Robbery

The accused was charged with 28 counts relating to the robbery of an unmarked police vehicle, including theft of firearms, ammunition, and police equipment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a handprint on a package of paper and the accused's subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing some of the stolen items.

The court found the forensic evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the stolen items or committed the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to quash his committal to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued there was no evidence that he forcibly confined the deceased distinct from the act of killing during a robbery in a small washroom.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could conclude the applicant unlawfully confined the deceased for a period of time beyond what was integral to the killing.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a restricted firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and related offences after attacking a victim in his driveway and stealing his vehicle.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the offender sought 2-3 years with enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh jail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a violent home invasion.

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond the 1.5:1 ratio, noting the offender's multiple institutional misconducts involving violence against other inmates.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery of a convenience store.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 15-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The court noted the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and the role of substance abuse, balancing these against the serious nature of the offence.

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault, robbery, assault, and theft.

He kidnapped a 60-year-old vulnerable victim, forced her to drive to a park, and sexually assaulted her.

The Crown sought 9 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 7 to 8 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 8 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody, noting the offender's lengthy criminal record and the profound impact on the victim.

Several counts were conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and use of an imitation firearm after robbing an escort in her motel room.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victim, the use of an imitation firearm, and the fact that the offender was on statutory release for similar offences.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 3 years and 1 day in the penitentiary, granting enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to frequent institutional lock-downs.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery for acting as the getaway driver in the armed robbery of a retail store.

The perpetrator stole $65,000 worth of cell phones and $7,600 in cash.

The accused was aware of the robbery but did not know a weapon would be used.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to two years in the penitentiary followed by three years of probation, noting his role, the planning involved, and his status as a first-time offender.

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 two counts of robbery involving two separate taxi drivers on consecutive nights.

In both incidents, two men entered the taxi, directed the driver to a location, and then robbed the driver using a weapon while demanding cash, cell phones, and keys.

The Crown relied on the consistent testimony of the taxi drivers, onboard CCTV camera images, and a palm print found on one of the vehicles.

The court found the evidence of identity and participation compelling, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding the reliability of the CCTV images and the victims' observations.

The accused was found guilty as a party to both robberies.

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 accused was charged with robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences after attacking a drug dealer and stealing a bag of marijuana.

The accused pleaded guilty to the robbery and assault but contested the firearms charges, claiming he found the gun inside the stolen bag and did not bring it to the robbery.

Undercover police officers witnessed the robbery and testified that the accused used a handgun to pistol-whip the victim.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, applying the W.(D.) framework, and accepted the officers' evidence.

The court also found that although the seized handgun had a defective firing pin, it met the definition of a firearm because it could be readily adapted for use within a reasonable time.

The accused was found guilty of the firearms offences.

Sentencing of three offenders following a jury trial for a planned home invasion robbery.

The offenders entered a residence during the day, masked and armed with a loaded firearm.

They unlawfully confined one victim and shot another victim in the leg during a struggle.

They fled in a getaway vehicle and engaged in a high-speed police chase.

The court sentenced the getaway driver to 7 years, the offender who encouraged the shooting to 10 years, and the third offender to 8.5 years, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

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 18-year-old accused was convicted of aggravated assault, armed robbery, and firearm offences following a drug robbery where a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring the victim.

The court determined that the Crown failed to prove the firearm was a restricted or prohibited weapon, meaning the four-year mandatory minimum applied rather than the five-year minimum.

Considering the accused's youth, minor record, and the jump principle, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years, 1 month, and 19 days, which, after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, resulted in a remaining sentence of 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years of probation.

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.

The accused, charged with robbery, brought applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 25 months.

The court attributed significant portions of the delay to the Crown, including late disclosure of a 9-1-1 audio recording and failure to expedite scheduling.

Finding that the delay was unreasonable and that the accused suffered real prejudice from restrictive bail conditions, the court granted the applications and stayed the charges.

The appellants appealed their summary convictions and sentences arising from a group assault and robbery at a massage parlour.

Liang argued his conviction was unreasonable and his sentence unfit; his appeal was dismissed as the verdict was supported by evidence and the sentence was appropriate for a violent group attack.

Loi argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer conceded his liability without instructions.

The court found that Loi's counsel made an unauthorized concession equivalent to a guilty plea, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Loi's appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with armed robbery and disguise with intent.

The Crown alleged he was one of three men who robbed the victim after a woman acted as a decoy.

The trial judge found the identification evidence unreliable and accepted that the accused's alibi raised a reasonable doubt about his physical presence at the robbery.

However, based on text messages and accomplice testimony, the court found the accused participated extensively in planning the robbery and directing the decoy.

The accused was convicted of armed robbery as an aider and abettor, but acquitted of disguise with intent.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery and using an imitation firearm, arising from two home invasions.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The victim identified the accused, but the court found the identification evidence to be weak due to poor lighting, the use of disguises, and the victim's limited prior knowledge of the accused.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court believed the accused's denials and found that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.