Robbery

The accused brought a Charter motion challenging a search warrant executed at his residence nearly two years after a robbery and firearm discharge offence.

The accused conceded reasonable grounds existed to believe he was the perpetrator but argued there were insufficient grounds to believe evidence would still be found at his residence.

He also argued that the inclusion of bad character evidence in the ITO was improper and that a subsequent cell phone warrant was overbroad.

The court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable to infer that clothing and cell phones would be retained over two years, that bad character evidence of similar robbery offences was relevant at the investigatory stage, and that any potential overbreadth in the cell phone warrant caused no prejudice as no evidence from the phone was tendered at trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including break and enter, robbery, dangerous driving, and assault causing bodily harm, and received a global sentence of five years' incarceration pursuant to a joint submission.

On appeal, the appellant challenged only the lifetime driving prohibition imposed for the single count of dangerous driving, which the Crown conceded was not available under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the driving prohibition from life to the maximum available period of ten years and nine months, but declined the appellant's request for a work-related carve-out from the prohibition.

The appellant appealed his sentence of three years imposed for robbery and dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge should have imposed concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach, which balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects.

The court dismissed the appeal but set aside the $400 victim fine surcharge.

The appellant was convicted by jury of robbery, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and pleaded guilty to breach of recognizance.

The crimes involved the slashing and robbery of a 57-year-old blind male complainant.

Identity was the only contested issue at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sought leave to appeal his sentence of seven years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's jury charge regarding the alternative suspect defence or the Vetrovec charge.

However, the court found sentencing errors and imposed a stay on the aggravated assault and weapon dangerous convictions pursuant to Kienapple principles, and varied the sentences on the uttering a threat to cause death and breach of recognizance convictions to 18 months and three months concurrent respectively, while affirming the global sentence of seven years less 771 days' credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of that offence.

He was sentenced to six months' incarceration for robbery and 12 months' consecutive for the firearm offence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the convictions on four grounds: the admissibility of dog tracking evidence, the trial judge's use of post-offence conduct evidence (flight from police), the trial judge's treatment of evidence regarding the appellant's intoxication, and a misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's location.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and failing to remain at the scene of an accident arising from a carjacking on May 24, 2016 in Ottawa.

The case turned on identity.

The victim testified that the appellant was not the man who attacked him, providing confused and unconvincing evidence about a prior high school connection and a bar encounter.

The trial judge rejected the victim's testimony as unreliable and hazy, and instead relied on video evidence, testimony from the Brown brothers, and DNA evidence to find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's findings and that the verdict was amply supported by the evidentiary record.

The Crown appealed a directed verdict of acquittal entered at the close of its case on a charge of manslaughter.

The trial judge had held that the Crown was bound by its factual theory that the accused was the getaway driver and that witness evidence precluded such a finding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for a directed verdict and erred in restricting the Crown to a single factual theory.

The court found ample evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code based on a common unlawful purpose to commit robbery, regardless of the accused's specific role.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery of a Cash in a Flash store on November 14, 2010, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable because the video evidence was extremely poor and unreliable for identification purposes.

The trial judge had given strong warnings about the frailties of the video identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that while the video evidence had limitations, the totality of the evidence—including distinctive identifying details visible in multiple video recordings, photographic evidence, DNA evidence from a balaclava, and physical evidence recovered from the appellant's apartment building—provided a reasonable foundation for the jury's verdict.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the victim's identification evidence—based on his knowledge of the appellant, recognition of his voice, identification of a can of bear mace previously in the appellant's possession, and recognition of the appellant when his mask was pulled off—provided a reasonable basis for conviction.

The court also found the trial judge's reasons adequate, demonstrating a proper understanding of the evidentiary record and the dangers of identification evidence.

The accused was sentenced following conviction for robbery and being masked with intent to commit robbery arising from a home invasion.

The offenders entered an occupied dwelling at night while masked and armed with knives, confronted the occupant in his bedroom, and stole multiple valuables.

The court held the offence constituted a home invasion and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

While the offender’s youth, difficult upbringing, employment history, and family support were mitigating factors, his significant prior record and commission of the offence while under community supervision were aggravating factors.

A penitentiary sentence of four years was imposed, less credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The accused was tried for robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, and uttering threats arising from the robbery of a convenience store.

The central issue was identity, as the robbery itself and the elements of the offences were undisputed.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance video comparisons, similarities in gait and footwear, and testimony from a witness who claimed the accused confessed and possessed stolen items shortly after the robbery.

