Michael Robert Fawcett

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge considered an email exchange in isolation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably interpreted the appellant's email response to the complainant's detailed allegations as a virtual confession when viewed in the context of all the evidence.

The appellant appealed his four-year penitentiary sentence for voyeurism, making child pornography, and internet luring involving two teenage victims.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by over-emphasizing consecutive sentences and unreasonably assessing aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the serious aggravating features, including breach of trust, careful planning, grooming, and exploitation of a victim's poverty.

The appellant pleaded guilty to mischief and criminal harassment after distributing degrading emails and a naked photograph of his former intimate partner and a former co-worker.

He appealed his sentence of 90 days intermittent imprisonment and a suspended sentence, seeking a conditional discharge and introducing fresh evidence of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's positive prospects and time served, a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious nature of the offences and the need for denunciation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearm possession and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury's verdict was reasonable based on circumstantial and DNA evidence linking the appellant to a gun thrown from a room.

The sentence appeal was allowed to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody at a ratio of 1.5 to 1, applying the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, which reduced the sentence by two months.

The applicant sought to re-open ex parte proceedings under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA) that resulted in Gathering and Sending Orders.

The applicant alleged material non-disclosure by the Attorney General regarding the legality of search warrants, the need for disclosure in extradition proceedings, warrantless seizure of subscriber information, and the authority to detain seized items.

The court found no material non-disclosure that would have altered the outcome or justified granting the applicant notice and standing at the MLACMA hearings.

The application to re-open was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for three historical sexual offences against a minor, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's application of legal principles, noting the trial judge properly considered demeanour, level of detail, and explanations for delayed disclosure.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The young person appealed a custodial sentence of 300 days followed by 14 months' probation for the sexual assault of a friend.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by treating his trial testimony as an aggravating factor and that the sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and noting the sentencing judge properly considered the appellant's lack of empathy and remorse, as evidenced by text messages sent after the assault, rather than his trial testimony.

The young person appealed the sentence imposed for a serious offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the seriousness of the offence and its consequences for the victim demanded incarceration to reflect the young person's degree of responsibility.

The length of the sentence was held to be well within the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he threw a flaming object onto a shopping mall roof was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was an ample basis for the trial judge's conclusion and no reason to re-weigh the evidence.

The appellant, who was 16 at the time of the offence, appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his adult sentence of life imprisonment without parole for seven years.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence that he suffered from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), arguing it affected his ability to foresee the consequences of stabbing the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the fresh evidence lacked the cogency to affect the verdict, as the expert could not conclude the FASD impacted the appellant's state of mind at the time.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the fresh evidence did not alter the appellant's moral blameworthiness or the appropriateness of the adult sentence.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned the accused's conviction for driving over 80.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that an unexplained 28-minute delay between the first and second breath samples meant the samples were not taken 'as soon as practicable' under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law by looking at the whole chain of events and that the Crown is not required to provide a detailed explanation for every minute the accused is in custody.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to schizophrenia, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order.

The Board had imposed the detention order primarily because the hospital was conducting a drug reduction program to demonstrate the appellant's need for medication.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred by justifying a restriction on liberty based on a risk created by a hospital treatment program rather than considering treatments available in the community.

The Court substituted a conditional discharge, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available given the appellant's progress, lack of prior violence, and family support.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the disposition was unreasonable, that his explanations for refusing medication were ignored, and that the Board lost jurisdiction by granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable given the appellant's significant risk, and holding that any potential loss of jurisdiction was cured by section 672.53 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his four-year global sentence for gun and drug offences.

Relying on the recent decision in R. v. Nur, the Court of Appeal reconsidered the sentence but concluded that the four-year term remained fit, noting that the combination of gun and drug offences poses a pernicious threat to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to properly consider reducing his risk through chemical castration.

He sought a long-term offender designation combined with a section 810.2 recognizance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's condition intractable and that he could not be controlled within the duration of a long-term sentence.

The Court reaffirmed that a section 810.2 order cannot be used as a stop-gap for highly dangerous offenders who fail to meet the long-term offender criteria.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Board to accept the treating physician's opinion evidence that substance abuse would lead to a deterioration of the appellant's mental stability and a return to conduct similar to the index offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown failed to prove intent to cause serious bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly addressed the issue and that the victim's evidence supported the finding of intent.