Court Information
Toronto
Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Shu Luo
Before the Court
Before: Justice Peter Scrutton
Reasons for Sentence released on: September 29, 2025
Counsel:
- S. Capogreco for the Crown
- J. Kuang for the Accused
The Offences
1Mr. Shu Luo was found guilty of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery after a trial. The robbery was serious and violent. Mr. Luo gained entry to Mr. Cheng's teashop, which was not accessible to the general public, by way of an appointment made by another man a day or two before, under the pretence of being a prospective customer. Once comfortably inside the shop and sipping tea, he let three tall, hooded, masked men whom he had arrived with earlier in through the shop's secure door. He assisted these men by demanding money from Mr. Cheng in Cantonese. He encouraged their repeated assaults on Mr. Cheng, who suffered several injuries including a fractured rib, a swollen eye, and multiple cuts to his lips and head. The men stole a satchel containing a wallet and credit cards and over $3,000 cash. Most of the robbery was filmed by surveillance cameras. Mr. Luo fled the scene with two of the robbers in the same car they had arrived in.
Positions of the Parties
2The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of 30 to 36 months, one that emphasizes denunciation and deterrence because of the seriousness of these offences but also contemplates rehabilitation given Mr. Luo's positive antecedents. Among others, the Crown relies on sentencing authorities for robberies where the defendants had minor or no criminal records, did not use weapons, but committed the offences in concert with others: R. v. Daley, 2016 ONSC 3513 and R. v. Mitchell, 2024 ONSC 5003. Both Daley and Mitchell received 30-month sentences pursuant to joint submissions after guilty pleas. I accept that the Crown's sentencing position is within the range for similar offences involving similarly situated defendants. [1]
3Defence counsel seeks a conditional sentence of two years less one day, to be served under house arrest for the first 18 months. Counsel acknowledges the seriousness of these offences but submits that they were the product of an uncharacteristic error in judgment. Because of the defendant's background and strong community supports, he is a low risk to reoffend, such that it would be counterproductive to incarcerate him. Counsel relies on robbery cases for which conditional sentences were imposed, including R. v. Bao et al., 2007 ONCJ 570, where the offenders involved in the least serious components of a residential robbery who wrongly believed the residence to be unoccupied received conditional sentences after guilty pleas.
Aggravating Facts
4This was a carefully orchestrated robbery that was planned well in advance. Mr. Luo was its principal orchestrator – he scouted the area while his confederates waited in their car, provided them access to the secure shop, and spoke to the victim in Cantonese while directing the three men in English. The degree of planning is aggravating, as is the coordinated activity between the four robbers, three of whom were clearly younger, larger, and more fit and imposing than the 67 year old victim. I intend to impose a concurrent sentence on the conspiracy count so as not to doubly penalize Mr. Luo but will treat the conspiracy, advanced planning, and coordinated group activity as aggravating facts on the robbery because they are relevant both to Mr. Luo's moral blameworthiness and also to the proper characterization of the seriousness of that offence.
5The robbery had an element of forcible confinement to it, as Mr. Cheng was dominated by the robbers in an enclosed area from which he had no easy escape or ability to retreat. The video shows the men crowding around him as he is backed into a corner of his office while being assaulted, something that happened twice during their time in his office and once as they searched an adjacent room. The entire episode must have been terrifying.
6Mr. Cheng was vulnerable. The group assaults caused bodily harm. It is easy to understand why he feels like this event has undermined his sense of safety and security, both in his business and in his community.
7The robbery was motivated purely by greed and financial gain. Mr. Luo is under no obligation to explain why he committed these offences or to identify his co-conspirators but no evidence, including from his pre-sentence report, suggests that his offending was the product of any sort of duress, addiction, mental health issues, or negative influences that were specific to his upbringing.
8The robbery occurred while Mr. Luo was on release after his January 2023 arrest for Criminal Code driving offences. I would expect a mature adult with no criminal record or financial issues and strong family supports to forego perpetrating more serious offences while criminal charges were outstanding but Mr. Luo chose otherwise.
Mitigating Facts
9There are few mitigating facts here.
