CITATION: R. v. Parsons, 2026 ONSC 3368

COURT FILE NOS.: CR-24-50000047 & CR-25-50000558

DATE: 20260612

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ANDREW PARSONS

Anjali Rajan and Alice Bradstreet, for the Crown

Jasmine Mann, for Andrew Parsons

HEARD: October 3, 2025; May 15, 2026

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

1. Overview

1Andrew Parsons was party to a violent robbery on April 1, 2021. Two masked men, armed with a handgun, robbed Access Cash of over $1 million. In doing so, they terrorized the two store employees. Mr. Parson’s job was to act as a decoy driver. He was arrested on September 9, 2021. He pleaded guilty to robbery on October 3, 2025. He now comes before the court for sentencing.

2. Facts

2Alandra Hamilton and Gerrard Hanlon worked at Access Cash at 73 Galaxy Boulevard in Toronto. On April 1, 2021, Ms. Hamilton left the office to go to a gas station. The three robbers – Mr. Parsons, Devante Virgo and Emmanuel Rawson – surreptitiously followed her back from the gas station to Access Cash. Virgo and Rawson drove a rented white Mazda. Mr. Parsons drove his blue Hyundai. Ms Hamilton. got out of her car in the parking lot of 73 Galaxy. Mr. Parsons waited nearby to act as the decoy driver at the conclusion of the robbery.

3What happened next was captured in detail on video. Virgo and Rawson forced Ms. Hamilton at gunpoint into Access Cash. Virgo and Rawson were masked and hooded. They forced Ms. Hamilton to let them into the office. They found Mr. Hanlon seated at his desk. They struck him, including with the firearm, several times. They forced Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Hanlon to take them to the vault. They pointed a handgun at Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Hanlon the entire time. They assaulted Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Hanlon in the vault. They stuffed currency into a plastic garbage bag. They stole about $1.146 million in Canadian cash.

4Virgo and Rawson then took the bag of cash out of Access Cash. They got into the white Mazda and drove away, followed by Mr. Parsons. They met up in a residential area near Kipling and The Queensway. Virgo and Rawson abandoned the white Mazda and then got into the Hyundai. Mr. Parsons drove them and the bag of cash away.

5The subsequent police investigation, using a large amount of video obtained from nearby addresses, identified the Hyundai as the decoy vehicle and Mr. Parsons as the driver.

6Video was compiled from several sources. The video at the Shell gas station at 627 Dixon Road is 17 minutes slow. The other times are not properly synchronized but that need not be resolved for the purposes of this sentencing proceeding. The video compilation reveals the following:

• 7:33 am: Mr. Parsons enters a blue Hyundai in an underground parking garage at 65 Sandwell Drive in Toronto and drives off.

• 7:40 am: The blue Hyundai parks at 59 Waterford Drive across from a white Mazda. The white Mazda drives off followed by the blue Hyundai.

• 8:10 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): The white Mazda drives past 73 Galaxy Blvd. At 8:11 the white Mazda enters the parking lot and backs into a spot, followed by the blue Hyundai.

• 8:35 am (Access Cash – Camera 15): Ms. Hamilton leaves Access Cash at 73 Galaxy Blvd. She gets into a car and drives off.

• 8:12 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): the white Mazda and the blue Hyundai pull out of the parking lot of 73 Galaxy Blvd. The blue Hyundai follows the white Mazda.

• 8:49 am (Access Cash Camera 2): Ms. Hamilton returns to 73 Galaxy Blvd. She gets out of her car and opens the trunk to get something. She gets back into her car. She gets out of her car a moment later and walks to the entrance of Access Cash. She is out of sight of the surveillance camera for a few moments then re-enters Access Cash.

• 8:29 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): The white Mazda drives past the parking lot at 73 Galaxy Boul.

• 8:30 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): The white Mazda drives into the parking lot at 73 Galaxy Blvd. and parks.

