ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Omar-Godane, 2026 ONSC 4252
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
SULEIMAN OMAR-GODANE
Defendant
COUNSEL:
Lavaniya Dayananthan, for the Crown
Allana Scott, for the Defendant
HEARD: May 13, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DI LUCA J.
Overview
1On March 5, 2026, following a jury trial lasting approximately three weeks, Mr. Omar-Godane was found guilty of the following offences:
a. Robbery with an Offensive Weapon;
b. Use of an Imitation Firearm in the Commission of an Indictable Offence; and
c. Wear Disguise with Intent.
2On May 13, 2026, I heard sentencing submissions and reserved my decision to today’s date. I now give these reasons for the sentence I am about to impose.
Fact of the Robbery
3On August 9, 2018, at around 11 am, two disguised robbers entered a Scotia Bank branch in Ajax, Ontario and committed a robbery. The first robber was wearing a grey hoodie with the hood pulled up. He had sunglasses on and wore gloves. He was armed with what appeared to be a firearm.
4The identity of the first robber was never determined.
5Mr. Omar-Godane was the second robber to enter the bank. He was wearing a hardhat, sunglasses and yellow gloves. He was also brandishing what appeared to be a firearm.
6While inside the bank, Mr. Omar-Godane corralled bank customers and staff into a corner at gunpoint and told at least one of them to kneel. He was also directing them verbally saying “move…move…move…” and telling them not to look at him.
7Mr. Omar-Godane then joined his accomplice who was trying to get a teller to open money drawers. Mr. Omar-Godane assisted in the task of opening the drawers and taking money. When doing so, he pointed the imitation firearm at one of the tellers.
8Mr. Omar-Godane was identified through circumstantial evidence including DNA and fingerprint evidence from the getaway vehicle and a pair of yellow gloves, cell phone evidence, car rental documents and police surveillance.
9The robbery resulted in a relatively minor financial loss, essentially some currency and rolled coin.
Victim Impact Statements
10At the sentencing hearing, victim impact statements were presented by two of the bank tellers who were in the bank during the robbery. Additional victim impact statements were provided by family and friends of the direct victims.
11Ms. Keane Clarke-Gentles, who was a senior teller inside the bank during the robbery, described how the robbery has had a very long-lasting emotional, physical and financial impact on her. She described feeling intense fear and helplessness. She genuinely feared for her life and for the lives of her colleagues and customers.
12Despite loving her job at the branch, she was unable to return to work and had to be transferred to a location that was further away, adding stress and inconvenience to her life.
13She explained how she continues to feel vulnerable and concerned for her personal safety. Her confidence has been shaken, and she remains hyper-aware of her surroundings and often feels uneasy when interacting with unfamiliar individuals. She has yet to regain a sense of safety and confidence in her workplace environment.
14Ms. Clarke-Gentle’s husband and children also provided Victim Impact Statements, confirming the significant and long-lasting impact that the crime has had on their family’s sense of security and their commitment to maintaining a sense of security despite the obvious challenges. Her daughter poignantly notes that while the robbery had a long lasting and traumatic impact, her mother’s resilience has been a source of inspiration. One of her sons explained that he now works in banking and worries constantly about the possibility of an armed robbery.
15Ms. Bernadine Pidgeon was the other teller inside the bank during the robbery. The words “This is not a joke”, which were the words immediately spoken by the first robber who entered the bank, have been indelibly seared into her mind. At the moment the robbery started, Ms. Pidgeon did not believe she would live to see the next day.
16Following the robbery, Ms. Pidgeon was diagnosed with PTSD, as confirmed by her doctor and psychotherapist who provided letters to the court. Her world became very small, and she was no longer her old free-spirited, fun-loving self. Instead, she developed intense paranoia, suspicion and cynicism. She became depressed and withdrawn and was prescribed various medications. She could not return to work and eventually decided to move out of the GTA.
17With years of therapy, Ms. Pidgeon has thankfully found the tools to help her live with the lifelong impact of these offences. She has created, as she describes it, “a new normal.”
18Ms. Pidgeon’s husband describes how in the aftermath of the robbery, he watched the complete and utter deterioration of her once vibrant spirit and outgoing personality. He watched her fall into the abyss of depression and sever anxiety to the point where she could barely function.
19Ms. Pidgeon’s sons recounted similar observations. They watched their once vibrant mother become essentially paralyzed by fear and anxiety. They describe how the offence has taken years of their mother’s and their family’s life.
20Other family members also provided Victim Impact Statements including Ms. Pidgeon’s brother, daughter-in-law, as well as several close friends. These statements unanimously convey the deep and long-lasting impact that these offences have had on Ms. Pidgeon and by extension on those closest to her. In short, her life was dramatically and irretrievably altered following the robbery, though she thankfully appears to have emerged through the darkness with the love and support of those closest to her.
