ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

R. v. DATE: 2026 02 20

COURT FILE No.: Toronto, Ontario 24-48109982

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

L’MAR CECIL GREENE

Before Justice Caolan Moore

Heard on December 11, 2025

Reasons for Sentence released on February 20, 2026

S. Scully................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown

T. Kent........................................................................................... counsel for the Defendant

Moore J.:

Introduction

[ 1 ] I convicted L’Mar Greene of robbing three cannabis stores, and attempting to rob a cell phone store, all at gunpoint over a two-and-a-half-month period. I also found he possessed a loaded, restricted firearm a few months later. Four of these offences occurred when he was bound by a release order prohibiting him from possessing weapons. I found that all four robberies were committed with the same firearm he later possessed. I set out the facts and my findings in my judgment and will not repeat them in detail here: R. v. Greene , 2025 ONCJ 503 . He is now before me for sentencing.

Positions of the Parties

[ 2 ] The Crown asks for 9 years jail on top of pre-sentence custody and any credit for time spent on bail with restrictive conditions. The defence asks for 5 years custody less credit for such time.

[ 3 ] Mr. Greene has spent 32 days in pre-sentence custody, which both parties agree should be credited as 48 days: R. v. Summers , 2014 SCC 26 . He has spent approximately 22 months bound by restrictive bail conditions, including significant time subject to house arrest with a GPS ankle monitor. At the time of sentencing submissions, his time on bail was closer to 20 months and counsel asked for approximately 4 months’ credit: see R. v. Downes , 2006 3957 (ON CA) , [2006] O.J. No. 555 (ONCA) at paras. 29-37 .

Principles

[ 4 ] Sentencing is a highly individualized process: R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58 . The fundamental purpose of sentencing is protecting society and contributing to respect for the law by imposing just sanctions. That requires balancing one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, separation from society where necessary, making reparations, and promoting a sense of responsibility that acknowledges any harm caused: section 718 of the Criminal Code .

[ 5 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: section 718.1 of the Criminal Code . Denunciation and deterrence are paramount considerations in imposing sentence for firearm offences of this nature: they will almost always require a substantial jail term even for a youthful offender with no criminal record: R. v. Mansingh , 2017 ONCA 68 at para. 24 .

[ 6 ] Generally, sentences for offences that are distinct in time are imposed consecutively. However, the principle of totality requires that in imposing consecutive sentences for multiple offences, the total sentence does not exceed an offender’s overall moral culpability. The sentence must not be excessive or harsh or destroy nearly all hope of rehabilitation: section 718.2 (c) of the Criminal Code .

[ 7 ] I must also consider the principle of restraint: sections 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code . As Mr. Greene is a young man with no criminal record, this principle is given especially strong consideration alongside his prospect of rehabilitation: R. v. Bertrand Marchand , 2023 SCC 26 at para. 123 . When imprisonment is necessary, the principle of restraint means that "the sentence should constitute the minimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the circumstances": R. v. Priest , 1996 1381 (ON CA) , [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (ONCA) at para. 18 ; see also R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830 at paras. 30-34 .

[ 8 ] Finally, an offender's personal characteristics are central to an analysis of their moral blameworthiness: R. v. Parranto , 2021 SCC 46 at para. 12 . In particular, r ace and social context are vital to consider as part of the sentencing process: R. v. Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 . Counsel did not seek an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment or pre-sentence report or suggest a clear connection between systemic racism and the obstacles Mr. Greene has had to overcome as a black man. However, Counsel submits, and I agree, that it is still my responsibility to consider background factors – and specifically the impacts of systemic racism – which may have contributed Mr. Greene’s offending behaviour and his degree of moral blameworthiness.

Mr. Greene

[ 9 ] Mr. Greene was 25 years old at the time of the offences. He has no criminal record and is a Canadian citizen. His paternal grandparents are from Trinidad and Tobago; his maternal grandparents are from Jamaica.

[ 10 ] Mr. Greene has significant family support. Many were present throughout his trial and for his sentencing hearing. They are present here again today. His parents had him when they were young and separated a short while later. While he has good relationships with his parents, siblings, and his stepmother today, his school and living situation growing up were somewhat unstable.