10Mr. Luo immigrated to Canada in 2007 when he was 14 and completed high school. His childhood was healthy and stable. Despite his low proficiency in English, he maintained steady employment in the salon industry for the better part of a decade. He committed these offences as a mature adult who had the support of his parents, whom he has lived with his entire life. As mentioned, nothing but greed explains why he robbed Mr. Cheng.
11Although Mr. Luo is not a first offender, his very recent 2025 conviction for impaired operation is so different from these offences that I am not attaching any significance to it as relevant to his character, save for the fact that he committed these offences while released on an undertaking for that charge. Any custodial sentence must be informed by the principles of rehabilitation and restraint in these circumstances.
12The materials counsel tendered on sentencing demonstrate that Mr. Luo has the support not only of his family but his church, where he is known as kind, generous, and someone who is quick to volunteer. I understand that, irrespective of the collateral impact these convictions will have on his broader employment prospects, he will be able to continue to work in his sister's restaurant business, where he has worked for the last few months. Both the presence of his family supports, and his access to employment, positively foreshadow his rehabilitative prospects.
13I disagree with counsel that the fact that Mr. Luo did not himself assault Mr. Cheng during the robbery is mitigating. I am sure that Mr. Luo encouraged his confederates' repeated assaults.
14Mr. Luo is not entitled to the significant sentencing benefit of a guilty plea and the acceptance of responsibility that it denotes. He did, however, express remorse for his actions in a written letter and in a statement in court. I accept these expressions of remorse with some hesitance and qualification. Mr. Luo did not wish to reflect on the impact of his offending to the author of his pre-sentence report but conveyed that he "no longer wants to think about all of this but does not want to go to jail." He wanted the court to know that he wanted to stay with this family. I consider his expressions of remorse as somewhat lacking in sincerity and situate them between the "better than nothing" and "better late than never" categories. They have some mitigating value but it is attenuated.
The Appropriate Sentence
15The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. There is no question that the primary sentencing objectives for these offences are denunciation and deterrence, objectives that are normally achieved through the imposition of significant custodial sentences. The objective of rehabilitation, while subordinate to denunciation and deterrence, is nonetheless important, given that Mr. Luo's only previous conviction is very recent and completely unrelated to these offences.
16In my view a conditional sentence is not available here because a sentence of less than two years would be insufficient to address the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of these offences, the aggravating facts that I have outlined, and the paucity of mitigating facts. I make this determination mindful of rehabilitation and the principle of restraint. The planning, organization, and group violence that characterized this robbery are too serious to be punished by anything less than a penitentiary sentence. I would have no trouble concluding that a sentence of at least 3 years, at the high end of the range that the Crown suggested, would be necessary to achieve a fit sentence but for the fact that Mr. Luo is a 32-year old who has never previously committed any crimes that approach this level of seriousness. The lack of information I have about why he committed these offences makes it difficult to assess whether specific deterrence is a relevant sentencing objective. That said, I accept the sincerity of his promise that he will abide by the law in the future.
17In my view, a sentence of 30 months in the penitentiary is warranted and balances the aggravating and mitigating facts. Luo will also be subject to a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109(1)(a) of the Code for a period of 10 years and a DNA order.
18Counsel indicated that Mr. Luo was content to pay restitution of $4000, which is at the higher range of what Mr. Chen recalled was stolen from him. I infer that the offer to pay this amount was made in the context of his advocacy for a conditional sentence. Given Mr. Chen's uncertainty with respect to the exact amount of stolen money, the absence of information about a potential insurance claim relating to his business, and the fact that Mr. Luo will be spending a significant amount of time in custody, I decline to make the restitution order that the Crown requests.
Dated: September 29, 2025
Justice Peter Scrutton
Footnote
1See, for example: R. v. Swanson, [2002] O.J. No. 342 (S.C.J.); R. v. R.J.W., [2003] B.C.J. No. 2372 (B.C.J.); R. v. Kaddoura, [2003] O.J. No. 224 (C.A.); and R. v. Cotterell, [2004] O.J. No. 3801 (C.A.).