Mr. Omar-Godane’s Background
21Mr. Omar-Godane is currently 32 years of age. He would have been 24 years old at the time of the robbery. He did not have a criminal record at the time of these offences, though he has since resolved some outstanding charges in a different jurisdiction.
22Mr. Omar-Godane was born and raised in a stable two-parent home. He is the second of seven children. His father worked hard to provide for the family, often taking on menial jobs to make ends meet. His mother “brought life into the home” by curating an atmosphere of warmth, comfort and safety. Mr. Omar-Godane reports no issues with his family life and upbringing, though he conveys the fact that one of his brothers has an extensive criminal history and regularly reports to probation services.
23While Mr. Omar-Godane is currently single, he was married with full family approval at the young age of 18 or 19. The marriage ended poorly due to infidelity that occurred while Mr. Omar-Godane was away for work. The infidelity occurred with a close friend who he trusted and this resulted in a downward spiral into drug and alcohol abuse.
24Mr. Omar-Godane has a high school education and has taken further college level courses, though he has not obtained a degree or diploma. He has held a variety of jobs over the years, including stints in the Alberta oil fields. Most recently he was working as a welder, though he was fired given the length of the trial proceedings.
25In terms of the reasons for his involvement in these offences, Mr. Omar-Godane reports that his motivation was financial. He was trying to make ends meet after losing a well-paying job. At the time, he was undergoing significant stress due to the demise of his marriage and his related employment troubles.
26A volume of letters in support was filed on behalf of Mr. Omar-Godane. These letters speak to his general character and reputation in the community. Mr. Omar-Godane is described as hard-working, respectful and cooperative. The offences are described as “out of character.”
27One letter confirms that Mr. Omar-Godane has volunteered time as an assistant basketball coach and youth mentor with 416 United Basketball. His interactions with this group reflect integrity, selflessness and deep dedication to community service. Another letter confirms that he has volunteered time through his local Islamic Centre.
28His parents, siblings, extended family members and close friends all describe him in very positive terms and are clearly committed to supporting him going forward. They convey the fact that he has grown since his involvement in these offences and has been trying hard to build a better path in life.
29Mr. Omar-Godane has no current issues with alcohol and/or drugs and explains that he has been sober since 2019.
30When asked whether he wished to say anything to the court, Mr. Omar-Godane apologized directly to the victims and their families. He explained that he was truly sorry for the fear, distress and lasting impact that his conduct caused. He fully accepted responsibility for his involvement in the offences and did not try to shift blame. He explained that the choices he made were reckless, immoral and completely inconsistent with the way he was raised. He expressed deep regret and stated that he alone is responsible for his actions.
31Mr. Omar-Godane also apologized to his family for the stress, pain and embarrassment he has caused. He explained that he was raised in a loving home with hardworking parents who sacrificed everything. They instilled a sense of honesty, compassion and hard-work at all times. He described his conduct as a complete betrayal of his family values and the sacrifices made by his parents.
32Mr. Omar-Godane noted that these offences occurred during the darkest period of his life. He has since gained insight and has forced himself to confront the damage he caused to others. He concluded by explaining that he has been slowly rebuilding his life.
Pre-Trial Custody Credit and Related Mitigation
33Mr. Omar-Godane was initially arrested on October 21, 2019. He was released on bail on October 23, 2019. This is a period of 3 days.
34On September 7, 2021, he was arrested in relation to new charges. He was detained in custody and a s.524 order resulted in the cancellation of his bail on these charges. He remained in custody until February 17, 2022, which is a period of 164 days.
35The total time in pre-trial custody is 167 days which is to be credited at a rate of 1.5 to 1 for a total of 251 days.
36I pause to note that through counsel, Mr. Omar-Godane advises that he has now applied 60 days of his pre-sentence custody to his outstanding charges in a different jurisdiction, which have now been resolved. This leaves 161 days of straight time to be credited in this case at a rate of 1.5 to 1.
37Counsel also seeks enhanced mitigation for time spent on restrictive bail conditions and for the harsh custodial conditions endured by Mr. Omar-Godane while he was in custody.
38In terms of the custodial conditions, Mr. Omar-Godane was in jail during the Covid pandemic. He contracted Covid and spent 45 days in quarantine. While he did not file any other evidence or institutional records in support of his request, I accept that the conditions in the jails were particularly harsh during this period of time and that, as such, some degree of mitigation is warranted.
39In terms of the bail conditions, Mr. Omar-Godane was initially released on bail with a curfew between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am. This condition was in place for 1 year, 10 months, 15 days.
40Following his second arrest, he was released on strict house arrest bail with an ankle monitor. This condition was in place for 1 year, 3 months, 8 days.
