Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: September 26, 2025
Court File No.: Toronto, Ontario 24-48109982
Parties
Between:
His Majesty the King
— And —
L'Mar Cecil Greene
Judicial Officer and Counsel
Before: Justice Caolan Moore
Heard: July 28-31, 2025
Reasons for Judgment Released: September 26, 2025
Counsel:
- S. Scully, for the Crown
- T. Kent, for the Defendant
Introduction
[1] L'Mar Cecil Greene is charged with 23 offences that arise out of five events. It is alleged that he robbed four stores at gunpoint on four separate dates and that a few months later he possessed a loaded, restricted firearm. In addition to four counts of robbery with a firearm, he is charged with four counts of pointing a firearm, four counts of having his face disguised with intent to commit an indictable offence, and four counts of possessing a weapon for the purpose of committing a criminal offence, on each of the dates of the four alleged robberies.
[2] For the last three alleged robberies and the firearm possession charge, it is admitted that he was bound by a release order prohibiting him from possessing weapons, which is the subject of four separate charges.
[3] The accused faces three counts in relation to the firearms possession: possession of a restricted firearm while knowingly not being the holder of a licence; possession of a loaded, restricted firearm without a licence; and, careless storage of a firearm.
[4] The Crown has applied to have this Court consider the evidence of each robbery with respect to all other robberies as similar act evidence relevant to establishing the identity of the robber.
Evidence
October 16, 2023: Bonnefire Cannabis – 129 Munro Street
[5] On October 16, 2023, Taylor Marshman was working alone at the Bonnefire Cannabis store at 129 Munro Street, near Dundas Street East and Broadview Avenue. The store opened around 9 or 10 a.m. The first customer that day entered the store wearing all black, a black mask, black gloves, and a black hood. He was holding a blue Walmart bag. The man showed him a silver handgun and asked for cash. Mr. Marshman gave him $500 to $800 from the register.
[6] The man asked if there was a safe or vault. Mr. Marshman took him into the back room and explained he did not have access to the safe. The man grabbed some receipts and left. Mr. Marshman described the man as thin, fit looking, around 5'11" feet tall, and black or east African. Mr. Marshman might have mentioned to police that the man looked Somalian but believes now he was mistaken.
[7] There were Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) in the store. The video shows the man arriving around 10:42 a.m. He was wearing white shoes. The man is seen brandishing a handgun with a silver barrel and black grip.
[8] CCTV footage from an external camera at 786 Dundas Street East, just west of Bonnefire Cannabis, captures the street near the store. This footage shows a grey, four-door sedan arrive and park around 10:28 a.m. An individual whose appearance is not dissimilar from the robber is seen exiting the driver's side door around 10:43 a.m. and then returning around a minute later and driving away.
December 10, 2023: Chatr Mobile – 2032 Weston Road
[9] On December 10, 2023, Mohammed Saleem was working alone at the Chatr Mobile store at 2032 Weston Road. The store opened at 11 a.m. Around 11:15 a.m., a man with a hood, wearing a mask, and holding a blue Walmart bag walked in. He held out a grey pistol, said "give me the safe," and asked him to open the register. Mr. Saleem grabbed a hammer and chased the man out of the store and then westbound on Weston Road before giving up.
[10] Mr. Saleem described the man as thin and believes he was black. He could see his forehead and eyes. The man was wearing gloves. He believed he was wearing a blue hoodie.
[11] Footage from a "Ring" camera at the store captured the incident. It shows the man wearing black, with black shoes, black gloves, a black hooded jacket with the hood up, and a black mask. He enters the store with a blue Walmart bag a little after 11:24 a.m. The man has a handgun with a silver barrel and black grip.
[12] CCTV footage from 2050 Weston Road, a location just west of the Chatr Mobile store, shows an individual dressed in black with a blue Walmart bag running to the back of the parking lot towards a grey, four-door Honda vehicle around 11:23 a.m. The vehicle is captured leaving moments later.
December 31, 2023: Spiritleaf Cannabis – 2561 St. Clair Avenue West
[13] On December 31, 2023, Christopher Frangipane was working alone at the Spiritleaf Cannabis store at 2561 St. Clair Avenue West, near Runnymede Road. The store opened around 10 a.m. Around 11:30 a.m., a man dressed in black with a black mask and hood came in, pointed a silver and black handgun at him, and told him to empty the register. The man put the money, around $250, in a blue Walmart bag. He had a darker skin tone, maybe brownish, a medium build, and was around 5'11" or 6' feet tall.