• 8:55 am (Access Cash Camera 2 and Access Cash Camera 15): Ms. Hamilton exits Access Cash. She goes to her car and gets in. She pulls out of the spot and then out of the lot.

• 8:32 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): The white Mazda pulls out of the parking spot. Exits the parking lot at 73 Galaxy Blvd.

• 8:20 am (Shell Gas Station): Ms. Hamilton’s car pulls into the gas station. It is followed by the white Mazda and the blue Hyundai.

• 8:43 am (73 Galaxy Blvd. Unit 1 Camera): Ms. Hamilton’s car returns to 73 Galaxy Blvd. followed by the white Mazda.

• 9:07 am (Access Cash Camera 15, Access Cash Camera 2, Access Cash Camera 3): Ms. Hamilton’s car pulls into a parking spot. The white Mazda follows and pulls into a parking spot in the row opposite. As she gets out of her car, Virgo and Rawson exit the white Mazda. They are wearing hoodies, gloves, and masks. They immediate accost Ms. Hamilton. They force her, at gunpoint, to let them into Access Cash. A handgun is clearly stuck in her back by one of the two men. Mr. Parsons does not participate directly in this part of the robbery.

• 9:08 am (Access Cash Camera 4, Access Cash Camera 6): Virgo and Rawson follow Ms. Hamilton into Access Cash. They go into the main office where Mr. Hanlon is sitting at a desk. One of the men points a firearm at him. Mr. Rawson puts up his hands. One of the men drags Mr. Hanlon while the other man controls Ms. Hamilton.

• 9:09 am (Access Cash Camera 5, Access Cash Camera 7, Access Cash Camera 12, Access Cash Camera 13): Virgo and Rawson force Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Hanlon to let them into the garage, and then into the vault where the cash is located.

• 9:10 am (Access Cash Camera 13): Virgo and Rawson force Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Hanlon into the cash room. The man carrying the firearm (either Virgo or Rawson) strikes Mr. Hanlon on the head. The firearm has an over-capacity magazine. Mr. Hanlon is struck with the end of the over-capacity magazine and forced to the floor. While on the floor the man with the firearm strikes Mr. Hanlon on the head again. Mr. Hanlon was not resisting at any point. The men stuff cash into a garbage bag. They leave the vault at 9:12. The bag is so filled with cash it is too heavy to carry. Virgo and Rawson must drag it. They leave Mr. Hanlon and Ms. Hamilton in the vault.

• 9:12 am (Access Cash Camera 4, Access Cash Camera 3): Virgo and Rawson leave Access Cash dragging the bag of cash.

• 9:13 am (Access Cash, Camera 15): Either Virgo or Rawson runs to the white Mazda, pulls out it of the parking spot, and opens the passenger door. The other robber brings the bag of cash and stuffs it into the car, but several bundles of cash fall out. The second robber stuffs as much cash as he can in the car. The white Mazda leaves the plaza.

• 8:50 am (73 Galaxy Blvd., Unit 1): The white Mazda drives out of the parking lot. The blue Hyundai, which had not been parked in the lot, drives from the side street and follows the white Mazda.

7Police arrested Mr. Parsons at his address on September 9, 2021. He gave an inculpatory statement to the police. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, he told the police the following:

• He was the “decoy” driver;

• He followed Virgo and Rawson around the morning of the robbery;

• He knew there was going to be “beef”;

• He knew there was going to be some type of violence;

• He identified Virgo as one of the robbers;

• He admitted to seeing more money than he had ever seen in his life.

8Virgo and Rawson were found guilty after a trial in February of 2024 of Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence, Robbery with a Firearm, Disguise with Intent, and Forcible Confinement. They were sentenced to 8 and 13 years, respectively.