41On May 25, 2023, the bail conditions were loosened from house arrest to a curfew of 9:00 pm and 5:00 am, though the ankle monitor remained in place. To today’s date, these conditions have been in place for 3 years and almost 2 weeks.
42I have no evidence as to the specific impact that these bail conditions have had on Mr. Omar-Godane, though I accept that a period of house arrest with an ankle monitor for over 15 months would have been a significant restriction of liberty. I also accept that the remaining time on a 9:00pm curfew would have imposed some degree of hardship on a young man.
The Positions of the Parties
43The Crown seeks a global sentence of 7 years in prison, broken down as follows: Robbery – 4 years, Use Imitation Firearm – 2 years consecutive, and Wear Disguise – 1 year consecutive.
44In addition, the Crown seeks a weapons prohibition for life, a DNA order and a non-communication order with respect to the victims.
45The Crown argues that this is a serious violent offence with long lasting consequences for the victims. The Crown submits that denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing considerations warranting a significant penitentiary sentence even for a relatively young defendant with no criminal record.
46The defence argues that a sentence of 3 years is appropriate given the mitigating circumstances of this case. The sentence would be broken down as follows: Robbery – 2 ½ years, Use Imitation Firearm – 6 months consecutive, and Wear Disguise – 6 months concurrent. The defence further argues that 1 year should be deducted from this sentence to account for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and time spent on restrictive bail conditions, leaving a net sentence of 2 years in prison.
47The defence argues that the principle of restraint must be given effect in this case. Mr. Omar-Godane committed a serious violent offence at a low point in his life. In the years since the offence, he has stayed out of trouble and has developed pro-social habits. Moreover, he has shown remorse and true insight into his offending, thereby warranting a sentence at the low end of the range.
48The defence does not oppose the Crown’s request for the requested ancillary orders.
Principles of Sentencing
49The objectives of sentencing long recognized at common law have been codified in section 718 of the Criminal Code. They are: the protection of society and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence, both general and specific; the separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation; reparation for harm done to the victims or the community; and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.
50Section 718.1 provides that the 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, see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 10, and R. v. M.(L.) 2008 SCC 31.
51Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, that an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances must be considered. The principle of restraint is important particularly with a youthful first-time offender with positive rehabilitative prospects, see R. v. Priest (1996) 110 C.C.C. (3d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.
52Ultimately, sentencing is a highly individualized exercise that extends beyond mathematical calculation, see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 60. The Court must weigh and consider applicable sentencing principles in the context of the specific facts of the case and the specific facts of the offender.
The Specific Offences in this Case
53None of the offences Mr. Omar-Godane committed have a mandatory minimum sentence. That said, the seriousness of the offences is reflected in part by the available maximum sentences, which for robbery is life imprisonment, for use of an imitation firearm is 14 years in prison and for wearing a disguise while committing robbery is 10 years in prison.
54Under section 85(4) of the Code, a sentence imposed in relation to the Use of an Imitation Firearm must be consecutive to the sentences imposed for offences arising out of the same series of events, and also consecutive to any other sentence the defendant is serving at the time of imposition of sentence. While the imposition of a consecutive sentence is mandatory, the global sentence imposed nonetheless remains subject to the principle of totality, see R. v. Stauffer, 2007 BCCA 7.
55There is no issue that in cases involving a robbery with an imitation firearm, particularly the robbery of a commercial or banking institution, the paramount sentencing objectives are deterrence and denunciation, see R. v. Wolynec, 2015 ONCA 656 at para. 117, R. v. Clarke, 2014 ONCA 296, at para. 18, and R. v. Lewis, 2009 ONCA 792, at para. 3
56In terms of the range of sentence, counsel have filed helpful casebooks. I take significant guidance from the following decisions: R. v. Sheikh-Hussein, 2015 ONSC 3199, R. v. Savard-Cote, 2015 ONSC 7081, R. v. S.A., 2011 ONSC 4165, R. v. Auld, 2024 ONSC 689, R. v. Nembhard, 2010 ONCA 420, and R. v. Breese, 2021 ONSC 1611.
57I also consider the following cases dealing with bank robberies involving imitation firearms: R. v. Marsh, 2008 ONCA 374, where a 6-year sentence was imposed for a bank robbery using an imitation firearm and R. v. Abdi, 2014 ONCA 520 where seven and a half years was imposed for four bank robberies involving an imitation firearm. Lastly, I consider the helpful canvass of authorities and principles set out in R. v. Asif, 2020 ONSC 1403.
58These cases suggest a range of four to eight years for roughly similar offences, though some of the cases were decided at a time when mandatory minimum sentences were in effect. Cases at the higher end of and above this range involve multiple robberies and prior related criminal records. Cases at the lower end of or below this range tend to involve guilty pleas and the presence of significant mitigating circumstances. As always, these cases readily demonstrate the very fact-specific context of the sentencing exercise.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
59I turn next to assessing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case.