[ 11 ] He was bullied at junior school and experienced discrimination because of his race. He had a better high school experience. He completed high school and was a good basketball player – even traveling to the United States to play. He played for a reputable Canadian team at age twelve against future professional players. He suffered an ACL injury, however, at 17 years old that impacted his play. After high school, he wanted to go to college but was concerned about debt, so instead began working and held jobs in fast food restaurants, at Canadian tire, and at a factory. In the future, he hopes to launch a clothing brand.

[ 12 ] A letter from his father documents many of his early struggles and his father’s belief in his untapped potential and resilient nature. Reference letters submitted on his behalf attest to his ability to communicate with, and mentor, young athletes. He appears to be particularly effective at encouraging young people to internalize and apply instruction and take responsibility for their choices.

[ 13 ] Mr. Greene professes no mental health or drug issues. He smokes marijuana occasionally.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[ 14 ] In determining the appropriate sentence, I must weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. I will start by considering what I find to be the aggravating factors:

1. The robberies were part of a deliberate pattern of criminal conduct across four separate dates that spanned several months. They were pre-meditated and not the result of impulsive action. Small stores with only one clerk were deliberately targeted. Mr. Greene wore a mask to hide his identity. The firearm used was found in his possession months after the fourth and final robbery, evidencing a persistent course of criminal conduct.

2. I do not have victim impact statements. However, based on their testimony at trial, and logic and human experience, I have no doubt that being robbed at gun point while working alone caused each of the store clerks psychological harm. There is a “deep terror that comes with the threat of a firearm at a proximate range”: R. v. Hilbach , 2023 SCC 3 at para. 57 . That the store clerks were alone and vulnerable has long been held to be an aggravating factor in comparable situations: see R. v. Hanna , 2024 ONCA 911 at para. 6 .

3. Each robbery involved brandishing a restricted firearm, creating risk of injury and death to the victims and other members of the public.

While I have convicted Mr. Greene of attempted robbery for one of these offences, I find the offending behaviour in that case morally indistinguishable from the other three robberies. The attempted robbery was only an attempt because the clerk chased him away with a hammer – the dangerous and imprudent act of a man who owned the store and clearly felt his livelihood was being threatened, and an example of the risk of escalating violence that brandishing a firearm introduces.

4. The firearm Mr. Greene possessed was a functional, restricted handgun that was loaded when found. While I cannot find that it was loaded during the four robberies, I do find the fact that he used a functional restricted firearm in committing the robberies aggravating.

5. Mr. Greene was subject to a release order prohibiting him from possessing weapons at the time of the final three robberies and when he possessed the firearm.

[ 15 ] There are several mitigating factors I must consider as well:

1. Mr. Greene is relatively youthful: 25 years old at the time of the offences and 27 years old now.

2. He has no criminal record.

3. He has strong family support. They have always been involved in his life and have shown their continued support for him throughout these proceedings.

4. He has a pro-social background of employment and community involvement – particularly volunteering to coach youth basketball.

5. He is a young black man who has faced several challenges in his life, both at home, and at school, where he experienced discrimination.

[ 16 ] While Mr. Greene was convicted after trial and is not entitled to the mitigation of a guilty plea, the proceedings were focused and streamlined. That no one was physically harmed during the robberies and not much money was taken are neutral factors. The fact it could have been worse is simply not aggravating: see R. v. Crawford, 2025 ONCJ 385 (OCJ) at para. 60 .

Analysis

[ 17 ] Through counsel’s submissions and support letters, I have heard evidence Mr. Greene experienced racism at junior school and struggled at home due to his parents’ separation. In R. v. Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 , the Court of Appeal interpreted section 718.2 (e) through the context of black offenders and the systemic discrimination that they face (at para. 123):

Although we would not equate Black offenders with Indigenous offenders, for the purposes of s. 718.2(e), the Gladue / Ipeelee jurisprudence can inform the sentencing of Black offenders in several respects: see Borde , at para. 30. Just as with the discrimination suffered by Indigenous offenders, courts should take judicial notice of the existence of anti-Black racism in Canada and its potential impact on individual offenders... Similarly, in considering the restraint principle, courts should bear in mind well-established overincarceration of Black offenders, particularly young male offenders.

