carjacking

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted robbery arising from a carjacking spree and was sentenced to 2.5 years' incarceration.

He appealed on two grounds: that the sentencing judge erred in treating denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for a youthful first-time offender, and that the sentencing judge failed to account for collateral immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal found that despite a misstatement of the law, the sentencing judge did not overemphasize denunciation and deterrence, as evidenced by a below-range sentence.

The court also held that immigration consequences could not be avoided without imposing an unfit sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of administering a noxious substance.

The Crown also presented facts regarding three additional robberies to which the offender acknowledged his role.

The offender committed a series of carjackings targeting luxury vehicles at shopping centres and residential areas, using weapons and pepper spray against victims.

The court rejected a joint submission of two years imprisonment as manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences, the offender's moral culpability, and the harm caused to victims.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, with a three-year sentence on the armed robbery count and concurrent two-year sentences on the other robbery counts, after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on June 14, 2024, when he carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint on Parliament Street in Toronto while on a house arrest release order for an attempted murder charge.

The accused threatened the driver with a firearm (though none was found), forced him from the vehicle, and fled in the stolen car, colliding with other vehicles before abandonment.

The court imposed a suspended sentence of 669 days with 3 years probation, accounting for the accused's youth as a first offender, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to carjacking offences.

The applicant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery related to a series of carjackings and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

He brought a motion for leave to appeal his sentence and for bail pending appeal.

The Crown did not oppose leave to appeal but opposed bail.

The motion judge granted leave to appeal but dismissed the application for bail, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate that his appeal had sufficient merit to cause unnecessary hardship if he remained detained.

The offender, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery, using an imitation firearm, and failing to comply with bail conditions arising from a series of planned carjackings of luxury vehicles.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the use of gratuitous violence, planning, and committing offences while on bail, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, guilty pleas, difficult upbringing, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years in custody, reduced to 4 years after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Jasgeen Singh, was charged with robbery under section 344 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown alleged that Singh stole a vehicle and used violence against a passenger, Bhawana, to overcome her resistance to the theft.

The defence challenged the identification of Singh as the perpetrator and argued that the violence occurred after the theft was complete.

The court found the identification evidence, including surveillance video and a key fob found on the accused, to be overwhelming.

It also determined that the struggle for a cell phone and the physical push of Bhawana from the vehicle constituted sufficient violence, occurring contemporaneously with the theft.

Singh was found guilty of robbery.

The 19-year-old accused was sentenced for a pharmacy robbery, masking, possession of a stolen vehicle, carjacking, and dangerous driving following a police pursuit.

The court found the carjacking and dangerous driving were motivated by a desire to escape apprehension for the pharmacy robbery, warranting consecutive sentences.

After considering the accused's youth, guilty pleas, and particularly harsh presentence custody conditions during the pandemic, the court imposed a total sentence of four years, reduced to five months and 24 days after applying enhanced credit for presentence custody.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including two counts of robbery, possession of a restricted firearm, and breach of recognizance.

The accused conceded guilt on the firearm possession and breach of recognizance charges.

The court dismissed the accused's application for a directed verdict on one robbery count, finding that the act of driving away while the victim held onto the vehicle constituted violence.

The court found the accused guilty of the second robbery based on eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence, but acquitted the accused of the first robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge a young person on charges of robbery and pointing a firearm related to a carjacking.

The reviewing judge found that while the preliminary inquiry judge erred in concluding there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the accused to trial, this error was not jurisdictional in nature.

Because the preliminary inquiry judge considered the whole of the evidence and did not act arbitrarily, the erroneous weighing of inferences did not deprive him of jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and failing to remain at the scene of an accident arising from a carjacking on May 24, 2016 in Ottawa.

The case turned on identity.

The victim testified that the appellant was not the man who attacked him, providing confused and unconvincing evidence about a prior high school connection and a bar encounter.

The trial judge rejected the victim's testimony as unreliable and hazy, and instead relied on video evidence, testimony from the Brown brothers, and DNA evidence to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's findings and that the verdict was amply supported by the evidentiary record.

The appellant was convicted of five carjackings, with direct evidence linking him to one incident and similar fact evidence linking him to four others.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two grounds relating to the trial judge's jury charge on similar fact evidence, arguing the judge erred in instructing the jury on how to assess such evidence and group membership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the charge faithfully followed the two-step process established in R. v. Perrier and was sufficient to ensure the jury did not improperly use group activity to identify the appellant without specific linkage to the individual acts.

Appeal from conviction for robbery, use of an imitation firearm while attempting to commit robbery, obstructing police, and breach of recognizance.

The appellant challenged his convictions for robbery and use of an imitation firearm, arguing that the evidence showed only presence and passive acquiescence in a carjacking.

The trial judge found the appellant was the third perpetrator who entered the victim's vehicle during an armed carjacking.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the appellant's conduct in getting into the stolen vehicle, fleeing with the other perpetrators, and the constellation of circumstantial evidence (including cell phone records, similar clothing, and after-the-fact conduct) supported a finding of party liability under section 21 of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and assault while carrying a knife arising from a planned carjacking in an underground parking garage.

The offender approached a vulnerable victim, threatened her with a knife, and stole her vehicle before later being apprehended after a police chase.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, targeting of a vulnerable victim, and the offender’s leadership role in the robbery.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record at the time, and subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Finding no causal link between the mental illness and the offence but considering the offender’s circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence with probation and ancillary orders.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, using an imitation firearm to commit robbery, and committing robbery while masked in a residential carjacking-style offence.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including the planned nature of the offence, use of imitation firearms to terrorize the victim, targeting of a vulnerable victim at her home, and the offender’s criminal record and lack of remorse.

The court also considered youth at the time of the offence and limited prior custody as mitigating factors, while prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court addressed credit for pre-sentence custody including time spent detained on unrelated charges later stayed, granting limited mitigation.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, resulting in a further 20½ months to serve after credit.

The accused was charged with robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit robbery, and use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accomplice and a videotaped confession by the accused.

The accused testified that he was high on marijuana, unaware of the robbery plan, and falsely confessed due to police threats.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the accomplice's evidence corroborated by the confession and physical evidence, and found the accused guilty on all charges.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, using an imitation firearm during robbery, and being masked with intent arising from two violent carjackings.

In both incidents, victims were abducted at gunpoint, confined in the trunks of their vehicles, threatened with death, and forced to reveal banking PINs while offenders withdrew funds from ATMs.

The court considered principles of denunciation and deterrence while balancing the accused’s youth, lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and personal circumstances including trauma and mental health concerns.

Parity with the sentence imposed on a co‑accused involved in multiple related carjackings was examined, along with sentencing jurisprudence regarding serious robberies.

The court determined that a lower sentence than the co‑accused was appropriate given the offender’s age, absence of record, and demonstrated remorse.