Robbery

Joshua Sabourin pleaded guilty to 10 offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and break and enter.

The parties jointly recommended a 5-year penitentiary sentence, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered the facts, the offender's background (including substance abuse and potential intellectual disability), and legal principles of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, totality, proportionality, parity).

Despite mitigating factors like the guilty plea, numerous aggravating factors, including a long criminal record, random selection of vulnerable victims, and lack of insight, warranted a significant sentence.

The court acceded to the joint recommendation, imposing concurrent sentences totaling 5 years, and ordered various ancillary measures including DNA submission, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and robbery and appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her R. v. Grant analysis by characterizing the impact of a s. 10(b) Charter breach (unreasonable delay in access to counsel of choice) as "neutral," when it should have weighed in favour of exclusion.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that even if the impugned evidence (satchel and knife) had been excluded, the remaining overwhelming identification evidence would have inevitably led to the same convictions.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to lack of submissions.

This sentencing decision addresses a young adult offender who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm into a public place and armed robbery.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the dangerous use of a firearm in a public establishment, against significant mitigating factors such as the offender's genuine remorse, positive pre-sentence report, challenging upbringing, and guilty pleas entered despite triable issues.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of two years less one day, comprising twelve months imprisonment followed by a twelve-month less one day conditional sentence order, plus a three-year probation order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The sentence was noted as being at the very low end of the range for such offences, justified by the unique mitigating circumstances.

The defendant, Roydin Gerard Dias, pleaded guilty to multiple firearms and robbery-related charges, including possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, vehicle occupancy with a shotgun, robbery with an imitation firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, use of an imitation firearm, and disguise with intent.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court confirmed that a pharmacy incident, where nothing was taken but threats were made with a firearm, constituted robbery under section 343(c) of the Criminal Code, applying the definition of assault from section 265.

Aggravating factors included unsafe firearm storage, illegal possession purpose, dangerous flight from police, and the impact on victims and the community.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, genuine remorse, no prior criminal record, and difficult pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years (54 months), with credit for 21.5 months of pre-trial custody, leaving 32 months to serve concurrently for all charges.

Additional orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of weapons.

Joshua Auld pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence proposed five years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a handgun and planning, and significant mitigating factors such as Mr. Auld's guilty plea, mental health issues, substance abuse recovery, challenging personal history rooted in systemic anti-Black racism, and onerous bail conditions.

Applying the principle of totality and considering the impact of anti-Black racism on moral culpability and rehabilitation potential, the court found a six-year and three-month aggregate sentence unduly harsh.

A global sentence of five years was imposed, with specific terms for each count and credit for pre-sentence custody.

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 appellant, Nathaniel Tulloch, appealed a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The sentencing judge had accepted a joint submission for a global custodial term, but all parties inadvertently overlooked section 85(4) of the Criminal Code, which mandates that the sentence for the imitation firearm offence be served consecutively.

The sentencing judge acknowledged the error but was functus officio.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, supported by the Crown, and varied the sentence to ensure the section 85(2)(a) offence was served consecutively, while adjusting the other counts to maintain the originally intended global sentence.

The applicant, Christopher Nigro, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 1153 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court calculated defence-caused delay (412 days) due to counsel changes, JPT scheduling, resolution discussions, and late filing of the s. 11(b) application.

It also recognized the COVID-19 pandemic (225 days) as an exceptional circumstance causing systemic delay.

After deducting these periods, the remaining delay was 516 days, which is below the 18-month ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

This is an appeal from convictions for two counts of robbery and one count of forcible confinement.

The appellant argued that the trial judge subjected his evidence to uneven scrutiny, reversing the burden of proof, and failed to adequately assess the elements of forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, did not shift the burden of proof, and provided sufficient reasons for the forcible confinement conviction, which was supported by the evidence.

Omar Thomas was found guilty of five charges related to a convenience store robbery (robbery, disguise with intent, three probation breaches) and later pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property and failure to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 52 months jail, while the Defence sought time served, arguing for Downes and Duncan credits.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the robbery, the use of a weapon, the vulnerable victim, and the offender's extensive criminal record with prior robbery convictions.

Mitigating factors included family support, traumatic childhood experiences, substance abuse issues, and expressions of remorse.

The court rejected Downes credit due to bail breaches and lack of evidence for employment seeking, but considered harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit) as a mitigating factor.

The final sentence was 4 years jail for the robbery-related offences, with the 4-month sentence for the later offences served concurrently, resulting in a global sentence of 4 years less pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, Preston Darnell Scott, appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence.

The Crown alleged he acted as the getaway driver in a home invasion.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's inference of knowledge regarding the co-accused's masks and the sufficiency of reasons, as well as the fitness of the six-and-a-half-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's inference of knowledge was reasonable despite an "unfortunate" choice of words, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The court allowed the sentence appeal only to grant credit for pre-sentence custody, reducing the sentence by 23 days.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly inferred guilt from disbelief of his testimony and that the robbery conviction was unreasonable, contending the theft was complete before the violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the rejection of testimony or the continuous transaction for robbery.

The court also found the custodial sentence imposed was fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and wearing a disguise with intent, and his four-year sentence.

The primary issue was the reliability of identification evidence provided by the appellant's sister, who recognized him from surveillance videos.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the identification evidence, noting the judge's careful analysis and caution regarding frailties.

The court also rejected the admission of fresh evidence and found the sentence to be fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellant, Matthew Moreira, sought leave to appeal his sentence for manslaughter and robbery.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave, finding that the sentencing judge erred in determining the factual basis for the manslaughter conviction and in assessing the appellant's degree of fault, and also materially misapprehended evidence regarding pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

The Court set aside the 12-year manslaughter sentence, substituting a 10-year sentence, while upholding the 1-year consecutive sentence for robbery.

The total global sentence was reduced from 13 years to 11 years, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 5 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

Shadoe G. Moore pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with an imitation handgun and using an imitation handgun during the commission of an indictable offence.

The court considered the interplay between ss. 85 and 343 of the Criminal Code, rejecting the "double-dipping" argument and affirming Parliament's intent for consecutive sentences.

The court also addressed the "step principle" in sentencing, rejecting its strict application for Indigenous offenders, and discussed the application of "Summers" and "Duncan" credit for pre-sentence custody conditions, particularly harsh due to lockdowns and COVID-19.

The judge applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the profound impact of intergenerational trauma and systemic factors on the offender's moral culpability.

A global sentence of three years was imposed, reduced by 338 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years and one month.

Mason Ireland pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered sentencing principles, Gladue factors due to his Indigenous heritage, enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody during COVID-19, credit for stringent bail conditions, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the unrecovered stolen jewelry.

The court imposed a 4.5-year custodial sentence, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, and a fine of $162,500 in lieu of forfeiture.

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 appellant, Zi-Yue Huang, appealed a 12-month sentence for three counts of robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not crediting pre-sentence custody and by treating his mental health as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in failing to credit pre-sentence custody without providing reasons, which impacted the sentence.

However, the court found no error in how the sentencing judge considered the appellant's mental health.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was adjusted to reflect credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, R.M., appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and robbery, and his adult sentence of eight years, for offences committed when he was 17.

The Crown cross-appealed the conditional stay of the gang sexual assault conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed R.M.'s conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable and the complainant's credibility assessment proper.

It also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the adult sentence as not demonstrably unfit, finding the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness rebutted and the "Coke principle" not violated.

The Crown's cross-appeal was allowed, setting aside the conditional stay for gang sexual assault, as it was deemed a distinct offence from sexual assault with a weapon under the Kienapple principle.