John F. Scandiffio

The accused was convicted of robbery using an imitation firearm.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application for a mistrial or to re-open the trial, arguing that the late disclosure of a 911 tape breached his section 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the application, finding that the evidence was not fresh, the defence lacked due diligence, and the evidence would not reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the trial.

The offenders were convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement following a home invasion where imitation firearms were used and young children were present.

The Crown sought sentences of 6 years for Brown and 8 years for Hersi.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed the offenders' youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

Brown, a first-time offender who constructively pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 2.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Hersi, who played a more significant role, had a prior record, and was convicted of uttering threats, was sentenced to a total of 4.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

The accused was charged with robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence following an attempted robbery at a restaurant.

Two men entered the restaurant, and the first assailant assaulted one of the owners while demanding money from a safe.

The victims escaped and pointed out the fleeing suspect to passing police officers, who chased and arrested the accused.

The court found the eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence reliable, convicting the accused of robbing one victim, using an imitation firearm, and wearing a mask, but acquitting him of robbing the second victim as nothing was stolen or attempted to be stolen from him.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.

Sentencing following conviction for bank robbery committed by passing a note claiming the offender had a gun.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was legally available and whether it should be imposed.

The judge held that where a robber merely passes a threatening note without possessing the means to carry out the threat, the offence does not constitute a “serious personal injury offence” under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, making a conditional sentence legally available.

However, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the seriousness and prevalence of bank robberies, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender received an 18‑month custodial sentence with credit for pre‑sentence custody and a subsequent probation order.

In a mid-trial voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court determined whether an accused's statement to police was admissible.

Applying the voluntariness framework for statements to persons in authority, the court held there was credible evidence the impugned statement was made and that ultimate reliability disputes were for the trier of fact at trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, emphasizing the absence of threats, coercion, or promises and the proximity of a consultation with duty counsel.

The defence argument that non-recording rendered the statement inherently suspect was rejected on the facts and governing appellate authority.

The statement was admitted into evidence.

The accused was charged with robbery after presenting a demand note to a bank teller and taking approximately $400.

He admitted committing the robbery but argued he acted under duress, claiming an unknown armed individual in a vehicle forced him to carry out the offence and threatened to shoot his friend if he refused.

The court held that s. 17 of the Criminal Code excludes the defence of duress for robbery and that, absent a constitutional challenge, the statutory exclusion remained operative.

In the alternative, the court assessed the common law defence of duress and rejected it, finding the accused’s testimony not credible and concluding that the alleged threats were fabricated and unsupported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the robbery voluntarily.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his certiorari application challenging his committal for trial on charges including attempted murder.

At the preliminary inquiry, the judge refused to hear defence submissions on the committal, which constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal held that this error, while going to jurisdiction, originated as a procedural irregularity and was curable under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant suffered no prejudice, as the evidence clearly supported a committal for attempted murder.