Although the witness had credibility concerns due to substance use and inconsistent statements, the court found substantial corroboration from independent evidence including details about stolen coins, cigarettes, the disguise used, and the clerk’s description.

Considering the totality of the evidence, the court concluded the identity of the robber was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for breaking and entering a dairy farmer's residence, committing theft, and related offences.

The defendants were charged with jointly breaking and entering and stealing property, possessing stolen property, and possessing a stolen GPS.

One defendant was additionally charged with robbery for physically assaulting the homeowner during the break-in.

The other defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon for throwing a rock at the homeowner.

The trial judge convicted both defendants on the break and enter and theft charges, and on possession of property stolen from the residence.

One defendant was convicted of robbery, the other of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The charge regarding the stolen GPS was dismissed against both defendants due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of its stolen nature.

A young person pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of using an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The offences were committed five days before the offender turned 18.

The court imposed a sentence of four months' secure custody followed by two months of supervision, and one year of probation with various conditions including a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the violent nature of the offences, the planning involved, the vulnerability of the victims, and the offender's lack of insight or rehabilitative progress.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.

Extradition hearing concerning a request from the Federal Republic of Germany for surrender of the respondent to face charges of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The respondent conceded that the Record of the Case and supplemental materials contained sufficient evidence to meet the prima facie threshold for committal but argued that procedural defects invalidated the process, including that the request did not originate from the German Minister of Justice, that the Canadian Minister’s Authority to Proceed was improperly delegated to a departmental lawyer, and that the arrest lacked a valid Interpol warrant.

The court held that certifications by a German public prosecutor satisfied the Extradition Act requirement that the Record of the Case be certified by a judicial or prosecuting authority, that the Minister’s authority to issue an Authority to Proceed may be delegated, and that the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction to review ministerial conduct absent evidence of bad faith or impropriety.

Finding the evidentiary and identity requirements met and no procedural defects, the court ordered committal for extradition.

Sentencing following convictions for two robberies and related offences including breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The offender robbed a pharmacy and a convenience store, threatening the pharmacy technician by claiming to have a gun and openly carrying an expandable baton during the second robbery.

The offences were committed while the offender was bound by both a probation order and a weapons prohibition order, and he possessed a stolen vehicle used in the robberies.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s lengthy criminal record and escalating violent conduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 35 months to be served, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with break and enter and theft, robbery, forcible confinement, and assaulting a police officer arising from a home invasion.

The accused admitted participation in the break and enter but disputed liability for robbery and forcible confinement, arguing that the accomplice alone committed those offences when the victim unexpectedly returned home.

The court held that the accused aided and participated in the robbery and forcible confinement by keeping watch, stealing property during the assault, and warning the accomplice of police arrival, satisfying both actus reus and mens rea for party liability under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt that contact with a police officer during the accused’s escape was intentional.

Convictions were entered for break and enter, robbery, and forcible confinement, and an acquittal for assaulting a police officer.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of robbery arising from a late‑night stabbing outside a convenience store.

During closing submissions, the Crown sought convictions for aggravated assault as included offences.

The Crown relied primarily on in‑dock identifications by two victims and an eyewitness, along with a co‑accused’s video statement and circumstantial evidence allegedly linking the accused to the driver.

The court found significant discrepancies in the eyewitness descriptions and emphasized the well‑recognized frailties of first‑time in‑court identification, particularly where prior photo line‑ups failed to produce identifications.

Finding the identification evidence unreliable and the remaining evidence insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused.

Following jury convictions for manslaughter, robbery, unlawful confinement, and use of an imitation firearm arising from a fatal robbery, the court determined a dangerous offender application under the pre-July 2, 2008 regime.

The court found the statutory prerequisites for both dangerous offender and long-term offender status were met but exercised discretion to designate the offender a long-term offender.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, separation, and proportionality in light of extreme aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, the court imposed concurrent custodial terms resulting in a ten-year net sentence after enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, plus a ten-year long-term supervision order.

Sentencing following convictions for three robberies, two counts of using an imitation firearm during the commission of an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon.

The offender suffered from schizophrenia and had shown significant stabilization and improvement through psychiatric treatment in the community.

The court considered whether the seriousness of the robberies required a penitentiary sentence of two years or more, which would preclude a conditional sentence under the framework in R. v. Proulx.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and the risk that incarceration would significantly worsen the offender’s mental health, the court determined a global sentence under two years was appropriate.

A blended sentence was imposed consisting of a conditional sentence, a mandatory custodial term for the imitation firearm offences (reduced after enhanced pre‑trial custody credit), and probation.