3. Circumstances Of The Offender

9Mr. Parsons is currently 27 years old. I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. Mr. Parsons was born and raised in Toronto. His parents are divorced. He lived with his mother, her new partner, and stepsiblings until he was 17. He lived with his father from age 17-20. His mother suggested that his father “provided minimal guidance” and she became concerned about his substance abuse. His mother also believes he has undiagnosed ADHD.

10Mr. Parsons graduated from high school. He has been employed ever since, primarily doing seasonal work for a municipality.

11Mr. Parsons reported to the PSR writer that he has used different substances, such as marijuana, and has experimented with other substances. He does not, he also reported, have a problem with alcohol. His mother, however, believes that he was using excessive amounts of drugs to self-medicate.

12His mother further stated to the PSR writer:

… she described the subject as socially motivated and eager to be liked. She believes this characteristic led to his involvement in the criminal justice system as he was influenced by negative peer associates and acted out of a sense of loyalty or perceived injustice. Ms. Desjardins highlighted concerns about the subject’s history of substance use, poor impulse control, and possible ADHD, which she believes should be formally assessed. She referenced a prior clinical assessment indicating the subject’s substance use issues. Despite these challenges she expressed optimism about his readiness to maintain sobriety and pursue positive lifestyle changes…

13His mother expressed the view that he is trying to make positive changes in his life. Mr. Parsons has a close relationship with his sister, who agreed with their mother’s assessment.

14Mr. Parsons was on bail for this offence until April 2024. He was then arrested in relation to a home invasion in Newmarket. He was sentenced on December 15, 2025, to three years globally on that robbery, less time served, and two years probation. As of today’s sentencing, date he has 361 days left to serve on that sentence.

4. Impact on The Victim And The Community

15Mr. Hanlon filed a victim impact statement. He disclosed that he had some swelling and soreness for a few days. He became more apprehensive at work. He was also concerned about the prospect of another robbery. He was also concerned about the prospect of being shot. The office closed a few months later and he lost his job, although he was unable to say whether the closing was related to the robbery.

16Ms. Hamilton did not file a victim impact statement.

17I infer that a robbery with a firearm would be terrifying for anyone. It is plain and obvious from watching the video that Mr. Hanlon and Ms. Hamilton were terrorized into submission. How could they not have been terrified? Violent, aggressive robbers forced their way into the office and waved a gun at them. Both were subject to physical force from Virgo and Rawson. I have no doubt that the impact on both of them was high.

18It is perhaps obvious, but armed robberies of financial or quasi-financial institutions make everyone less safe. We are all required in our society to use financial institutions. Even in the era of modern, online banking bank branches are still an important part of the community. They are, of course, also a target for people like Virgo, Rawson, and Mr. Parsons. Anyone working there or visiting a branch may be subject to violent invasions. The cost of security at a modern financial institution drives up the costs of doing business with a financial or quasi-financial institution for everyone, but especially ordinary people. There is an economic impact. Mr. Parsons, by participating in a violent robbery, has contributed to making society less safe and more expensive for the whole community.

5. Positions of the Crown and Defense And Cases In Support

19The Crown’s position is that Mr. Parsons should be sentenced to two years in the penitentiary consecutive to the sentence he is now serving. Ms. Rajan, for the Crown, relies on the following cases:

• R. v. Mohammed, 2012 ONSC 3072: The offender was convicted of robbery after a trial. He went into a bank while his friend waited in the car. He passed a note to a teller demanding $20,000. The note said that he had a gun. Nobody at the bank saw a firearm and no firearm was recovered. The offender actually obtained about $400.00. The offender had a troubled background and was very youthful. Patillo J. sentenced him to 18 months, which he said was at the low end of the range, and two years probation.

