Robbery

The accused were charged with robbery, pointing and discharging a firearm, and in one case, breaching bail conditions, arising from an incident at a bar in Mississauga on October 9, 2019.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the identification evidence of the victim, who gave inconsistent statements to police and at trial.

The court admitted the victim's prior police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on procedural reliability.

However, the court found that the victim's evidence contained significant inconsistencies regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged shooting, and that video evidence did not support her account.

The court concluded that the victim's evidence could not safely carry the whole weight of the Crown's case and acquitted both accused on all charges.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery of financial institutions committed over a planned and sophisticated spree in February and March 2019.

Q.W. pleaded guilty to four robberies; T.C. pleaded guilty to two robberies.

The robberies targeted Scotiabank and CIBC branches across multiple jurisdictions, involved stolen vehicles, and resulted in significant financial losses.

The court imposed custodial sentences with community supervision and probation, balancing the serious nature of the offences and the significant trauma to victims against the young persons' youth, lack of prior records, guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

A youth was convicted of robbery and aggravated assault following a group attack on a victim and his three friends at a community centre playground.

The victim was punched, kicked, and stabbed 16 times, suffering life-threatening injuries.

The court determined the appropriate sentence balancing the seriousness of the offence and the offender's degree of participation against rehabilitation considerations under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown sought 24 months of custody and supervision followed by probation, while the defence sought a deferred custody order or open custody.

The court imposed 12 months of custody and supervision (8 months custody in open custody, 4 months supervision) followed by 12 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including forcible confinement, robbery, assault with a weapon, trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of property, theft of motor vehicle, breach of probation, and unauthorized use of a credit card.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of three years custody less 146 days of presentence custody credit, resulting in a remnant sentence of 949 days.

The court also imposed lifetime firearms prohibitions under Section 109 of the Criminal Code and a no-contact order under Section 743.21 with respect to specified individuals.

The applicant, O.M., sought to sever counts on a single indictment relating to two different complainants, Ms. D.K. and Ms. J.M., alleging various violent and sexual offences.

The court granted the severance motion, finding no factual or legal nexus between the sets of allegations, which were separated by five years.

The judge noted the risk of cross-pollination of credibility assessments and propensity reasoning if the charges were tried together, concluding that severance was required in the interests of justice despite limiting jury instructions.

The defendant, Vladimir Hussain-Marca, was found guilty of break and enter and robbery following a home invasion.

The court adopted a joint sentencing submission from the Crown and Defence, imposing a three-year custodial term (less pre-sentence credit), 18 months probation, a 20-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court considered aggravating factors such as planning, violence, and dwelling house violation, alongside mitigating factors including the defendant's youth, first-time offender status, remorse, and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court also commented on the harsh conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, which were implicitly accounted for in the joint submission.

The accused, Cory Greavette and Douglas Flett, were jointly tried on charges including robbery, possession of property obtained by crime, uttering threats (Greavette only), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (Greavette only).

The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable and incredible due to memory issues, inconsistencies, admitted dishonesty, and lack of common sense.

Corroborative evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome these frailties.

The court found both accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, alleging breaches of his Charter rights (s. 7 and s. 12) due to excessive police force during his arrest for robbery and other charges.

Police used a service dog and tasers to apprehend the non-compliant suspect who was believed to be armed and dangerous.

The court found the police use of force objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportionate given the exigent circumstances, and dismissed the application.

The offender, Christopher Goulbourne, pleaded guilty to simple robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and breaking and entering related to a home invasion.

This sentencing decision addresses the fit sentence for these offenses, considering his lengthy criminal record, including a prior armed bank robbery for which he was already serving a seven-year sentence.

The court applied principles of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, protection of the public, proportionality, and totality.

The judge determined a global sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment for the home invasion offenses, to be served in addition to the remaining four years of his previous sentence, resulting in a total of eleven and a half years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Jermaine Smith was tried without a jury on two counts of robbery, two counts of disguise with intent, and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance.

A statement given to police was ruled inadmissible.

The Crown relied on the doctrine of recent possession to identify Smith as one of the robbers, based on his girlfriend redeeming stolen lottery tickets given to her by Smith.

The court found Smith was in possession of the recently stolen tickets but deemed it unsafe to infer he was one of the robbers due to the easily transferable nature of the goods, lack of other corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies in witness descriptions.

Smith was found not guilty of the robbery and disguise charges but guilty of failing to comply with a recognizance, which he conceded.

Mr. Milani was convicted of multiple home invasion sexual assaults and related offences committed between 1985 and 1987.