[ 18 ] While Mr. Greene experienced family separation, a difficult school environment, and racism at a young age, there is little in his background that mitigates his level of moral responsibility in all the circumstances or plays a direct role in the offences before this Court. I do take these factors into account, however, in evaluating his prospects for rehabilitation.

[ 19 ] Not much more can be said about the physical, psychological, and societal threat firearms pose that has not already been said repeatedly by every level of court in this province for the last twenty years: e.g. , R. v. Ferrigon , 2007 16828 (SCJ) at para. 25 ; R. v. Kawal , 2018 ONSC 7531 at paras. 11-13 ; R. v. Thavakularatnam , 2018 ONSC 2380 at para. 21 ; R. v. Mohiadin , 2020 ONSC 47 at para 31 ; R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2025 ONCA 142 at paras. 100-102 . Guns introduce terror, chaos, and pain; they are a threat to peace and security; they take and ruin lives. Their possession and use for personal gain will result in substantive custodial sentences.

[ 20 ] The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the minimum sentence of 5 years for robbery with a prohibited or restricted firearm: R. v. Hilbach , [2023] S.C.J. No. 3 (SCC) . I find the sentencing range for multiple armed robberies to be 7 to 15 years. The high end of the range is appropriate when aggravating factors are present, such as a prior criminal record, victims are physically harmed, or the gun is loaded or fired: R. v. Watts, [2024] O.J. No. 3617 (SCJ) at para. 44 .

[ 21 ] I have considered the cases provided and find those below, or at, the low end of the sentencing range for multiple armed robberies distinguishable, either because they followed a guilty plea, did not involve firearms, or considered evidence of significant rehabilitative efforts. Even in these cases, I find the most comparable sentences are in the 6 to 8 year range: see R. v. Bowden, [2012] O.J. No. 1873 (OCJ) ; R. v. Jacque-Frame , 2025 ONCJ 572 (OCJ); R. v. Hinds , [2025] O.J. No. 463 (OCJ) ; R. v. Christopher, [2020] O.J. No. 3206 (OCJ) ; R. v. Crawford , 2025 ONCJ 385 (OCJ); R. v. Abdi, 2014 ONCA 520 .

[ 22 ] Finally, while not an aggravating factor, I have no understanding as to why Mr. Greene engaged in this dangerous and deliberate course of conduct. He has made no expression of remorse and has not shared any insight into his offending behaviour. At the time of the offences, he was driving a relatively new car. He had a girlfriend. He had all the family support he has now. He did not take a lot of money – the total amounts to maybe two thousand dollars, possibly much less. Mr. Greene has the family and community support available to help him rehabilitate if he so chooses. I find that this, in combination with his prior history of pro-social living, speak in favour of the prospect he can do so and help him overcome some of his negative early life experiences and whatever motivated his conduct.

Sentence

[ 23 ] A sentence of 5 years for these repeated, violent, and planned offences, even for a youthful first offender, would fail to adequately deter and denounce Mr. Greene’s conduct. It is far below the acceptable range of sentence. Multiple offences were committed over a relatively lengthy period. As mentioned, the lowest end of the range of sentence for the robberies is 7 years, and the number of robberies in this case moves these offences above the lowest end of the range. The range of sentence for the firearm possession offence is 3 to 5 years: R. v. Mohamed , 2020 ONCA 163 at para. 29 . Committing four separate offences involving a firearm while bound by an order not to possess weapons is worth minimally 6 months’ custody in my view that should be served consecutively to any sentence imposed: R. v. Claros , 2019 ONCA 626 , [2019] O.J. No. 3910 (ONCA) at para. 51 .

[ 24 ] The appropriate sentence in all the circumstances of this case is 9 years’ custody. I would have imposed a sentence in the range of 10 to 11 years, but for the principle of totality and the mitigating factors – most notably Mr. Greene’s young age and lack of criminal record. Nine years is the lowest possible sentence I can impose that balances all the factors I have considered.

