Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2025-09-19 Docket: COA-23-CR-0505
Judges: Simmons, Monahan and Pomerance JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
P.A. Appellant
Appearances
P.A., appearing by way of video conference Carter Martell, appearing as amicus curiae Kevin Rawluk, for the respondent
Heard: September 10, 2025
On appeal from: the sentence imposed by Justice Kathryn L. Hawke of the Ontario Court of Justice, on March 3, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1] Following a judge-alone trial the appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The appellant's conviction appeal proceeded by way of a solicitor appeal and was previously dismissed: R. v. P.A., 2025 ONCA 52. At this hearing, the appellant sought leave to appeal sentence. In his notice of appeal, he asserted that the sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit.
[2] At a previous appearance, amicus curiae was appointed to assist with obtaining relevant medical records from Correctional Services Canada and advance submissions in relation to them. Amicus accordingly sought leave to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.
[3] At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, we granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the fresh evidence motion and the sentence appeal for reasons to follow. These are our reasons.
[4] The appellant did not identify any errors in principle by the sentencing judge. Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the sentence imposed was entirely fit.
[5] The offences occurred in 1989. The victim was the appellant's 17-year-old niece who he had recently sponsored to come to Canada from the Philippines along with her father. One of the offences involved vaginal intercourse; the other two involved oral sex and groping. Further, the appellant threatened not to sponsor the complainant's mother and siblings if she revealed what he had done. Appellate interference is not warranted in the circumstances.
[6] Amicus sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal in the form of medical records obtained from Correctional Services Canada which indicate that the appellant is suffering from some degree of dementia. Amicus submitted that the proposed fresh evidence supports reducing the four-year sentence imposed by one year.
[7] We disagree. The medical records submitted do not suggest that the appellant cannot be properly cared for while incarcerated. Nor do they suggest that this is one of the rare cases where the offender is likely to experience custody in a more severe way such that the sentence imposed is, or will become, disproportionate. See R. v. El-Azrak, 2023 ONCA 440, 167 O.R. (3d) 24, at paras. 143-146.
[8] Finally, we note that the Crown objected to the form in which the fresh evidence was submitted. We need not decide whether this would, itself, have barred admission of the evidence on appeal: R. v. Levesque, 2000 SCC 47, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 487; R. v. Sipos, 2014 SCC 47. Had the medical records been sufficiently compelling to support their likely admission under the Palmer[^1] test, we would have allowed amicus to take steps necessary to correct any deficiencies in form.
Janet Simmons J.A. P.J. Monahan J.A. R. Pomerance J.A.
Footnotes
[^1]: This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.