R. v. Pichler, 2026 ONSC 4361

CITATION: R. v. Pichler, 2026 ONSC 4361

COURT FILE NO: CR-25-40000369-0000

DATE: 20260727

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ROBERT PICHLER

Anita Singh, for the Crown

Elysia Nocida, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 20 - 21, May 20 - 21, June 5, 17, July 3, and July 20, 2026

RHINELANDER, J.

1On June 5, 2026, I convicted Mr. Pichler of robbery with a firearm that occurred on October 12, 2024, at the 7-11 convenience store located at 372 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.¹ I heard submissions as to sentence last week on July 20, 2026. Mr. Pichler stands before me today for sentencing.

Circumstances of the Offence

2There was no dispute a robbery occurred. The sole issue to be determined was whether Mr. Pichler was responsible for the robbery. The event was captured on security cameras within the store.

3At the time of the robbery, two staff were on duty. One was completing his shift and the other preparing for the night shift. The store is open 24-hours but only offers window service after 11:00 p.m. until the morning.

4Shortly before changing over to window service, Mr. Pichler entered the store carrying a large black duffel style bag with a sleeping bag attached or tied to the top. Once in the store he took a box out of a side pocket of the bag and placed it on the counter. The box was opened and contained an air soft pistol. Mr. Pichler pointed the gun at the store clerk.

5Mr. Pichler obtained approximately $10 in cash, two packages of cigarettes, and requested a cup for a Big Gulp drink. Upon receiving the money and cigarettes, he put the air pistol away, filled his drink and left the store.

6He was arrested not far from the store wearing the same clothing and in possession of the black duffle bag, sleeping roll, air soft pistol, and $10 in cash.

7The robber was known to one of the store clerks as a regular customer who frequently ordered hot food, specifically wings, from the service window and had been served several times earlier that week.

Victim Impact Statements

8Neither store clerk wished to make a victim impact statement. The Crown asked the Court to consider their evidence at trial. It is clear the events of that night had an impact on each of the individuals as well as members of the public who were in the store.

9One clerk testified he was so shaken by the incident he took a cab home for his personal safety. He did not return to work the following day and subsequently quit that job. He went out west to stay with family for a few weeks before returning to Toronto. He has not forgotten the incident.

Circumstances of Mr. Pichler

10Mr. Pichler is a 45-year-old Canadian citizen who was born in Toronto and spent his younger years between Ottawa and Toronto. He is single and has no dependents.

11Mr. Pichler was raised by his parents. He has one sibling, a brother. He had difficulties in his family relationship and does not remember the last time he has seen his family. No further information was provided aside from their disconnect.

12I am told Mr. Pichler had a difficult upbringing and that his parents had their own personal struggles. Mr. Pichler was familiar with physical abuse in the home.

13Mr. Pichler completed grade ten and did not return to school after that. He left home in his late teens. Mr. Pichler has worked in the past including in construction. However, since his interactions with the criminal justice system, it has made it difficult to secure employment.

14Prior to his arrest, Mr. Pichler had been receiving ODSP for the past ten years. Despite receiving this assistance, Mr. Pichler has been unhoused for approximately 25 years.

15Mr. Pichler began experimenting with drugs as a teenager. He is addicted to crack cocaine which he started using when he was 15 years old. He was using at the time of this offence.

16Counsel advised Mr. Pichler has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, however, he does not fully agree with that diagnosis. He is currently taking Olanzapine which is an antipsychotic medication primarily used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and acute agitation.

17Mr. Pichler has also been diagnosed with ADHD and has not received his prescription since being in custody.

18Mr. Pichler has a criminal record that includes several convictions for property related offences, breaches of court orders, weapons offences, and assaults. He has acknowledged his addictions and how it has impacted his life including the days leading up to this offence.

19Mr. Pichler was unhoused at the time of this incident and wanted an opportunity to clean up and get off the drugs. He felt someone was trying to kill him. The drugs impacted his taste buds such that everything tasted terrible. Mr. Pichler hoped by going into custody he would be able to get help and get healthy.

Position of the Parties

20The Crown and Defence are agreed that a sentence of four years is appropriate for this offence. They disagree on what credit should be given to Mr. Pichler for his pre-sentence custody. Mr. Pichler has been in custody since the date of his arrest on October 12, 2024.

