Robbery

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for manslaughter and robbery, appealed his designation as a high-risk accused (HRA) under s. 672.64(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's discretionary decision, considering the appellant's extensive history of severe mental disorder, repetitive violent behaviour against strangers, and treatment resistance.

The court found the trial judge's conclusion that there was a substantial likelihood of the appellant using violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed their convictions for second-degree murder and manslaughter/robbery, respectively, stemming from a fatal assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for second-degree murder, ordering a new trial due to the improper admission and use of lay opinion evidence regarding the likelihood of death, and the trial judge's failure to conduct a voir dire or provide a limiting instruction.

The appeal for manslaughter was also allowed, and a new trial ordered, due to inadequate jury instructions on aiding and abetting.

The robbery conviction was upheld.

The court dismissed other grounds of appeal, including challenges to the pathologist's cross-examination limits and the delay argument under the Charter.

The offender, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to robbery and possession of a restricted weapon following a planned jewellery store robbery.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence and a $162,500 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Applying Gladue principles, the court imposed a total sentence of five years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

However, the court declined to impose the fine in lieu of forfeiture, holding that Gladue principles can inform the exercise of discretion under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, and that imposing such a fine on an impoverished Indigenous offender would disproportionately harm his rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault following an altercation where he stabbed the complainant in the neck and back.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant pulled out a firearm and shot at him.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both the accused's and the complainant's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill or rob the complainant, and failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The appellant, Jeffrey Dodman, sought leave to appeal his 12-month custodial sentence for robbery and use of an imitation firearm.

The appeal focused on the calculation of "Downes credits" for pre-trial bail conditions, the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, the impact of post-sentencing events (including COVID-19 risks), and the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for imitation firearm use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's calculation of Downes credits was a reasonable exercise of discretion, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the seriousness of the crime, and post-sentencing events did not warrant interference.

The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum or delay the decision pending legislative changes, as the imposed sentence was deemed fit regardless.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion robbery where the victim was beaten, tied up, and had his pants and underwear removed.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA found on a bandage at the scene, surveillance video, and items seized from the accused's residence that matched those used in the robbery.

The accused and a defence witness testified that the witness committed the robbery using items borrowed from the accused, but the court rejected this evidence as not credible.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and circumstantial evidence principles, the court found the accused guilty of the home invasion offences.

The Indigenous offender was sentenced for a random robbery and assault with a weapon (stabbing) against two women in a drive-thru.

The court considered the offender's youth, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and significant Gladue factors, alongside his recent rehabilitative efforts and sobriety.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court rejected the Crown's proposed 30-36 month sentence and imposed the defence's proposed sentence of 2 years less a day, minus enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

D.D., a young person, pleaded guilty to robbery and disguise with intent.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brandishing of an imitation firearm and the planned nature of the robbery, alongside significant mitigating factors such as D.D.'s status as a youthful first offender, early guilty plea, genuine remorse, and a history of profound trauma (father's incarceration, brother's homicide, personal robberies, PTSD diagnosis).

The Crown sought a custodial sentence.

Applying the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles of diminished moral blameworthiness and the least restrictive sentence, the court determined that while a gateway to custody existed due to the violent nature of the offence, the aggravating circumstances were not so exceptional as to mandate actual custody.

Instead, the court imposed a four-month deferred custody and supervision order followed by 12 months of probation, emphasizing D.D.'s rehabilitative progress and the need to address underlying issues through continued counselling.

A defendant was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, and other associated offences.

The case relied on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, DNA evidence, and the defendant's statement to police.

The court found the defendant's denial and an eyewitness's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies with video evidence.

The judge concluded that the circumstantial evidence, including matching clothing, items, and physical characteristics, left no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, dismissing the innocent explanation as an implausible coincidence.

A similar act application by the Crown was dismissed due to lack of probative value and inconsistencies.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault following a violent home invasion where the victim was handcuffed and beaten with a baton and BB gun.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the offender to five years in the penitentiary, reduced to three years after applying credit for pre-trial custody, strict bail conditions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred when the offender and an accomplice robbed a victim of a gold chain on a busy street, during which the firearm was discharged.

The court weighed the offender's significant criminal record and the aggravating factors of gun violence in a public place against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 9 years was imposed, reduced by 57 months for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

Three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a botched home invasion robbery targeting a drug dealer.

The offenders planned to use extreme violence, bringing weapons and gasoline, but mistakenly encountered the target's brother, who was stabbed to death by one of the offenders.

The court found the offence to be an aggravated manslaughter due to the high degree of planning, the home invasion context, and the extreme violence intended.

The court sentenced the stabber to 13 years and the other two offenders to 11 years, less credit for pre-trial custody.

Requests for enhanced credit due to lockdown conditions were denied for lack of evidence of detrimental impact.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondent on a charge of first degree murder.

The respondent was present during an armed robbery and shooting at a restaurant but did not directly participate in the robbery or the killing, though he did briefly assault one of the victims.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence to commit the respondent for murder under either party liability or constructive murder provisions.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with robbery following a home invasion where three individuals stole electronics and a wallet.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically a single partial fingerprint found on a solarium door frame that matched the accused.

None of the victims or co-accused could identify the accused.

Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused left the fingerprint during the robbery, as there were other plausible explanations for its presence.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, a youthful first offender, was convicted by a jury of robbery, attempted robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and threatening bodily harm against two sex workers.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought two to two and a half years.

The court considered the mandatory minimums for the firearm offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the accused's strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court declined to give credit for pre-trial bail conditions, finding them not severe enough.

A total sentence of three years was imposed, less 14 days credit for pre-sentence custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with robbery with a firearm, pointing a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and breaching probation and prohibition orders.

The victim testified that the accused and an accomplice entered an apartment, put a gun in his mouth, held a knife to his throat, and stole his money and shoes.

A key witness recanted her prior statements, prompting a successful KGB application by the Crown.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and, relying on R. v. Charbonneau, concluded the unrecovered weapon was a real firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

During a trial for sexual assault, the defence brought a Corbett application to exclude portions of the accused's criminal record if he chose to testify.

The accused had a lengthy record including youth offences, robberies, assaults, and a prior sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The court allowed the application in part.

Convictions for assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and forcible confinement were excluded due to their prejudicial effect and risk of propensity reasoning.

However, convictions for robbery and other offences involving dishonesty were permitted to remain on the record as they were relevant to the accused's credibility.

The accused applied for a review of his detention order on charges of robbery and assault.

The initial show cause hearing resulted in his detention on secondary grounds due to an insufficient release plan.

The accused presented new proposed sureties, which the court found constituted a material change in circumstances.

After reviewing the statutory factors, the court concluded that the new sureties and strict conditions, including house arrest and a ban on cell phones, would adequately address public safety concerns.

The application was granted and the accused was released on bail.

The accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent home invasion.

The accused claimed he was invited into the residence to discuss a drug debt and acted in self-defence after the victim pointed a shotgun at him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he forced entry, initiated the assault, and acted in concert with a co-accused to steal property and confine the victim.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, a 19-year-old first offender, was convicted of robbery, being disguised with intent, and dangerous driving following a home invasion where he and three others forced their way into an apartment while masked and armed with knives.

He later fled police, driving dangerously.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the home invasion against the offender's youth, lack of record, and supportive family.

The court imposed a total sentence of 3 years in custody, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.