[14] After he took the money, the man asked to see the safe. Mr. Frangipane told him he did not know the code and the man left.
[15] CCTV footage from inside the store shows the robber entering the store around 11:40 a.m. and leaving a minute later. The man is dressed in black with black shoes, black gloves, a hood, and mask. The handgun has a silver barrel and black grip.
[16] The Spiritleaf Cannabis store is in a commercial plaza that contains a parking lot for the Walmart store at 2525 St. Clair Avenue West. Police seized CCTV footage from the Walmart capturing the plaza parking lot. The footage shows the robber heading in the direction of a grey, four-door Honda sedan after the robbery. The grey Honda sedan is captured driving out of the parking lot. A zoomed-in image of the front plate captures what appears to be "CYSJ881".
[17] Ministry of transportation records show plate CYSJ881 relates to a 2023, grey, four-door Honda sedan. The vehicle was registered on all relevant dates to L'Mar Cecil Greene with an address of 5-116 Waller Street in Whitby, Ontario.
January 8, 2024: Spiritleaf Cannabis – 2561 St. Clair Avenue West
[18] On January 8, 2024, Katelyn Viera was working alone at the same Spiritleaf Cannabis store on St. Clair Avenue West. She opened the store at 10 a.m. She was robbed at gunpoint around 30 minutes later by a man she believes was her first customer of the day. When he walked in, she asked him to remove his mask. He pulled a silver or grey pistol from his waistband and said "do what I say and no one will get hurt". He had darker skin with brown eyes and a slim build. At first, she believed he was wearing a navy jacket, but after watching the video of the incident, believed his jacket was black. He wore black gloves and was around 5'7" to 5'9" feet tall.
[19] The man pulled out a blue Walmart bag and took around $250 from the register. After he took the money, he asked to go to the back room to the safe. Ms. Viera told him she did not know the code. He asked her to open it anyway. She tried and could not. The man then took several cannabis products and left.
[20] CCTV footage from inside the store shows the man arrive around 10:24 a.m. He brandishes a handgun with a silver barrel and black grip. It also shows him leave a few minutes later and walk back to a grey, four-door sedan. The vehicle is captured leaving the parking lot.
March 19, 2024: Search Warrant Executed – 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle
[21] After discovering that Mr. Greene was the registered owner of a grey Honda with plate number CYSJ881, further investigation led to a production order for a phone number associated to him. Mr. Greene's most frequent contact from that number was a number associated to Elizabeth Lyesang-Samuels and her address, 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle in Toronto. Police conducted surveillance on this address to locate Mr. Greene.
[22] On March 19, 2024, police observed Mr. Greene and Ms. Lyesang-Samuels leaving 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle in Ms. Lyesang-Samuels' vehicle. Police followed and detained Mr. Greene an hour later.
[23] A search warrant was executed on the address and a firearm with a silver barrel and black grip was found in a second-story room. The room contained a desk, computer, mattress, clothing, and other items on the floor and in the closet. The firearm was loaded with six rounds of ammunition in the magazine. It was found in a laptop bag that was itself in a brown paper bag. Mail in Mr. Greene's name with addresses of 5-116 Waller Street, Whitby, and 1456 Lawrence Avenue West, Apartment 1702, Toronto, were also located in the room. There is no evidence as to where in the room the mail was found. There was no mail in anyone else's name found in the room.
[24] Both parties accept that the firearm is a restricted firearm, the six 9 mm caliber rounds are ammunition, and the detachable magazine cartridge is a prohibited device, as defined in section 84 in the Criminal Code. The parties also agree that Mr. Greene did not have a Possession and Acquisition Licence or firearm registration certificate authorising him to possess, own, or acquire a firearm.
[25] The grey Honda vehicle registered to Mr. Greene was located on the street 100 to 150 meters away from 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle. A black jacket with a hood was found draped over the back of the driver's seat. A pair of black shoes was found in the trunk. Mr. Greene had a key to a Honda vehicle on his person when he was arrested.
DNA Evidence
[26] A male DNA profile was developed from a swab taken of the handle of the firearm seized from 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle on March 19, 2024. Mr. Greene could not be excluded as the source. It is estimated to be greater than one trillion times more likely that the profile originates from Mr. Greene than some unknown person unrelated to him. DNA analysis could not determine when the DNA was deposited on the firearm or in what manner, only that the male DNA profile contained a significant source of DNA.