60I find the following circumstances to be aggravating:
a. The robbery was violent. The bank tellers and customers were confronted by two disguised robbers carrying what appeared to be real firearms. While the evidence established only that the weapons were imitation firearms, this fact would not have been apparent to anyone inside the bank, particularly those who had the imitation firearm pointed at their face.
b. Apart from the pointing and brandishing of the imitation firearms, at least one victim was told to kneel. At least one victim was told not to make eye contact. The victims were told that “this is no joke” by the first robber. The victims were corralled to a certain area within the bank. These features introduce a degree of physical control, domination and dehumanization to the offence.
c. The robbery was planned and relatively sophisticated. A car was rented. Disguises were used. Gloves were purchased. Two imitation firearms were taken into the bank and brandished. The two robbers inside the bank acted in concert. The rental car was positioned behind the bank ready to make a quick escape. The robbery occurred at a bank branch far from the defendant’s home.
d. The motivation behind the offence is greed, pure and simple. This is not an instance where a person caught in the grips of serious addiction attempts to steal some money by passing a note to a teller. This was a concerted use of significant violence to obtain easy money.
61I find the following facts to be mitigating:
a. Mr. Omar-Godane at the time of these offences had no criminal record. While he has resolved some additional charges incurred since that time, he has not been in any further trouble since his second release on bail almost 4 years ago.
b. Mr. Omar-Godane was 24 years old at the time of the offences. He was a young man from a racialized background, though it does not appear that his racialized background played any role in the commission of the offences. He is now 32 years of age. The offences were committed almost 8 years ago at a low point in his life due to the breakdown of his marriage and the discovery of related infidelity issues. In the intervening time, it appears that Mr. Omar-Godane has matured significantly.
c. His pre-sentence report is very positive. It reveals that there is another side to Mr. Omar-Godane. He comes from a good family. He was raised in a loving and nurturing environment with a heavy emphasis on education and religion. He has maintained employment and is prepared to take further courses to better himself. Importantly, in discussing the case with the writer of the pre-sentence report, he accepted responsibility without making excuses and showed sincere remorse.
d. In his colloquy with the Court, Mr. Omar-Godane spoke very eloquently. He is obviously smart and thoughtful. He accepted full responsibility for his actions. He did not blame others or seek to minimize his conduct by pointing to external factors. He also demonstrated a very high degree of insight into the consequences of his behaviour. Lastly, he expressly and repeatedly apologized to the victims and the victims’ families. His apology, expression of remorse and demonstration of insight appear genuine and not contrived just in time for the sentence hearing. I accept that Mr. Omar-Godane is now older, has grown as a person and deeply regrets his involvement in these offences.
e. Mr. Omar-Godane has very strong family support. He also has an extended peer group who view him positively. As well, he has a track record of volunteer work and employment. In short, he has the support network and functional ability to become an honest, hardworking and productive member of society, assuming that is the path he chooses.
f. The time Mr. Omar-Godane spent in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic, which included a period in isolation after he contracted COVID-19, would have been exceptionally difficult.
g. I also consider the mitigating effect of the lengthy period of time Mr. Omar-Godane has been on house arrest and curfew bail wearing an ankle monitor. Despite the absence of specific evidence on this issue, I am prepared to infer that his liberty has been curtailed for several years. That said, I note that the more restrictive conditions resulted not from these charges but from the charges he incurred following his initial release on bail.
Sentence To Be Imposed
62In my view, when I balance the applicable sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, restraint and totality, consider the aggravating and mitigating factors, and consider the range of sentences supported by the case law, I am satisfied that a global sentence of 5 years is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
63In my view, this is a fit and proportionate sentence which fairly captures the high degree of moral blameworthiness of the offender and the seriousness of the offence. This sentence sends a strong message of denunciation and deterrence but also gives effect to the principle of restraint and Mr. Omar-Godane’s positive rehabilitative prospects as a first-time youthful offender.
64The 5 year global sentence will be reduced by 161 days to account for time served on a 1.5:1 basis.
65This leaves a sentence of 1,664 days from today’s date which equates to approximately 4 years, 6 months and 24 days.
66The sentence will be broken down as follows:
Count 1 – Robbery – 4 ½ years less PTC of 161 days.
Count 2 – Use Imitation Firearm – 6 months or 182 days consecutive.
Count 3 – Wear Disguise – 6 months concurrent.
67I also make the following ancillary orders:
a. A weapons prohibition for life;
b. A DNA order; and
c. A non-communication order with the victims of the offence.
68In view of Mr. Omar-Godane’s personal circumstances as detailed above, I decline to impose the VFS.
J. Di Luca J.
Released: July 21, 2026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
SULEIMAN OMAR-GODANE
Reasons for sentence
J. Di Luca J.
Released: July 21, 2026