R. v. Bruce-Agyepong, 2026 ONSC 1083

CITATION: R. v. Bruce-Agyepong, 2026 ONSC 1083

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-91105593-0000

DATE: 2026-02-20

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

GEREL BRUCE-AGYEPONG

Defendant

Ivana Denisov, for the Crown

Michael Doyle, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 19, 20 and 21, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DI LUCA J.:

I. Overview

1The defendant, Gerel Bruce-Agyepong is charged with the attempt robbery of an electronics store alleged to have occurred on June 20, 2023, in the City of Brampton.

2On that date, it is alleged that the defendant was one of four persons in a vehicle which pulled up in front of the store. It is further alleged that the defendant exited the vehicle, while wearing a balaclava and a hoodie which had tape covering an otherwise obvious logo and attempted to enter the store intending to commit a robbery once inside.

3The attempt robbery was thwarted by the owner of the store who then engaged in a pursuit of the suspect vehicle onto Highway 407. An O.P.P police officer joined in the pursuit but called off the pursuit due to safety concerns.

4Unbeknownst to the parties involved, a York Region Police Service helicopter was already following the suspect vehicle in relation to a separate but related investigation. The helicopter followed the suspect vehicle as it drove to a neighbourhood in Toronto.

5Once in Toronto, members of the York Region Police Service conducted a dynamic stop of the suspect vehicle. Four persons who were inside the vehicle attempted to flee on foot. They were all arrested. At least three of them were wearing balaclavas despite the fact that it was a hot afternoon in June.

6Police located a firearm, multiple sets of licence plates, various items of clothing, and other weapons including two knives and a portion of a replica firearm inside the suspect vehicle.

7Mr. Bruce-Agyepong was one of the persons arrested at the scene.

8Given the positions of the parties, there are three main issues to be determined in this trial:

(a) Is Mr. Bruce-Agyepong the person seen in the security camera footage taken outside the electronics store?

(b) Did Mr. Bruce-Agyepong have the mens rea for robbery at the time of the events?

(c) Did Mr. Bruce-Agyepong do something beyond a mere act of preparation?

9The Crown argues that the evidence leaves but one singular inference: that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong intended to commit a robbery of the electronics store and was attempting to enter the store for that purpose when he was thwarted by the owner of the store.

10The defence position is that there is a live issue as to the identity of the person seen in the security camera footage. Even if that person is proven to be Mr. Bruce-Agyepong, the defence asserts that the conduct observed, while suspicious, does not amount to an attempt to commit a robbery inside the electronics store.

II. Fundamental Legal Principles

11Mr. Bruce-Agyepong is presumed innocent of the charge in the indictment. The presumption of innocence stays with him throughout the trial and is only displaced if I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has the sole obligation or burden of proving the charge against the defendant. The defendant does not have an obligation to prove anything.

12Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high legal standard. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

13While likely or even probable guilt is not enough, proof to a level of absolute certainty is not required, as that standard is impossibly high. That said, while absolute certainty is an impossibly high standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.

14Where the evidence in a case is circumstantial, the Crown must prove that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 and R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560 at para. 19. The consideration of circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of reasonable inferences based on logic, experience, and common sense. Speculation and conjecture are impermissible. The line between speculation and reasonable inference may be at times difficult to draw. However, the ease of drawing the inference is not the standard. The standard is whether the inference is based on logic and reason.

15The analysis must be based on the totality of the evidence before the court, see R. v. Aslami, 2021 ONCA 249 and R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, at para. 81. If, after all of the evidence is considered, a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt on any essential element of the offence exists, the accused is entitled to an acquittal or a conviction on a lesser and included offence, as the case may be.

16An inference inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not simply possible. The Crown is not required to negative every possible inference conceivable. However, an inference inconsistent with guilt does not need to arise from “proven facts”, see Villaroman, supra, at para. 35 and R. v. Robert (2000), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 330 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 17. It can arise as a matter of logic and experience based on a consideration of all the evidence and the absence of evidence, see R. v. Ali, 2021 ONCA 362 at paras. 97 and 98.

17Ultimately, in order to convict the defendant of the offence, I must be sure that the defendant has committed the offence. If I am not sure, I must acquit.

III. The Elements of the Offence Charged

18Mr. Bruce-Agyepong is charged with attempt robbery. The offence of robbery can be committed in various ways, but generally it involves a theft or intended theft coupled with the use or threatened use of violence, see s. 343 of the Criminal Code.

19An “attempt” is defined in s. 24(1) of the Criminal Code as follows:

24(1) Everyone who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

20The mens rea of an attempt is same as the mens rea required for the completion of the actual offence attempted, see R. v. Senior, 2021 ONSC 2729 at paras. 358-359.