Cellphone Evidence
[27] Cellular telephone records relating to Mr. Greene show that when each of the four robberies occurred, the number belonging to Mr. Greene was not in use. The cell phone tower records do not place a phone associated with his phone number in the robbery locations at the relevant times or suggest that his phone was in locations inconsistent with the robbery locations at the relevant times.
Governing Legal Principles
[28] Mr. Greene is presumed innocent. It is for the Crown to prove each essential element of these offences beyond a reasonable doubt. He need not establish his innocence; the burden is never his.
[29] Reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is logically connected to the evidence or the lack thereof. It is a high standard. It is not enough to believe Mr. Greene probably or likely guilty. While it does not require proof beyond all doubt or proof to an absolute certainty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to an absolute certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities.
[30] If I believe evidence inconsistent with the Mr. Greene's guilt, I must acquit. If I do not believe evidence inconsistent with his guilt but cannot decide whether that evidence is true, or if it raises a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. Finally, if I entirely disbelieve evidence inconsistent with guilt, I must still be satisfied that the evidence I do accept proves Mr. Greene's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[31] Because the evidence against Mr. Greene is circumstantial, I can only convict if guilt is the only reasonable inference available from the evidence. Inferences consistent with innocence or otherwise inconsistent with guilt do not have to arise from proven facts: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, at paras. 35-42.
Firearm Possession
Legal Principles
[32] I first consider whether Mr. Greene possessed the restricted firearm seized from 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle on March 19, 2024. It is conceded that Mr. Greene was not authorized to possess a firearm. The only issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Greene was in possession of the firearm on that date.
[33] The relevant legal principles on constructive possession were set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para. 19:
Constructive possession is established when an accused does not have physical custody of an object but knowingly has it in the actual possession or custody of another person or has it in any place for their own or another's use or benefit: Criminal Code, s. 4(3)(a); R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, at para. 17; and R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 128, 149 O.R. (3d) 273, at para. 47.
Knowledge and control are essential elements of constructive possession, which is established when the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused: (i) has knowledge of the character of the object said to be possessed; (ii) knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place, whether or not the place belongs to or is occupied by the accused; and (iii) intends to have the object in the place for the use or benefit of the accused or another person: Morelli, at paras. 15, 17; Lights, at paras. 44, 47.
Tenancy or occupancy of a place where an object is found does not create a presumption of possession: Lights, at para. 50; R. v. Watson, 2011 ONCA 437, at para. 13; R. v. Lincoln, 2012 ONCA 542, at paras. 2-3; and R. v. Bertucci, 169 C.C.C. (3d) 453 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 18.
When the Crown relies largely or wholly on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive possession, a conviction can be sustained only if the accused's knowledge and control of the impugned objects is the only reasonable inference on the facts. The trier of fact must determine whether any other proposed way of looking at the case as a whole is reasonable enough to raise a doubt about the accused's guilt, when assessed logically and in light of human experience and common sense: see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, at paras. 55-56; Lights, at para. 39; and R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258, at paras. 60-61.
Analysis
[34] The Crown has proven Mr. Greene's possession of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. After having considered the evidence in its entirety, as well as the absence of evidence, Mr. Greene's guilt is the only reasonably available inference. I reach this conclusion based on the cumulative effect of the six following considerations.
[35] Mr. Greene could not be excluded as the source of the DNA profile developed from a swab of the firearm's handle. This is powerful evidence linking him to the firearm. While the sample contained a minor contribution from at least one other person, I do not find that diminishes the power of this evidence. On the facts of this case, the possibility that Ms. Lyesang-Samuels, another resident of 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle, or someone else may also have had knowledge or contact with the firearm, does not impact the ability of this evidence to support the inference Mr. Greene possessed the firearm.
[36] Second, Mr. Greene was seen leaving the residence with Ms. Lyesang-Samuels hours before the firearm was found and while the residence was still under police surveillance. He is charged with having possessed the firearm on March 19, 2024. While there is no evidence of when the firearm was placed where it was found, Mr. Greene's presence at the residence on that date is particularly probative, especially in light of the DNA evidence mentioned above.
[37] Third, seven or eight letters made out to Mr. Greene at two different addresses (neither of which were 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle) were located in the room where the firearm was found. The letters are largely from insurance companies and financial service organisations. While there is no reliable evidence as to where in the room the letters were found, their existence supports the inference Mr. Greene had a more than transitional presence at this location.
