R. v. R.W.R.

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, ykca, 2026ykca10, 2026 ykca 10 (canlii), 2026, ykca, 10, (canlii), 19-yu851, 2026, procedure, appeals, reinstatement, interests of justice test, factors from t.l.c., blaker, penner, length of delay, adequacy of explanation, contribution to delay, bona fide intention to appeal and public confidence, do appeals lacking merit justify reinstatement after years of delay?, heavy onus not met, application for reinstatement dismissed, criminal and statutory offences, sexual offences, sexual assault, consent and mens rea, deference to credibility findings, r. v. kruk, honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, r. v. barton, no defence of implied consent, r. v. ewanchuk, did the conviction appeal have merit on consent?, no evidence of communicated consent, application for reinstatement dismissed, criminal and statutory offences, sentencing, appellate review, deferential standard, r. v. lacasse, r. v. parranto, sentencing ranges and individualisation, white, rosenthal, indigenous sentencing factors and alcohol use considered, is the 20‑month sentence demonstrably unfit or affected by error?, no reviewable error identified, application for reinstatement dismissed