21The actus reus of an attempt can encompass a very wide range of acts. By definition, “anything” done for the purpose of carrying out an intention satisfies the actus reus component of the offence. The only qualification is that the act committed must be one that is beyond a mere act of preparation; see R. v. Cline, [1956] O.R. 539 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Root, 2008 ONCA 869 at paras. 94-100.

22Where mens rea is proven, acts that may appear equivocal standing alone may be sufficiently proximate to amount in law to an attempt, see R. v. Sorrell (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 9 (Ont. C.A.) at para 23. In other words, evidence of the requisite mens rea may support a finding that a specific act, which might otherwise seem innocuous, is actually an attempt to commit an offence.

23Where there is no direct evidence of mens rea, evidence establishing the actus reus may also provide circumstantial evidence of mens rea. In those circumstances, a conviction only results where the inference supporting existence of the requisite mens rea is the singular reasonable inference available based on the totality of the evidence.

IV. Review of the Evidence

The Events at the Electronics Store

24Franklin Fala is one of the owners of the Swiftronics store in Brampton, Ontario. The store sells consumer electronics including cell phones, tablets, computers and accessories. While the store is located in a commercial park, it has been set up as retail space. There is parking in front of the store and the hours are posted. The windows are clear and patrons arriving can see that lights are on inside the store when the store is open.

25The entrance to the store is locked for security reasons. Patrons wishing to attend inside the store approach the front door and staff will unlock the door, greet the patrons, and let them enter the store.

26On June 20, 2023, Mr. Fala was working at the store along with four other employees. He was in the front part of the store, and he observed a vehicle pull up right outside the front door. The vehicle did not park in the spots reserved for parking.

27Mr. Fala observed a person exit the vehicle. The person was wearing a mask and had black gloves on, despite the fact that it was summertime and the weather was hot. The person approached the front door and attempted to gain access pulling or tugging on the door a few times.

28While this person was tugging at the door, Mr. Fala ran towards the door to get a better look. Another employee joined him as well. Mr. Fala observed that the person was wearing a grey sweater, gloves, black bottoms and black shoes. When Mr. Fala opened the door, the person retreated to the vehicle and the vehicle quickly left the area.

29Mr. Fala then ran to the back of his store to get to his car so he could follow the suspect vehicle. He made it to his car and then encountered the vehicle as it left the parking lot. He followed the vehicle for approximately 10-15 minutes as it travelled north on Heritage Road and onto Highway 407. As he was following the vehicle, he observed that it contained 3-4 persons, all of whom appeared masked.

30While on Highway 407, Mr. Fala saw an O.P.P. cruiser at the side of the road. He pulled over and informed the officer, PC James Ryan, what was happening. After informing the officer, Mr. Fala continued to follow the suspect vehicle.

31PC Ryan confirmed that at approximately 1:13 p.m., he was approached on the roadside by Mr. Fala who advised him that his electronics store had been the target of an attempt robbery. Mr. Fala also described the suspect vehicle as a dark SUV and later pointed out the vehicle as they were in pursuit.

32PC Ryan pursued the suspect vehicle but called off the pursuit as speeds exceeded 175 km/h and the safety of the public was at risk. PC Ryan did not see how many occupants were in the vehicle nor did he manage to get a description of any of the occupants.

33Mr. Fala later provided security camera footage to the investigators. The security camera footage captured some of the events outside the electronics store at the relevant times. A portion of the footage was tendered into evidence along with still images taken from the video. I will return to this evidence later in these reasons.

34Mr. Fala was asked whether he observed any weapons on the person who was tugging at the front door. He explained that “at some point” he believed he did see a weapon. He further indicated that he “believed” he saw a gun. That said, he could not recall when he made this observation and explained that it was either when the person was getting back into the suspect vehicle or later on while on the highway. In cross-examination, Mr. Fala agreed that he merely perceived that the suspect had a gun under his coat, though he did not specifically see one. He also agreed that the police possibly told him later that a gun had been found in the suspect vehicle.

The Events After the Initial Police Chase Was Terminated

35At the time of the alleged attempt robbery, the suspect vehicle was already under surveillance by members of the York Region Police Service. The surveillance included a police helicopter along with a team of surveillance and tactical officers on the road in several police vehicles.

36Various police officers testified about the events relating to the takedown of the suspect vehicle. In brief summary, members of the surveillance team were advised that a black Acura MDX, which had a tracking device on it, was wanted in relation to robberies. The vehicle was being tracked and followed and it eventually made its way onto Warrender Avenue in Toronto.

37At approximately 1:43 p.m., while on Warrender Avenue, a takedown was called and a police vehicle driven by DC Smith made intentional head on contact with the suspect vehicle. The collision was significant, and DC Smith suffered some injuries as a result. A second police officer, DC Hodgson also suffered some injuries and was bleeding from the nose. The collision also caused the suspect vehicle to come to a stop and the occupants all exited the vehicle. The attending officers deployed a distraction device which caused a loud explosion. The scene was described as chaotic.

