Robbery

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to adduce unknown third-party suspect evidence regarding a subsequent attempted carjacking.

The Court of Appeal found that even if the trial judge erred by referring to certain witness testimony, her core reasoning applying the Grant framework was sound.

The trial judge correctly concluded the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to suggest the same individuals committed both offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, inmates at a medium-security penitentiary, appealed their convictions for assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and robbery against another inmate.

One appellant also appealed his indeterminate sentence following a dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, sufficient reasons for credibility findings, and no Charter breach from missing security footage.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge reasonably concluded the appellant's risk could not be managed in the community on a long-term supervision order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery with an offensive weapon, arguing that the trial judge engaged in uneven scrutiny of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no indication that the trial judge applied different standards in assessing the credibility of the appellant and the complainant.

The trial judge's findings were reasonable, grounded in the evidence, and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for using a firearm while committing an offence under s. 85(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as well as the imposition of a victim fine surcharge.

He had pled guilty to robbery with a firearm and other offences.

The Court of Appeal held that a conviction under s. 85(1)(a) is precluded when the underlying offence is robbery under s. 344, as the use of a firearm is already an essential element.

The conviction and its consecutive one-year sentence were quashed, reducing the global sentence to five years.

The victim fine surcharge was also struck down on consent pursuant to Boudreault.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, unlawful confinement, and breach of recognizance, as well as his 4.5-year sentence, arising from a home invasion.

He argued the unlawful confinement conviction violated the Kienapple principle as it was not a separate delict from the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence of domination and coercive restraint distinct from the robbery.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year sentence reflected no error in principle and fell within the fit range, though the victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellant, a 27-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for his role in a home invasion involving robbery, unlawful confinement, and discharging a firearm.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly weigh his youth and lack of a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge gave careful reasons, considered all mitigating and aggravating factors, and imposed a sentence that was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of robbery, having their faces masked, assault with an imitation handgun, and using an imitation handgun.

One appellant was also convicted of resisting a peace officer.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on party liability for the firearm offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the jury was not properly instructed that a non-gun-wielding intruder must know the other intruder had a firearm to be found guilty as a joint principal.

The appeal was allowed for the joint convictions and disguise charges, but the conviction for resisting arrest was upheld as the appellant's actions constituted active resistance.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended circumstantial evidence and seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding the non-existence of an alleyway described by a taxi driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the alleged misapprehensions insignificant to the overwhelming circumstantial case.

The court declined to admit the fresh evidence, noting the issue could have been pursued at trial and the alleyway's existence was not the significant feature of the taxi driver's evidence.

The court concluded it defied credulity to claim the appellant was not a participant in the robbery.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and breach of probation arising from a drug transaction.

The trial judge had stayed an aggravated assault charge under the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal quashed the robbery conviction but applied section 686(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the appeal by lifting the stay and entering a conviction for aggravated assault.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's self-defence claim, finding that stabbing the victim eight times was disproportionate to the threat.

The weapons dangerous conviction was stayed, and the matter was remitted for sentencing on the aggravated assault conviction.

The appellant appealed her conviction for robbery arising from a drug transaction where the complainant was stabbed multiple times.

At trial, there was conflicting evidence regarding who was buying and selling the drugs, and what type of drugs were involved.

The trial judge convicted the appellant but failed to make specific findings of fact regarding what was stolen, which was necessary as the Crown had particularized the charge as stealing money.

The Court of Appeal found that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they did not address the charge as particularized.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man adopted by non-Aboriginal parents, pleaded guilty to serious firearms and robbery offences and was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment.

The sentencing judge declined to consider the appellant's Aboriginal heritage, finding no causal link between his background and the offences.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by requiring a causal connection and failing to consider the intergenerational systemic factors that bore on the appellant's moral blameworthiness.

The Court admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's reconnection with his Aboriginal heritage and reduced the global sentence to nine years.

The appellants appealed their convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, and assault arising from three separate incidents that occurred over a 30-minute period.

They argued the verdicts were unreasonable, challenging the trial judge's findings on self-defence, identity, and common intention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, which established that the appellants acted together as common participants in all three incidents.

Leave to appeal sentence was also denied.

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions on the ground that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that while it would have been better to give the cautionary instruction, no request was made at trial.

The Court applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, finding that the identification and circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

The appellant appealed his eight-year global sentence for six counts of robbery, attempted robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and flight from police.

He argued the trial judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences, failing to consider prior sentences for related offences, and insufficiently weighing rehabilitation prospects.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the imposition of consecutive sentences and concluding that the trial judge appropriately applied the totality principle and considered the appellant's rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 4 years and 3 months for armed robbery, unlawful confinement, and related offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's determination that a 5-year global sentence was appropriate given the significant planning and aggravating factors.

However, the Court found errors in the calculation of pre-disposition custody credit, specifically regarding a 3-week period prior to release and a 13-month period spent in custody on unrelated charges that were ultimately stayed.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by 7 months to 3 years and 8 months.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery arising out of a home invasion and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the principle of parity, ignoring mitigating factors, overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and placing too much weight on his youth record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was fit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's use of a shotgun, his extensive record, and his lack of remorse.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

On appeal, she introduced fresh evidence that her trial counsel failed to advise the sentencing judge of a co-accused's six-month sentence and the immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, found the appellant's culpability similar to her co-accused, and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to preserve her right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.

The young person appealed his convictions for possession of a weapon for the purpose of robbery and robbery with a weapon, as well as his sentence of nine months' custody and 12 months' probation.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied credibility principles and relied on corroborating independent evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge adequately considered the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the sentence was fit for a serious firearm offence.

The appellant, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and disguise with intent, and was sentenced to two years less a day following a joint submission.

He appealed the sentence, seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of his post-sentence rehabilitation, including part-time employment and educational progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not significantly alter the picture presented to the sentencing judge, who had already factored the appellant's high potential for rehabilitation into the lenient sentence.

The accused, charged with multiple offences including robbery and firearm offences arising from a home invasion, brought an application arguing that the objective mens rea component of section 21(2) of the Criminal Code violates section 7 of the Charter.

The accused argued that a constitutionally protected minimum subjective mens rea is required for these offences due to their social stigma and mandatory minimum sentences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that neither robbery nor the firearm offences carry the requisite level of social stigma to mandate a constitutionally protected minimum subjective mens rea.