Kevin Rawluk

The appellant appealed his five-year penitentiary sentence for offences including break and enter, criminal harassment, and firearms violations committed against his former spouse.

The trial judge treated the conduct as an escalating pattern of intimate partner violence and prioritized denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the trial judge properly characterized the offences as intimate partner violence and appropriately weighed the aggravating factors, including the appellant's extensive record of breaching court orders.

The sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings.

The court noted the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, appropriately addressed the complainant's post-offence conduct, and correctly rejected the appellant's explanations regarding DNA evidence.