38DC Codlin arrested a young person who ran towards him. The young person was wearing a black hoodie and pants as well as a balaclava or ski mask. This young person also dropped a red-handled knife that was later recovered in the area of his arrest. DC Codlin could not recall which door this person exited from.

39DC Hodgson chased the driver of the vehicle who ducked in between houses and was jumping fences. This suspect was later arrested by two other officers and was identified as Shamba Tull. He was wearing a black surgical mask, black socks with no shoes and a hoodie.

40Det. Smith arrested Mr. Bruce-Agyepong who exited the suspect vehicle from the rear passenger door. Mr. Bruce-Agyepong complied with police commands upon exiting the vehicle and was placed on the curb by the street. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing black pants and a grey zip up Nike hoodie with tape covering the logo. He also had a balaclava covering his head and a black ball cap with a white “Sox” logo and a gold sticker. Lastly, he was wearing black running shoes, with a blue accent stripe and a white Jordan logo on the tongue.

41Photographs of the arrested parties taken at the time of their arrest and showing their respective clothing were tendered into evidence.

42Following the collision and arrests, the Acura was searched. A black Daisy BB gun frame was located in the rear of the vehicle. A bundle of Canadian currency and a small pocket knife were found near the vehicle. Police also located a black and tan Walther air gun underneath the vehicle. Various bags, tools, gloves, masks, and assorted clothing items were also found inside the vehicle. As well, a number of sets of licence plates were also found inside the vehicle.

Agreed Facts

43At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, counsel jointly presented an Agreed Statement of Fact admitting the following facts:

(a) The seized handgun, a Walther PPQ M2 T4E, is an air powered handgun that fires .43 calibre rubber, metal, plastic, or pepper balls at a velocity that qualifies it as a firearm for certain purposes in the Criminal Code.

(b) On June 20, 2023, at approximately 12:24 p.m., an airborne surveillance aircraft, Air2, was engaged to assist the Hold Up Unit of the York Regional Police by conducting surveillance on an Acura with a licence plate CRYY 592. Surveillance was maintained until approximately 1:02 p.m. when the vehicle pulled into the area of a commercial plaza at Steeles Avenue West and Heritage Road in Brampton. At 1:07 p.m., surveillance resumed, and the Acura was later observed on Highway 407 being followed by a marked OPP vehicle. The Acura fled at a high rate of speed of over 200 km/h. Continuous surveillance was maintained until the takedown was conducted on Warrender Avenue in Toronto at approximately 1:42 p.m.

Analysis and Findings

44I turn next to my analysis and findings, starting with identification. On this issue, the question I must address is whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong is the individual seen in the security camera footage outside the electronics store.

45There is no issue that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong was one of the passengers inside the suspect vehicle when it was rammed by a police vehicle on Warrender Avenue in Toronto at approximately 1:43 p.m. on June 20, 2023. Based on the evidence of Det. Smith, which I accept, I am satisfied that he exited the rear passenger side door of the Acura and quickly submitted to his arrest. At the time, he was wearing a balaclava and a ball cap with a white “Sox” logo and gold sticker on the peak or visor. He also was wearing a grey Nike hoodie sweater with tape over the logo and black track pants with a white Puma logo on the left thigh area. Lastly, he was wearing black running shoes with blue accents and white tongue with a Jordan logo.

46In the video and the still images taken from the security camera at the electronics store, the suspect is clearly wearing the same items. In particular, the suspect is wearing a black ball cap with a gold sticker. He is wearing a grey hoodie with tape over the logo. He is wearing shoes with blue accents and a white logo on them. He is also wearing black pants with a white logo visible on the left thigh area. Lastly, the suspect exits from the rear passenger side door of the vehicle.

47When the constellation of identifiable features is viewed cumulatively, I am readily satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong is the person who exits the rear passenger side door of the Acura SUV and approaches the electronics store at the relevant time. The identifiable features include the gold sticker on the ball cap, the logo covered by tape on the grey hoodie, the white logo on the left thigh area of the pants and the distinctive black shoes with blue accents and a white logo on the tongue. Viewed all together, the only reasonable inference is that the suspect who exited the vehicle is Mr. Bruce-Agyepong. He is wearing the same clothing a short time later at his arrest. As well, none of the other suspects arrested at the scene are wearing clothing with the same constellation of identifiable features.