• R. v. Savard-Cote, 2015 ONSC 7081. The offender pleaded guilty to two robberies, including one with an imitation firearm. He robbed a bank in Montreal of $850 and in the course of the robbery he flashed an imitation firearm. He robbed another bank in Ottawa of $850. He passed a note to the teller indicating he had a weapon, and demanding cash or he would kill her. The offender was 40 years old with a significant criminal record, including previous robbery convictions. Ratushny J. sentenced him to an 8 year global sentence less pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Abdi, 2011 ONSC 4165. The offender was found guilty after a trial of four bank robberies. In three of those robberies, he showed a firearm or indicated that he had a firearm. He had a long criminal record and no documented history of employment. O’Marra J. imposed a global sentence of 7 ½ years, less pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Kaddoura, 2003] O.J. No. 244 (C.A.). The offender went into a bank with a disguise. He placed a package onto the counter and told the teller that it contained a bomb. He escaped with $165.00 but was promptly arrested. The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 30 months less pre-sentence custody. Justice Hill quoted this case in R. v. Dacosta, [2015] O.J. No. 2954 (Sup.Ct.) in imposing an 18-month sentence for an offender who used a fake bomb in an attempt to rob a Cash Stop store.

20Ms. Mann does not take issue with the range of sentence proposed by Crown counsel but argues that when totality is taken into consideration a sentence of 12 months should be imposed.

6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

21The aggravating factors in this case are obvious. Mr. Parsons played an important role, although not the critical role, in a violent robbery that netted over $1 million. The robbery involved planning. Given that Rawson and Virgo specifically targeted Ms. Hamilton as their entrée into Access Cash, I infer that surveillance was done before the robbery and Ms. Hamilton’s pattern of life at work was observed. The use of a decoy vehicle reveals a certain amount of sophistication. Mr. Parsons knew that there would be violence involved. There was a significant impact on Mr. Hanlon, and I infer also on Ms. Hamilton. As a matter of common sense, Mr. Parsons would have been well aware that anyone subject to a violent robbery would be significantly affected. It is not an aggravating factor for Mr. Parsons that a firearm was used, as the Crown did not seek to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Parsons knew that there would be a firearm, although he certainly knew there would be violence involved.

22The most important mitigating factor is the guilty plea. Mr. Parsons took responsibility for the offence. He did so not only in court but also with the probation officer. It is also mitigating that at the time of the offence he was a first offender. He is still a young man and enjoys the support of his family. I suspect that substance abuse played a role in making some very poor choices, leading to his present predicament. He appears to recognize the role that substance abuse has played, which is also a mitigating factor.

7. Sentence Imposed And Ancillary Orders

23The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

24In Abdi, O’Marra J. summed up the sentencing principles for robberies of this sort very well in just a few sentences at paras. 21 and 35:

… where the offences involve bank robberies, where vulnerable victims have been exposed to threatened violence and death, the paramount sentencing considerations are deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public.

Bank robberies and the use of an imitation firearm where innocent victims are threatened, believing that if they do not comply as directed they could be killed, are serious offences. Committing multiple serious offences such as these requires a substantial penitentiary term. The sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offences and speak to the principles of deterrence, denunciation and the protection of the public. The totality of the sentence must reflect the overall gravity of the offences and where consecutive sentences are imposed, the cumulative sentence must not be so long or harsh as to crush any rehabilitative potential.

25There are, of course, a range of sentences for robberies of financial institutions. The lowest cited to me involved a sentence of 18 months for a very youthful first offender. Robberies of financial institutions, where firearms are used and employees are terrorized into submission through both actual and threatened violence, will attract significant sentences in the mid to high single digits, with double-digit sentences available for those who commit multiple robberies, are professional robbers in the sense that they earn a living (or try to anyway) from robbery and have the records to prove it, or significant violence is used resulting in physical or psychological harm. Pointing a gun in someone’s face and threatening to shoot them will attract a very significant penitentiary sentence absent some highly exceptional circumstances.

26In this case, Mr. Parsons was a party to the robbery executed by Virgo and Rawson. He played an important role by driving the decoy car. He knew violence would be involved but the Crown, as I said, has not sought to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew a firearm would be used. Accordingly, his moral blameworthiness is high, but not as high as it would be if he actually participated in the robbery as a principle or knew that a firearm would be used in the commission of the offence.

