Kevin Rawluk

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.