48In reaching this conclusion, I consider the possibility that the police surveillance helicopter lost sight of the suspect vehicle for a few minutes which potentially leaves open the possibility that persons inside the vehicle moved around or exited the vehicle. Even assuming that the loss of continuous observation of the vehicle occured after the alleged attempt robbery, I am not satisfied that it leaves open the reasonable possibility that it was someone other than Mr. Bruce-Agyepong who exited the Acura and approached the door of the electronics store. The constellation of identifiable features on the clothing worn by the suspect and compared with the clothing worn by Mr. Bruce-Agyepong at the time of his arrest leaves only one overwhelming conclusion which is that the suspect is Mr. Bruce-Agyepong. The brief loss of observation does not leave me with reasonable doubt on the issue of identification.

49I turn next to the issue of mens rea. On this issue, the question is whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that when Mr. Bruce-Agyepong approached the front door of the electronics store, his intention was to commit a robbery therein.

50Based on the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven the requisite mens rea for robbery. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

(a) When he approached the electronics store, Mr. Bruce-Agyepong was wearing gloves, a balaclava, a ball cap and a hoodie with the hood pulled up. It was a hot day in June around noon. The nature of the clothing strongly supports a singular inference that he was entering the store to commit a robbery and wanted to hide his identity and not leave fingerprints. He was not simply entering the store as a customer. He was also not entering the store intending to commit a simple unnoticed theft of items therein.

(b) The Nike logo on his hoodie sweatshirt was also covered with tape. An obvious inference is that this was done to hide a distinctive feature of his clothing in a further effort to hide his identity. This further supports the inference that he was taking steps to avoid identification while intending to commit a robbery.

(c) The vehicle Mr. Bruce-Agyepong was in pulled up right out front of the electronics store. It did not pull into a parking spot. The front seat passenger opened his door first and appeared to look towards the store entrance. The front seat passenger appears to have a hood pulled up over his head at this time. This evidence supports an inference of a joint plan to enter the store while the vehicle remains at the door ready to drive off.

(d) Mr. Bruce-Agyepong exited the rear passenger side door of the Acura and approached the locked front door of the electronics store. I accept Mr. Fala’s evidence that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong tugged on the door more than once in an attempt to enter the store. I also accept his evidence that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong also tugged on the adjacent door, which was often mistaken as the door for the electronics store. I accept this evidence despite the fact that it is not captured on the security camera video. Having watched the video several times, I find that the recording skipped at this point in time and did not capture the actual attempt to enter the store or the adjacent door. I am nonetheless satisfied that it occurred

(e) Mr. Bruce-Agyepong then returned to the vehicle which left the scene immediately. Both Mr. Fala and his co-worker are seen on the video exiting the store and watching the vehicle as it quickly departs the scene. The driver of the vehicle then engaged in a very high-speed attempt to evade a police stop on Highway 407. When the vehicle is later stopped by police, at least three of the occupants are wearing balaclavas and hoodies, despite the summer weather. The occupants of the vehicle are in possession of a number of weapons, including a firearm and knives. They are also in possession of various tools, bags, items of clothing, and multiple licence plates. Taken together, the unfolding of these events manifestly supports a singular inference that this was a joint effort to commit robbery on the electronics store. Put another way, the possibility that this was a legitimate attempt to enter the store as customers is not a reasonable inference based on the totality of the evidence.

(f) Lastly, while I accept Mr. Fala’s evidence that he subjectively perceived that this was a robbery attempt, I place no weight on his belief or opinion in this regard. Mr. Fala clearly viewed the events in light of an earlier attempt robbery on the store and in view of information he later received from police. That said, I do not find that his subjective view tainted or coloured his observation of Mr. Bruce-Agyepong’s physical act of attempting to enter the store by tugging on the door several times.

(g) Similarly, I place no weight on Mr. Fala’s belief that he possibly saw or perceived the presence of a weapon at some point in time. The Crown very fairly took the position that this evidence should not be relied on as it may have been tainted by what Mr. Fala later learned or came to believe he perceived. While Mr. Fala’s evidence on this point lacks reliability, it does not undermine the general credibility and reliability of his evidence in relation to what he observed at the door of the electronics store.

(h) When I assess the totality of this evidence, I am satisfied that the only reasonable inference is that when Mr. Bruce-Agyepong attempted to enter the electronics store, his intention was to commit a robbery therein.

51The final issue relates to actus reus of attempt robbery. This issue is easily resolved. On the facts of this case, I am readily satisfied that Mr. Bruce-Agyepong’s conduct in arriving at the store front, dressed as he was, wearing a balaclava, hoodie, hat, gloves and tugging on the door more than once amounts to acts beyond mere preparation. Mr. Bruce-Agyepong was attempting to commit robbery by entering the store. His actions were thwarted by the locked door and the actions of Mr. Fala. Put another way, I am sure that had Mr. Bruce-Agyepong gained entry to the electronics store, he would have immediately committed a robbery therein.

V. Conclusion

52I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mr. Bruce-Agyepong, is guilty of Attempt Robbery as charged.

53A finding of guilt will be entered on count #1 on the Indictment.

The Honourable J. Di Luca