Robbery

A young person was convicted of a home invasion involving assault, forcible confinement, and robbery of an elderly victim, as well as two subsequent convenience store robberies and theft of a motor vehicle.

The Crown sought an additional 6-month custodial sentence following approximately 16.5 months of pre-trial custody.

The defence sought a time-served sentence with probation.

The court imposed a 14-month probation order with strict conditions, including curfew, counselling, community service, and continued involvement with youth outreach programs, finding that the substantial pre-trial custody already served (approximately 21.9 months when properly credited) was sufficient to hold the young person accountable while prioritizing rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and breaking and entering in the context of a home invasion.

He received seven and a half years: four and a half years for robbery, four and a half years concurrent for break and enter, and three years consecutive for use of an imitation firearm, which was also consecutive to four remaining years from a prior bank robbery conviction.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: that sentences should be concurrent, that mitigating factors were not credited, that the parity principle was not applied with co-accused, and a constitutional challenge that was not pursued.

The court found no error in the trial judge's reasoning or sentencing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and break and enter following a judge alone trial.

The trial judge found the appellant was the main instigating force behind a home invasion robbery, though he did not physically participate, and was involved in a series of residential break-ins.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal in part: the robbery conviction was set aside and substituted with a theft conviction; convictions on two break and enter counts were set aside and acquittals entered due to improper reliance on similar fact evidence.

The sentence of 18 months was maintained as concurrent to the remaining convictions.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed at a Toronto Dominion Bank in Oakville.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by two to three years probation.

The court imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, finding this sentence necessary to denounce the offence and deter similar conduct while considering the accused's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

A 17-year-old youth pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and two counts of breaching a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order.

The first robbery occurred on August 24, 2017, when the youth and an unknown accomplice robbed an escort of approximately $1,000 using violence.

The second robbery occurred on August 25, 2017, when the youth attempted to rob another escort using a knife, choking her and threatening her with a firearm.

The youth had been on a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order for a prior robbery of an 81-year-old woman committed on June 30, 2016.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 11 months less 4 months pre-trial custody (7 months remaining), with consecutive sentences on the two robbery counts and concurrent sentences on the breach counts.

A 2-year probation order with strict conditions followed release from custody.

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 344 of the Criminal Code.

He accosted an 81-year-old woman at an automated banking machine on Yonge Street in Richmond Hill, used force to rob her of approximately $500, and damaged her eyeglasses valued at approximately $500.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment, less credit for 108 days of presentence custody (credited at 1.5 days per day for a total of 162 days), leaving 18 days to be served.

The defendant was also placed on probation for 36 months with conditions including substance abuse counselling, a no-contact order with the victim, a 100-metre distance restriction, restitution of $1,000, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Appeal from conviction for robbery and sentence imposed by Justice Eugene Ewaschuk on June 14 and June 29, 2010.

The appellant was convicted of robbery but acquitted of using an imitation firearm.

The appeal raised five grounds challenging the trial judge's conduct during cross-examination of the Crown's key witness, jury instructions on memory loss due to fear, absence of motive to fabricate, elements of the offence, and criticism of defence counsel's closing analogy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in applying the Truth in Sentencing Act to calculate pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on February 1st, wherein she entered a bank wearing a disguise, presented a note demanding money, threatened to shoot, and obtained cash before being arrested hours later.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of two and a half years imprisonment less time served (120 days), finding the submission within the appropriate range of two to three years.

The court considered mitigating factors including early guilty plea, cooperation with police, and recognition of victim impact, balanced against aggravating factors including the threat of violence and prior record for violence.

A concurrent 30-day sentence was imposed for breach of probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition was ordered under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made as the offence is a primary DNA offence.

The defendant was charged with three offences—Robbery, Disguise with Intent, and Administer Noxious Substance—arising from a home invasion at a basement apartment on Dupont Street, Toronto on September 4, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on cell phone records placing the defendant in the area and evidence that he had rented the vehicle used by the perpetrators.

The defendant testified that he was merely providing transportation to acquaintances and was unaware of their criminal intentions.

Despite circumstantial evidence suggesting the defendant's involvement, including items found in the vehicle proximate to the driver's seat, the court found that a reasonable doubt had been raised regarding his participation in the robbery.

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery, aggravated assault, and disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from a home invasion on February 18, 2014.

Five masked men invaded the home of Stanley and Kathleen Benson in Richmond Hill, Ontario, tasering Kathleen and severely beating Stanley, who suffered a broken ankle, collapsed lung, and other injuries.

The defendant was arrested in October 2014 after 561 days in pre-trial custody.