[ 25 ] From this number I deduct credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody and on bail while subject to restrictive conditions, which I will credit globally as six months. I am satisfied that stringent bail conditions impacted Mr. Greene’s liberty and his ability to carry on normal activity and he should be given credit for this time. The remaining global sentence is therefore eight years and six months.

[ 26 ] This is a significant custodial sentence for such a young man, but the number and nature his crimes cry out for it. I sincerely hope Mr. Greene can use the talent he possesses for encouraging young people to take responsibility for their choices and apply it to his own life. Mr. Greene was described as resilient and full of potential. My hope is that he can tap into every ounce of that resiliency to overcome this adversity and meet his potential.

[ 27 ] I break this sentence down as follows. The numbers below reflect the numbered counts on the information. I have also noted the offences I have conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v. Kienapple , 1974 14 (SCC) , [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. Both parties agree that I stay the noted offences conditionally with exception of the point firearm offences. I find that the point firearm offences share a factual nexus with the armed robbery offences in this case with respect to each robbery offence and conditionally stay those counts as well for similar reasons to those given by Justice Molloy in R. v. Young , 2007 1899 (ON SC) at paras. 20-23 .

October 16, 2023, Robbery: 6 years

1. Armed robbery (s. 344(1)): 6 years.

2. Point firearm (s. 87(1): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

3. Face disguised with intent to commit offence (s. 351(2)): 1 year, concurrent to count 1.

4. Possession of a handgun for purpose of committing an offence (s. 88(1)): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

December 10, 2023, Attempted robbery: 6 years, concurrent

5. Attempted Armed robbery (ss. 344(1) and 660): 6 years, concurrent to count 1.

6. Point firearm (s. 87(1): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

7. Face disguised with intent to commit offence (s. 351(2)): 1 year, concurrent to count 5.

8. Possession of a handgun for purpose of committing an offence (s. 88(1)): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

December 31, 2023, Robbery: 6 years, concurrent

10. Armed robbery (s. 344(1)): 6 years, concurrent to count 1.

11. Point firearm (s. 87(1): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

12. Face disguised with intent to commit offence (s. 351(2)): 1 year, concurrent to count 10.

13. Possession of a handgun for purpose of committing an offence (s. 88(1)): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

January 8, 2024, Robbery: 6 years, concurrent

15. Armed robbery (s. 344(1)): 6 years, concurrent to count 1.

16. Point firearm (s. 87(1): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

17. Face disguised with intent to commit offence (s. 351(2)): 1 year, concurrent to count 15.

18. Possession of a handgun for purpose of committing an offence (s. 88(1)): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

March 19, 2024, Firearms possession offences: 2 years, consecutive

20. Possession of while knowingly not possessing a licence (s. 92(1)): conditionally stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v Kienapple.

21. Possession of a loaded, restricted firearm while unauthorized (s. 95(1)): 2 years, consecutive to count 1.

22. Careless possession of a firearm (s. 86(1)): 1 year, concurrent to count 21.

Fail to comply offences: 6 months, consecutive

9. December 10, 2023, failure to comply with release condition not to possess weapons (s. 145(5)(a)): 6 months, consecutive to count 1.

10. December 31, 2023, failure to comply with release condition not to possess weapons (s. 145(5)(a)): 6 months, concurrent to count 9.

11. January 8, 2024, failure to comply with release condition not to possess weapons (s. 145(5)(a)): 6 months, concurrent to count 9.

12. March 19, 2024, failure to comply with release condition not to possess weapons (s. 145(5)(a)): 6 months, concurrent to count 9.

[ 28 ] I order Mr. Greene to provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to section 487.04 of the Criminal Code based on the primary ( section 344(1) ), and secondary ( sections 95(1) , 145(5) , 351(2) ) designated offences.

[ 29 ] I prohibit Mr. Greene from possessing any weapons for life pursuant to 109 of the Criminal Code for the following designated offences: 344(1) and 95(1).

[ 30 ] Mr. Greene will be prohibited from communicating with Taylor Marshman, Mohammed Saleem, Christopher Frangipane, or Katelyn Viera, during the custodial period of his sentence pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code .

[ 31 ] Finally, I waive the victim fine surcharges given the custodial period I have imposed.

Released: February 20, 2026

Signed: Justice Caolan Moore