding violations of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in drawing negative inferences about the appellant's credibility as a result.

The Court found that these errors adversely impacted the appellant's credibility and that there was a real risk the erroneous findings influenced the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and tipped the scale toward a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence on the basis that the trial judge failed to give credit for restrictive bail terms as required by R. v. Downes.

The trial judge had misapprehended the duration of the bail period, referring to 42 days of pre-bail custody rather than the actual 18 months the appellant spent on restrictive bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that had the trial judge understood the true duration and restrictive nature of the bail conditions, he would have granted the five months' credit requested by defence counsel.

Leave to appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced by five months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the victim's identification evidence—based on his knowledge of the appellant, recognition of his voice, identification of a can of bear mace previously in the appellant's possession, and recognition of the appellant when his mask was pulled off—provided a reasonable basis for conviction.

The court also found the trial judge's reasons adequate, demonstrating a proper understanding of the evidentiary record and the dangers of identification evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge from the North Bay Regional Health Center.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to focus on whether he posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and that the Board erred in failing to consider whether a community treatment order under the Mental Health Act could mitigate residual risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable given the appellant's schizoaffective disorder, his history of violence, and the evidence that he would discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 12, 2016.

The appeal was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant, a 27-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for his role in a home invasion involving robbery, unlawful confinement, and discharging a firearm.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly weigh his youth and lack of a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge gave careful reasons, considered all mitigating and aggravating factors, and imposed a sentence that was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant, who was previously found NCRMD, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the outset of his review hearing, the appellant objected to being addressed by his legal name and to the constitution of the Board.

The Chair gave the appellant a five-second ultimatum before cutting off his audio and video feed, proceeding with the hearing in his absence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Chair acted precipitously and failed to exercise the judicial patience and restraint required under section 672.5(10)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code before excluding an accused from a hearing.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Refuse Breath Sample following an incident in September 2014.

He brought a motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter to stay the charges due to unreasonable delay.

The Information was not sworn until February 2015, approximately five months after arrest.

Full disclosure was not provided until August 2015, approximately ten months after the accused's first court appearance.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets an 18-month ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found that while there was significant Crown and institutional delay, particularly in the disclosure process, the total delay of approximately 8.5 months fell within acceptable parameters and did not markedly exceed the reasonable time requirements for a routine impaired driving case.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a young person, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his pubic hair colour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) test.

While the trial judge misapprehended some evidence, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against his step-daughter arising from long-term abuse allegations spanning childhood to late adolescence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, arguing improper speculation about the family’s prior housing arrangements and improper rejection of defence evidence from close family members.

The Court of Appeal held that any error concerning the housing-scam comment was peripheral, given the many unchallenged reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence.

It further held that the trial judge did not reject the younger siblings’ evidence solely because of relationship, but because the evidence supported a finding that they remained under parental influence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, detained in the forensic mental health system after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to direct the hospital regarding a sleep deprivation issue caused by hourly bed checks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was reasonably supported by evidence of the appellant's threatening behaviour and paranoia, and that the ORB's recommendation for an independent third-party opinion on the bed check issue was appropriate.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and was detained at a secure forensic unit.

The Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge, concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety despite the hospital's recommendation for an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as the evidence did not support a finding of significant risk to the public.

An absolute discharge was substituted.

The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed on the respondent for using an imitation firearm during a bank robbery, arguing it fell below the mandatory minimum of one year under s. 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent conceded the sentence was illegal.

The Court of Appeal imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months.

However, considering the respondent's youth, rehabilitation, restitution, and the time already served, the Court permanently stayed the execution of the sentence, declining to re-incarcerate him.

The appellant appealed a conviction on one count of gross indecency following a jury trial involving historic sexual abuse allegations, arguing the verdicts on two counts were inconsistent and that the jury charge inadequately addressed credibility and an asserted motive to fabricate.

The court held the jury instructions were proper, the verdicts were logically reconcilable because the counts related to distinct incidents with differing evidentiary features, and the motive-to-fabricate instruction already captured the possibility of honest mistake.

On sentence, the court found one aspect of the conditional sentence unduly restrictive and varied the house arrest term to permit limited absence from the residence with prior written supervisory consent.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the sentence appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to grant him an absolute discharge.

The Board had ordered a continuation of his conditional discharge based on psychiatric evidence that he would likely stop taking his anti-psychotic medication and resume substance abuse if absolutely discharged, thereby increasing the risk of violent relapse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the significant threat test and that its conclusion was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault following an on-ice collision during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The trial judge rejected the defence's evidence that the collision was accidental, finding instead that it was a deliberate blindside hit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge engaged in impermissible speculative reasoning by relying on her own personal knowledge of hockey strategy and on-ice injuries to reject the defence witnesses' testimony.

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

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed arguments regarding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and the lack of a Vetrovec caution.

However, the Court found the trial judge misapprehended evidence on one count, quashing that conviction and ordering a new trial.

Another conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered because the complainant did not meet the statutory definition of a young person.

The remaining convictions and the total five-year sentence were upheld.