J. Blair Drummie

The accused pleaded guilty to two masked robberies of retail stores in which imitation firearms were brandished and cash and property were stolen.

Although no physical injuries occurred, victims experienced emotional and financial harm.

The Crown sought a three‑year custodial sentence, while the defence requested time served.

The court considered the seriousness of robbery offences and the importance of deterrence but also noted the accused’s youth, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

Given that the accused had already spent approximately two and one‑half years in pre‑trial custody, the court concluded that a sentence of time served appropriately addressed the principles of sentencing.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, challenged the admissibility of his statements to police, alleging violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The accused made an utterance before speaking to duty counsel and later provided a written statement off-camera after expressing discomfort with the video recording.

The Superior Court of Justice found no s. 10(b) breach, as the police provided a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and the utterance was spontaneous.

The court also held the statements were voluntary, finding no oppressive conduct or improper inducements, and concluded the written procedure was a sufficient substitute for a video recording.

The statements were ruled admissible.