The Crown sought 8 years imprisonment; the defence sought 4 years and 4 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, considering the defendant's youth, remorse, guilty plea, and rehabilitation potential, while balancing the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes, assault and robbery with respect to Tanika McLeod, arising from a nightclub altercation in Oshawa.

The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting Tanika McLeod but acquitted him of the assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes and the robbery charge.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding his flight from police, finding it demonstrated consciousness of guilt, but accepted his explanation that he mistakenly picked up the complainant's property believing it to be his own.

A nineteen-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery but admitted to six knifepoint robberies of young women committed over a two-month period in winter 2013-2014.

The offender drove the getaway vehicle while his co-accused committed the robberies.

The Crown sought eighteen months to two years less a day imprisonment, while the defence sought six to nine months with potential credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The court imposed ninety days intermittent imprisonment on each count, three years probation with strict conditions, 240 hours community service, and an increased victim surcharge of $8,000, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects for a youthful first offender with no prior record.

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon (knife), and theft under $5,000 arising from a robbery on June 18, 2014.

The Crown conceded that the weapon had not been established and proceeded only on simple assault.

The central issue was the identification of the defendant as the alleged lookout in the robbery.

The complainant identified the defendant based on recognition from the community, a yearbook photo identification, and the name "Kadir" mentioned during the incident.

The court found significant shortcomings in the identification evidence, including poor lighting conditions, lack of proper police photo lineup procedures, and inconsistencies in the complainant's description.

The defendant was acquitted due to the Crown's failure to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

A youth was charged with robbery and firearms offences arising from an attempted armed robbery of a drug dealer.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence, alleging that the accused posed as his cousin to set up the drug transaction and then participated in the robbery.

The accused testified that he was at his cousin's house playing video games, fled when he heard police were coming due to breaching his bail conditions, and hid under a deck where he was arrested.

The court found that while the accused's credibility was questionable, the identification evidence was significantly tainted by the accused's prior viewing of arrest photos in his own disclosure package.

The court also found that the accused had an independent reason to flee and hide from police unrelated to the robbery, and that it was plausible the accused's cousin, not the accused, was the person who participated in the robbery.

The accused was charged with robbery, threatening damage to property, threatening death, and breaching probation and recognizance.

The Crown's case rested primarily on eyewitness identification by the robbery victim.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification evidence, citing discrepancies in the victim's descriptions and procedural flaws in the photo lineup.

The court found the victim's identification credible and reliable, supported by circumstantial evidence including the accused's residence near the robbery scene and his arrest with the co-accused.

The court rejected the co-accused's testimony that a third party was the actual accomplice, finding it self-serving and unworthy of credit.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and related offences arising from a failed drug transaction on December 4, 2012, outside the Nickel City Hotel in Greater Sudbury.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated an unprovoked knife attack on the female accused, which the male accused defended against.

The court rejected this defence of necessity, finding instead that the accused had planned to rob the complainant of money during a drug deal.

The court convicted both accused of robbery and related offences while staying certain charges as duplicitous under the Kienapple and Prince principles.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a home invasion: break and enter with intent to commit robbery, forcible confinement of an 86-year-old victim, and assault of a police officer resisting arrest.

The offender also acknowledged four additional counts.

The victim was confined for 4-5 hours, threatened with a knife held to her throat, physically assaulted, and suffered lasting psychological trauma.

The offender had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and prior criminal convictions.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the offender to be at high risk to re-offend.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence on top of 9 months pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery involving an unprovoked, violent attack on the victim in which the accused and a co-accused beat the victim repeatedly, causing physical injury and significant emotional trauma.

The court imposed an eight-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months probation with conditions including abstinence from alcohol and drugs, anger management programming, restitution, and a curfew.

The court balanced mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, remorse, and supportive family background against the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges of robbery and being masked with intent arising from November 2010 robberies at an Oakville Mac's Milk Store and a Mississauga Rabba Fine Foods Store.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant was ordered to stand trial on counts relating to the Mac's Milk robbery but was discharged on counts relating to the Rabba store robbery.

The applicant brought a bail review application arguing material change in circumstances, including the discharge on some counts, time served in pre-trial custody, and proposed sureties.

The Crown opposed the application, emphasizing the applicant's serious misconduct while in custody, including possession of cocaine and a homemade weapon concealed in his rectum, and subsequent drug-related incidents.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding the applicant had not met the onus on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate cause for vacating the detention order.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 343(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was available given that the offence involved the use of violence.

The Crown argued the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence, precluding a conditional sentence.

The court found that the accused's intentional application of force during the robbery—grabbing the deposit bag and causing both men to fall to the ground—met the definition of a serious personal injury offence under s. 752.

Accordingly, a conditional sentence was not available.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years probation, with credit for 36 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further sentence of seven months and 24 days.