27The principles of denunciation and deterrence still call for a very lengthy sentence, but they must be tempered by the principles of rehabilitation and totality. The totality principle mandates that a global sentence for multiple offences must not be so lengthy as to crush any hope for rehabilitation for an offender, particularly a relatively young offender.

28The probation officer who wrote his pre-sentence report stated that Mr. Parsons had good prospects for rehabilitation in light of his strong family support, although he tempered that comment:

Despite these strengths, the subject exhibits some criminogenic needs that would require intervention. His history of substance use, including excessive marijuana use and experimentation with opioids, combined with the absence of formal treatment, presents a risk for relapse and potential criminal behaviour if unaddressed. As indicated by his collateral contacts, his challenges with impulse control and possible ADHD, may impair decision-making and increase vulnerability to criminal activity. The subject’s tendency to seek external validation and his susceptibility to negative peer influence were identified as contributing factors to his offence and remain areas of concern.

The subject’s cooperative attitude, family support, and demonstrated personal growth suggest strong potential for rehabilitation. For the subject to benefit from community supervision, he would be required to follow through with substance use counselling/programming, which is offered through the Ministry of the Solicitor General in a group setting or individually. Additionally, he may benefit from a formal mental-health assessment, and psychotherapy. Should the subject be willing to address these factors, he would be a suitable candidate for community supervision.

29Notwithstanding the relatively positive pre-sentence report, I rate Mr. Parson’s prospects for rehabilitation as mixed. The PSR did not fully account for the Newmarket charges. I am not being critical of the probation officer when I say that; it was not part of the mix. Although Mr. Parsons has worked and has expressed remorse through the mechanism of the guilty plea, he also committed a very serious offence while on bail for this offence. Lord Coke’s principle holds that subsequent convictions cannot be relied upon to aggravate a sentence for a prior offence. In other words, the Newmarket offence is not an aggravating factor. Mr. Parsons has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced in relation to that home invasion robbery. He is not to be sentenced a second time by me for that offence. The fact of the offence committed while on bail for this offence, however, influences my evaluation of his prospects for rehabilitation: R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724 at para. 63. Code J., when faced with the application of the principle, stated in R. v. Wisdom, 2024 ONSC 4047, stated at para. 41 that the previous convictions of the offenders “are not aggravating circumstances. However, they do indicate a pattern of ongoing offending that is relevant to the two accused’s current rehabilitative potential.” It is positive that Mr. Parsons recognizes that he has made poor choices and that his substance abuse has driven his criminal activity, but it is troubling, from the point of view of rehabilitation, that he engaged in this other serious criminal behaviour while on bail.

30But for the principle of totality, I would certainly impose a sentence in the penitentiary, even though Mr. Parsons did not enter Access Cash or use or have possession of the firearm. Mr. Parsons obviously knew that the robbery would be violent. He obviously knew that violence or the threat of violence would be used to intimidate and compel cooperation from the employees. That would have been central to the plan. Mr. Parsons was charged with robbery with a firearm, but the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to robbery simpliciter. The Crown did not seek to prove that Mr. Parsons was aware that a firearm would be used in the robbery. Although I think it is more likely than not that Mr. Parsons knew that there would be a firearm involved, I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know and I do not make any sort of finding in that regard. I certainl do not treat the presence of a firearm as an aggravating factor. Accordingly, that takes the sentencing range to low penitentiary from medium to high penitentiary. As I noted earlier, the other robbers received sentences of 8 and 13 years after a jury trial.

31When I consider general and specific deterrence, denunciation, Mr. Parsons’ role in the robbery, his prospects for rehabilitation, the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the principle of totality, I find that a sentence of 21 months consecutive to the sentence he is now serving is appropriate.