[38] Fourth, Mr. Greene's phone records show many calls to Ms. Lyesang-Samuels with an address of 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle starting as early as October 16, 2023. This is some evidence that Mr. Greene's link to Ms. Lyesang-Samuels predates March 19, 2024, by many months.
[39] Fifth, the firearm was found in a laptop bag in another paper bag in a room full of items. There is no evidence Mr. Greene lived at 109 Odoardo Di Santo Circle. The firearm being hidden and not in plain sight is consistent with his known use of the residence. This is not a particularly important factor, but one worth noting, nonetheless.
[40] Sixth, the grey, four-door Honda sedan registered to Mr. Greene was found parked 100 to 150 meters from the residence. The vehicle was left there while Mr. Greene drove off with Ms. Lyesang-Samuels on March 19, 2024. Again, while not overly probative, it is another factor to consider.
[41] Defence counsel points out that there is no evidence this was Mr. Greene's residence, or how much time he spent there, or who else had access, or when or how his DNA could have made its way onto the firearm. In the totality of the circumstances, the absence of this evidence does not leave me with any doubt, given the powerful and contemporaneous forensic and physical evidence linking him to the firearm. I find the alternative inferences this absence of evidence may support amount to nothing more than speculation and are not reasonably available on the totality of the evidence.
[42] Counsel concedes that the firearm seized is a restricted firearm, and that Mr. Greene did not hold a valid licence authorizing its possession. The only reasonable inference is that he was aware he did not possess a licence. I therefore find Mr. Greene guilty of possessing a restricted firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code.
[43] The firearm was concealed and loaded. Mr. Greene's DNA is powerful evidence he had handled the firearm. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Greene either knew the firearm was loaded or was willfully blind to that fact: R. v. Grant, 2024 ONSC 128, at para. 71; R. v. Hamidu, 2023 ONCJ 547, at paras. 174 and 188. I find him guilty of possessing a loaded restricted firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.
[44] Finally, having the firearm in a laptop bag on the floor of a room amounts to careless storage without having taken reasonable precautions for the safety of others. I therefore find him guilty of careless storage of a firearm, contrary to Section 86, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code.
Similar Act Evidence
Legal Principles
[45] Similar act evidence is presumptively inadmissible. The onus is on the Crown to demonstrate that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential prejudice on a balance of probabilities: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, at para. 55. The test for admissibility is the same whether the alleged similar acts are extrinsic to the counts in the indictment or contained in other counts of the same indictment: R. v. Arp, at para. 51. However, "some of the factors relevant to an assessment of prejudice may have an attenuated influence in cases in which the similar acts are restricted to other counts in a multi-count indictment. It may be all the more so where the case is tried by a judge sitting without a jury": R. v. MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72, at para. 56.
[46] The probative value of the similar acts depends on the nexus between the evidence of similar acts and the offence the evidence is offered to prove. The proposed purpose for which the similar act evidence is being offered will determine the degree of similarity required. When it is offered to prove the identity of the person responsible for a crime, as it is in this case, a high degree of similarity is required. Striking similarity, like a unique trademark, is most probative but not always required. The cumulative effect of significant similarities may be sufficient to warrant admission on the facts of a particular case. If coincidence is possible or if the degree of similarity is tainted by collusion, the cogency of the similar act evidence will be undermined, as will the premise upon which its admissibility depends. The possibility of coincidence must be objectively improbable: MacCormack, at paras. 49-51; Arp, at para. 45; Handy, at paras. 106-113.
[47] There are two issues to consider: "similarity" and "linkage". The Court should first examine the degree of similarity of the acts without reference to the accused's link to each one. In other words, the initial focus is on the similarity of the acts themselves, which requires the consideration all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Nature, strength, and credibility of the similar act evidence;
ii. Proximity in time and place;
iii. Similarity in detail and circumstances;
iv. Number of occurrences;
v. Objective improbability of coincidence;
vi. Any distinctive features unifying the various incidents;
vii. Intervening events; and
viii. Any other factor that tends to support or rebut the underlying unity of the similar acts.
Handy, at paras. 82 and 134; R. v. Bent, 2016 ONCA 651, at para. 42.
[48] The "link" required is between each of the allegedly similar acts and the accused: there must be some evidence upon which the Court can find that the similar acts were those of the accused. Opportunity alone is insufficient: MacCormack, at para. 59.
