Imitation firearm

The defendant pled guilty to assault using an imitation weapon, uttering death threats, and failure to comply.

The court considered the aggravating factor of using an imitation firearm in broad daylight and the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and a difficult childhood.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence, which was reduced to a suspended sentence after applying pre-sentence custody and Duncan credits for lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, followed by two years of probation.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery, one count of use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of threatening to cause death, arising from violent robberies of two victims behind the Yorkdale Subway Station in Toronto.

The appellant received a global sentence of four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of an expert forensic report authenticating Voxer App voicemail messages that would establish his absence from the scene of the robberies.

The Crown consented to the admission of the fresh evidence and conceded that the convictions amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and using an imitation firearm after robbing a convenience store at night while armed with a BB gun.

The stolen cigarettes contained a GPS tracker, leading to his swift arrest.

The court weighed the offender's traumatic childhood and guilty plea against his lengthy criminal record, which included a prior penitentiary sentence for robbery.

The court imposed a total sentence of 32 months and 15 days in custody, consecutive to a sentence currently being served, after crediting pre-trial custody.

The young person was charged with possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after being found with a loaded BB gun concealed in his pants at a community centre.

The court rejected the young person's testimony that he possessed the BB gun innocently after shooting pop cans.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only reasonable inference was that the young person possessed the imitation firearm to use and intimidate others.

The young person was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from an attempted robbery on January 6, 2013.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of cell phone records, the denial of the motion for directed verdict on the robbery count, or the jury instruction on party liability.

The accused was charged with multiple robbery-related offences arising from an armed robbery of a restaurant involving masked perpetrators using imitation firearms and a knife.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance video showing the accused entering an apartment building with other perpetrators shortly after the robbery, possession of stolen liquor, and conduct consistent with concealing stolen property.

The accused testified and called defence witnesses claiming he attended the location only to deliver money to an acquaintance.

Applying the framework from R. v. W. (D.), the court rejected the accused’s testimony as not credible and found the defence evidence unreliable.

Considering the totality of circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only rational inference was that the accused participated in the joint enterprise robbery.

The offender was convicted by a jury of robbery, uttering death threats, extortion, and using an imitation firearm.

The offences involved a prolonged period of terrorizing a vulnerable victim over an alleged debt owed by her sister.

The court weighed the offender's extensive criminal record and the profound impact on the victim against his recent rehabilitative efforts in custody.

A global sentence of 4 years and 8 months was imposed, including a consecutive 2-year sentence for the imitation firearm offence, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, a non-communication order, and $900 in restitution.

The accused was charged with robbing a bank while armed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, using an imitation firearm, threatening death, and breaching probation.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, photographs, and the recognition evidence of two police officers who had prior dealings with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence compelling and convicted the accused of the lesser included offence of using an imitation firearm, as well as threatening death and breaching probation.

The offender was convicted of three counts of robbery and three counts of using an imitation firearm during a robbery.

The Crown sought to prove a real firearm was used, but the court found it was an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victims and the impact on them, and mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and impending deportation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of five years imprisonment, less 28 months credit for pretrial custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft under $5,000, committed through shoplifting to finance an Oxycontin addiction.

Following his initial release and subsequent bail violation, he pleaded guilty to additional charges including failing to attend court and breach of recognizance.

The central issue at sentencing was the quantum of jail time and the credit to be granted for pre-sentence custody, particularly regarding enhanced credit under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed a sentence permitting the accused to access drug treatment at Westover Treatment Centre.

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.

Sentencing following convictions for three robberies, two counts of using an imitation firearm during the commission of an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon.

The offender suffered from schizophrenia and had shown significant stabilization and improvement through psychiatric treatment in the community.

The court considered whether the seriousness of the robberies required a penitentiary sentence of two years or more, which would preclude a conditional sentence under the framework in R. v. Proulx.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and the risk that incarceration would significantly worsen the offender’s mental health, the court determined a global sentence under two years was appropriate.

A blended sentence was imposed consisting of a conditional sentence, a mandatory custodial term for the imitation firearm offences (reduced after enhanced pre‑trial custody credit), and probation.