32Mr. Parsons was arrested on September 9, 2021 (several months after the robbery was committed on April 1, 2021). He was released on a surety bail to his parents on September 15, 2021. He spent 7 days in custody, enhanced to 11 days, before being released.

33Mr. Parsons was subject to a house arrest bail when he committed another robbery in Newmarket. The robbery involved a home invasion with an imitation firearm. The police arrested him on April 12, 2024. He has been in custody ever since. On May 12, 2025, Mr. Parsons pleaded guilty before Justice Ghosh of the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to one count of robbery and one count of use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. On December 15, 2025, Justice Ghosh sentenced him to a global sentence of four years (three years on the robbery and one year consecutive on the use of the imitation firearm) with credit for pre-sentence custody of 918 days. As of the sentencing hearing in this matter on May 15, 2026, Mr. Parson had 360 days left to serve on that sentence. Justice Ghosh also imposed a two-year probationary term. All of Mr. Parsons’ pre-sentence custody since his arrest on April 12, 2024, was allocated to the Newmarket charges. Mr. Parsons therefore has 11 days in custody to allocate to these charges.

34Ms. Mann argues that I should give Mr. Parsons credit for time spent on house arrest. Mr. Parsons was on house arrest from September 2021 to April 2024 when he was arrested for the Newmarket robbery charges.

35Respectfully, I cannot agree. Credit for time spent on house arrest is not appropriate in this case. A sentencing judge has discretion to treat time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions as a mitigating factor on sentencing: R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.). The onus lies on the offender to show that the impact of the restrictive bail conditions – such as house arrest – have significantly impacted him: R. v. Holder, 2026 ONCA 39 at paras. 34-36. Credit for time spent on house arrest is not automatic. It is also not subject to a mathematical calculation, such as credit for pre-sentence custody as set out in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. A sentencing judge may consider relevant factors such as the restrictiveness of the bail conditions; the impact of the bail conditions on the offender; whether the offender has used the time on bail to take rehabilitative steps such as obtain employment or participate in education; and whether the offender has complied with the bail or committed new offences: R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549 at paras. 35-37.

36In this case, the bail allowed Mr. Parsons was able to work while on bail. He was not subject to electronic monitoring. He was permitted to be outside of his residence without a surety. He did work, which is in his favour. He was also on bail for a considerable period of time before re-offending, which is also in his favour. In this case, however, he breached his bail. Breaches are not all created equal. Less serious breaches may be relatively minor, such as arriving home at 10:00 pm when the curfew mandated 9:00 pm. Less serious breaches usually do not involve associated criminality. Some breaches are very serious, such as Mr. Parsons’s breach. I am not suggesting that every serious breach will automatically result in dismissing a request for Downes credit. Under the circumstances here I do not think it is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in favour of granting credit for time spent on bail with restrictive conditions. Mr. Parsons did not merely miss a curfew by a couple of hours. He committed a serious home invasion robbery with an imitation firearm, while he was on bail for robbery with a firearm.

37Twenty-one months based on a 30-day month is 630 days. The warrant of committal will therefore read a sentence of 630 days, with credit for 11 days, leaving 619 days to serve, consecutive to any sentence now being served.

38In addition, Mr. Parsons will be placed on probation for two years. The terms of his probation will be as follows:

• Report to probation within 48 hours of release from custody.

• Reside at an address approved by your probation officer and notify your probation officer of any change of address within 48 hours.

• Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

• Do not apply for any permit, licence or registration certificate for any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code.

• Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with Gerrard Hanlon or Alandra Hamilton and do not be within 200 metres of anywhere you know Gerrard Hanlon or Alandra Hamilton to live, work, worship, or attend educational courses.

• Attend and actively participate in any assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative program as directed by your probation officer, including programs for substance abuse, and sign releases to allow your probation officer to monitor your progress.

39There will also be a s.109 order for life and a DNA order, as robbery is a primary designated offence.

R.F. Goldstein J.