The court determined a fit sentence, considering the Kienapple principle for multiple convictions, the circumstances of the four incidents, the offender's background, and the profound impact on victims.

The Crown sought 20 years to life, while the defence proposed 5-8 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 20 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, communication prohibition with victims, DNA sample submission, and sex offender registration.

The accused was charged with robbery, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and possession under.

The Crown's case relied on direct eyewitness identification from one victim who selected the accused from a photo line-up and identified him in court, corroborated by extensive circumstantial evidence including security video footage from multiple locations establishing a timeline of events.

The defence challenged the identification evidence as unreliable, arguing the witness description was generic and the photo line-up was flawed.

The court found the eyewitness identification credible and reliable, supported by compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance from apartment buildings and a bank showing the stolen bank card being used.

The court convicted on robbery, forcible confinement, and threatening bodily harm, conditionally staying the assault with a weapon charge as part of the same transaction as the robbery.

Carleton Taylor pleaded guilty to being a party to a robbery involving the kidnapping of the victim, Reth Tork, and the fraudulent use of his debit card.

While Taylor's role was peripheral to the violent aspects, he participated for financial gain.

The Crown sought a 4-year custodial sentence, and the defense sought 2 years.

The court considered Taylor's significant criminal record, lack of pro-social initiatives, and the victim's impact statement, balanced against his guilty plea and positive family relationships.

The court sentenced Taylor to 3 years in custody, followed by 2 years' probation, with credit for 476 days of pre-trial custody.

Ancillary orders for DNA and a 10-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, breach of recognizance, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The complainant, a heroin addict with a criminal history, alleged a violent attack and robbery by the accused and others.

The court found the complainant to be an incredible and unreliable witness due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, mistaken identifications, and admitted lies.

While the complainant suffered serious injuries, the Crown failed to prove the accused's involvement in the robbery and aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of robbery, aggravated assault, and breach of probation, but found guilty of breach of recognizance based on his plea and supporting evidence.

Jordan McPhee pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and robbery.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation.

The court, considering McPhee's criminal record, a subsequent aggravated assault conviction, and a psychiatric risk assessment, found him to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of six years imprisonment (less pre-sentence custody) followed by a ten-year Long Term Supervision Order, with specific recommendations for conditions to the parole board.

Howard Smith was convicted of robbery after a jury trial, following an incident where he and a co-accused robbed a victim in a motel room.

While the co-accused perpetrated the choking and forcible confinement, Smith was convicted solely of robbery.

The Crown sought a 12-15 month custodial sentence, emphasizing the aggravating factor of the offense occurring in a "dwelling-house" (motel room) and the victim's traumatic impact.

The defense requested a suspended sentence, highlighting Smith's lack of prior criminal record, rehabilitative prospects, and the opportunistic nature of the crime.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, imposing a sentence of 120 days in custody followed by 2 years' probation, along with a DNA order and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The applicant, Darren John Pundyk, sought an order of certiorari to quash a committal order made by a preliminary inquiry judge, which required him to stand trial on charges of robbery with a handgun, possession of a break-in instrument, possession of a weapon for an indictable offence, and disguise with intent.

Pundyk argued that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by committing him despite an alleged absence of evidence on the essential element of identity.

The court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision, applying the "some evidence" test for committal based on circumstantial evidence.

The court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the applicant's identity as one of the robbers, and therefore, the preliminary inquiry judge did not act without jurisdiction.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

Corey Burroughs, accused of armed robbery, sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, the exclusion of evidence, alleging multiple Charter violations and abuse of process by police.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and did not violate the accused's right to counsel or improperly seize his vehicle.

However, the court determined that the police deliberately violated the accused's right to be brought before a justice of the peace without undue delay, as required by section 503 of the Criminal Code, constituting an abuse of process.

Applying the R. v. Babos test, the court found the police conduct shocking to societal fairness and decency, thus impacting the integrity of the justice system.

Despite this, considering the serious nature of the charges (armed robbery, kidnapping, use of firearms), the societal interest in a trial on the merits, and improvements in the judicial system since the incident, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

A judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with aggravated assault, robbery, threatening death, and possession of a knife.

The accused, a 19-year-old refugee claimant with a serious youth record for armed robberies and robberies, was arrested following an incident where a complainant was stabbed and robbed.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defence proposed three sureties, including the accused's aunt.

The court found that two of the three proposed sureties lacked credibility due to false testimony regarding criminal charges.

The court determined that the plan of release was inadequate given the serious nature of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the inability of the remaining suitable surety to control him.

The accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.