Kevin Michael Rawluk

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she acquitted on two other incidents based on unreliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly explained why the evidence for the third incident was reliable despite concerns about the first two.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge erred in her treatment of his lie to police about his identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings and conclusion that guilt was the only reasonable inference were reasonable.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the appellant's lie to police, noting it was consistent with other circumstances inferring possession.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order was reasonable and that the Board did not misapprehend evidence regarding cultural reactions to mental illness or the attitude of the appellant's parents toward his illness.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the 'jump principle' given his prior global sentence of six and one-half months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge explicitly considered the jump principle and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery arising out of a home invasion and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the principle of parity, ignoring mitigating factors, overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and placing too much weight on his youth record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was fit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's use of a shotgun, his extensive record, and his lack of remorse.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it should be reduced to under six months to avoid significant immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of an error in principle but found that a sentence of six months was well outside the appropriate range given the appellant's serious criminal background and numerous violations of court orders.

As immigration consequences cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range, and the appellant had already served the sentence, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of voyeurism after a man was seen peering into a women's washroom stall.

The Crown's case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the appellant's DNA found on a partially consumed pop bottle left in the stall.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because the DNA evidence alone could not prove he was the perpetrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the totality of the evidence, including the DNA on the bottle and the lack of any other rational explanation for its presence, reasonably supported the conviction.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, which had dismissed his appeal from a conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that no question of law of general importance was raised and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any clear legal error in the lower court's reasons.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposing a short period of incarceration, arguing that a different judge had imposed a conditional sentence for similar charges committed before the appellant absconded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.

The sentencing judge properly balanced the appellant's changed circumstances against his criminal record, the nature of the offences, and the fact that he had absconded.