[49] Finally, I must weigh the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudice. Prejudice includes both "moral prejudice" and "reasoning prejudice." The former is concerned with the possibility a verdict will be based on prejudice, the bad character of the accused, rather than proof; the latter with distracting the trier of fact from the offences charged by injecting delay and complexity into the trial: Handy, at paras. 42, 100, 144 and 146.
Analysis
[50] I find the following similarities between the four robberies particularly probative in determining the identity of the suspect:
a) Only one person was working at each of the stores. They were all small stores.
b) The robberies took place in the morning, shortly after each of the stores opened.
c) A grey, four-door vehicle with tinted windows and distinctive hub caps was either driven by, or clearly linked to, the suspect.
d) Distinctive features about the suspect observed in all four robberies include:
i) He had a blue Walmart bag.
ii) He brandished a firearm with a silver barrel and black grip.
iii) The firearm was brandished with his right hand.
iv) He wore a black mask, black pants, black jacket with a black hood up, and black gloves.
v) He is described as a man with dark, black, or brown skin.
vi) He asks for "the safe".
vii) No violence was used.
e) The suspect wore similar looking black shoes during the last three robberies.
[51] While there are variations in the evidence of each complainant's description of the suspect's height and skin tone, all four robberies are captured on relatively high-definition video. The strength of the evidence that the similar acts occurred, and how they occurred, is a factor in assessing its probative value. The inalienable record here favours reception: MacCormack, at para. 64; Handy, at paras. 133-134.
[52] There is no plausible collusion. It was not suggested that the clerks in any of the stores were known to one another or had any communication, or motive, to coordinate, fabricate, or otherwise add details to their stories.
[53] I find the four robberies strikingly similar, containing details that could not possibly be explained by coincidence. While any one of the factors listed above may have been insufficiently probative on its own, the cumulative effect of the overarching similarities gives this evidence great probative force: see R. v. Vu, 2025 ONCA 242, at paras. 6, and 41-43.
[54] The dissimilarities among the four incidents are neither numerous nor substantial enough to diminish the probative value of the evidence. In fact, they are almost trite to mention: the different coloured shoes the suspect wore during the first robbery; taking cannabis products at the end of the fourth robbery and not on the other two occasions; not being the first customer of the day of the third robbery; attempting to rob a phone store and not a cannabis store for the second robbery; or the discrepancies in height and skin tone in the descriptions of the complainants. In my view, none of these differences compare with, or detract from, the number of strikingly similar acts present across all four robberies.
[55] There are four pieces of evidence linking Mr. Greene to the robberies: the handgun, his body type, the clothing found in his vehicle, and the vehicle itself. I shall consider each of these pieces of evidence separately and cumulatively.
The Handgun
[56] I find that, based on my review of the video evidence, the firearm used in each robbery appears to be the same firearm. I also find that the firearm used in all four robberies strikingly similar to the firearm possessed by Mr. Greene on March 19, 2024.
[57] Counsel points out there is no evidence as to how distinctive or common this firearm is. While I agree, its silver barrel and black grip give it a distinctive look that makes it relatively easy to identify and compare to the firearm Mr. Greene possessed on March 19, 2024. Whether or not the appearance of this type of firearm is common or uncommon is something to consider along with the rest of the evidence, or absence of evidence, linking Mr. Greene to the robberies.
[58] Counsel also argues that the over two-month period between the final robbery and the possession of the firearm significantly diminishes the link between the two. I accept this is a factor to consider. While possession of the firearm close in time, such as on the day of the robbery, would clearly increase the probative value of this type of evidence, the delay of more than two months between the final robbery and its possession does not undermine its value in this case.
Body Type
[59] Based on my review of the video evidence, I have no trouble finding that the same man appears to commit all four robberies. He has the same body type, is wearing virtually the same clothing, and brandishes the same handgun with his right hand.
[60] I am not troubled by what I find to be minor inconsistencies in the descriptions of the suspect given by the four complainants. Observations of this nature are made by witnesses in high-stress situations and are subject to the limitations of their individual powers of observation, memory, recall, and ability to accurately articulate what they saw: Vu, at para. 48. In this respect, I find the video evidence to be the most persuasive and powerful evidence.
[61] While hardly probative of identity, it is worth noting that, from observing Mr. Greene in court, his body type and physical features are not dissimilar from those of the suspect captured by these videos.
The Items Seized from Mr. Greene's Vehicle
[62] Two items seized from Mr. Greene's vehicle on March 19, 2024, have some probative value.
[63] The first is the jacket found draped over the back of the driver's seat. This jacket was described by the seizing officer as having a hood. While there are no brands or markings on the jacket that make it clearly identifiable as the jacket worn by the suspect in the robberies, it is similar in appearance to that jacket. On its own, this piece of evidence would have little, if any, probative value, but it is one more piece of evidence to consider on the whole.
[64] The shoes found in the trunk are more distinctive. Without knowing how common or uncommon this brand of shoes is, I find they share many similarities – and no dissimilarities – with the shoes worn by the suspect on January 8, 2024. Although the videos from December 10 and 31, 2023, do not capture the suspect's shoes in the same detail, the shoes found in the trunk of Mr. Greene's vehicle are not dissimilar to the shoes worn by the robber on those dates.
Mr. Greene's Vehicle
[65] Finally, police located the grey, four-door Honda sedan registered to Mr. Greene on March 19, 2024. I am satisfied that in each robbery a grey, four-door sedan is tied to the suspect either by video evidence showing him getting in or out of the vehicle, or by video evidence showing him walking in the direction of the vehicle and the vehicle then driving away consistent with the time it would have taken him to have entered the vehicle. I find that the grey, four-door sedan at each robbery are all the same vehicle.
[66] I also have no doubt that the vehicle used in the robberies and Mr. Greene's vehicle are one and the same. In addition to the licence plate being captured on video on December 31, 2023, the vehicles share several distinct features such as the hubcaps, plate covers, chrome around the windows, and tinted side windows.
Conclusion
[67] In brief, the possibility that the four robberies share the same striking similarities by coincidence is objectively improbable. I find there is more than sufficient evidence linking Mr. Greene to each robbery. Finally, there is little to no risk of moral or reasoning prejudice. Because the evidence is "count-to-count" and there is no jury, moral and reasoning prejudice concerns are significantly attenuated. The evidence is admissible independent of its status as similar act evidence and no additional time was required for it to be called: R. v. J.H., 2018 ONCA 245, at para. 24.
[68] I therefore allow the similar act application, finding the Crown has met its burden on a balance of probabilities, and will consider the evidence relating to each alleged robbery when considering the evidence of all the alleged robberies.
[69] Having cumulatively considered the evidence set out above, as well as the absence of evidence, I have no doubt that the same man robbed all four stores. The striking similarities between the acts make this the only available inference.
[70] I also have no doubt that that man is L'Mar Greene. After having considered the evidence in its entirety, including the absence of evidence, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Greene robbed Bonnefire Cannabis on October 16, 2023, carried out what amounts to the included offence of an attempt to rob the Chatr Mobile store on December 10, 2023, and robbed Spiritleaf Cannabis on December 31, 2023, and January 8, 2024.
[71] The evidence points powerfully and overwhelmingly to Mr. Greene. I find the handgun used in the robberies is the same handgun possessed by Mr. Greene on March 19, 2024. Mr. Greene's appearance is not dissimilar from that of the man who robbed the stores. The man who robbed the stores arrived and left in Mr. Greene's car, and the clothing found in Mr. Greene's car matches clothing worn by the robber.
[72] Mr. Greene was the robber. No evidence, or lack of evidence, supports any other inference. I am not left in any doubt.
Conclusion
[73] I find Mr. Greene guilty of three counts of armed robbery with a firearm, pursuant to section 344(1) of the Criminal Code and one count of attempted armed robbery with a firearm on December 10, 2023 (count 5), pursuant to sections 344(1) and 660 of the Criminal Code.
[74] Given my finding that he robbed each of the stores, I also find that on each of the four occasions he is also guilty of pointing a firearm contrary to section 87(1) of the Criminal Code (four counts), of having his face masked with intent to commit the indictable offence of robbery contrary to section 351(2) of the Criminal Code (four counts), and possessing a handgun for the purpose of committing a criminal offence contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code (four counts). The facts underlying these convictions are the same as those made out for the armed robbery offences.
[75] It is admitted that Mr. Greene was subject to a release order prohibiting him from possessing weapons between October 31, 2023, and March 19, 2024, inclusive. I therefore find him guilty of four counts of breaching this condition, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code on December 10, 2023, December 31, 2023, January 8, 2024, and March 19, 2024, respectively.
[76] Finally, as noted above, I find Mr. Greene guilty of all three March 19, 2024, firearm offences.
Released: September 26, 2025
Signed: Justice Caolan Moore
[1] I find him not guilty of robbery, but guilty of the included offence of attempted robbery pursuant to section 660 of the Criminal Code.