21The Crown proposed a sentence of four years less credit of 653 days with credit of 1.5 to 1 for his pre-sentence custody pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. This would leave a sentence of 480 days (15.75 months) to be served. Any additional mitigating factors that may arise from his pre-sentence custody should not be factored into the sentence itself and were considered by the Crown in arriving at the joint position.

22The Defence argued the Court should consider the harsh conditions of Mr. Pichler’s presentence custody as further mitigation when determining what credit should be apportioned including 518 days in close confinement. At the very least, counsel argued the close confinement must be considered by the court in determining a fair and just sentence, whether it is reduced as Duncan² credit or considered a mitigating factor, it can not be ignored.

Applicable Principles of Sentencing

23The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society; to ensure respect for the law; and to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A just sentence meets the goals of deterrence, denunciation, retribution, rehabilitation, and protection of society.

24In arriving at a just sentence, the Court must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors unique to each case. Sentencing is a highly individualized process, and each case must turn on its own specific facts. Individualization is central to the assessment of proportionality as it requires a focus on the individual circumstances of the offender: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 12; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58.

25I have considered the principles of sentencing as set out in Section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (the “Criminal Code”) and am cognizant of the goals of parity, consistency, and fairness in applying those principles.

26Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Pichler’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the offence he committed.

27In this case, I find that denunciation and deterrence are key principles which factor into the sentencing of Mr. Pichler. Having said that, I must consider all the goals of sentencing, including rehabilitation and restraint. Restraint is codified in section 718.2(d) and means that a sentencing court should seek to impose the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum that will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 96.

28Counsel have provided the court with several authorities to assist in determining the appropriate sentence and factors to consider when examining the presentence time in custody of Mr. Pichler. I have reviewed the authorities provided and it assists me in determining a sentence that is both proportionate to the harm inflicted and the gravity of the conduct.

29Each case is unique and while the court must consider parity in sentencing, no two cases are exactly alike. I must consider the particular facts in this case, along with the mitigating and aggravating factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

30I find the following to be aggravating in this case:

• Mr. Pichler’s prior criminal antecedents;

• Mr. Pichler was only out of custody for 5 days prior to this offence; and

• Mr. Pichler’s drug addiction; which is both an aggravating and mitigating factor; it is aggravating because he has not taken steps to address this serious problem.

31In R. v. Itil, 2019 ONSC 6532 at para. 30, MacDonnell, J. commented on the vulnerabilities of persons who work alone, late at night in convenience stores and are subjected to frightening and potentially life-threatening behaviour.

32Mitigating factors in this case include:

• Mr. Pichler’s mental health diagnosis;

• Mr. Pichler’s drug addiction; and

• The harsh conditions of confinement Mr. Pichler was subjected to during his pre‑sentence custody.

Credit for Presentence Custody

33It is agreed that Mr. Pichler should be given credit for the 653 days he has spent in pre_‑sentence custody, pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and Summers.

34By my calculation, this means Mr. Pichler must be credited with having already served a sentence of 979.5 days (or 32 months and 20 days).

35Counsel for Mr. Pichler argued he should receive additional credit to account for the harsh “lockdown” conditions he experienced while detained pending trial and sentence.

36According to the materials filed on the sentencing hearing, Mr. Pichler was subjected to 27 days of lockdown between October 12, 2024, and February 25, 2025. Of these 27 days, 15 were full day lockdowns and 12 were partial. The reasons for the lockdowns for all but three lockdowns were “staff shortages”. Further, from February 25, 2025, to the present, Mr. Pichler has been in close confinement. This is a total of 518 days or 17 months.

37Counsel confirmed with the institution that close confinement means Mr. Pichler is confined to his cell each day except for two two-hour windows per week. Therefore, Mr. Pichler is only permitted out of his cell with interaction with others for less than four hours a week when you consider this time is also allotted for personal hygiene such as showers. The Crown does not contest this.

38During the lockdowns that preceded the close confinement, Mr. Pichler and others on his range would have had reduced access to phone calls, showers, and outside time. An affidavit was not filed on his behalf; however, I am prepared to accept these conditions would have an adverse effect on Mr. Pichler, especially with his mental health issues.

39The Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized in Duncan, at para. 6, that credit in relation to pre-sentence incarceration is not “capped” at the statutory limit of 1½ days for each day of pre-sentence custody in s. 719(3.1) of the Code, but rather may, in appropriate circumstances, include additional credit for “particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions.” Further, the court in Duncan noted that, in considering whether any enhanced credit should be given for such conditions, the sentencing court should “consider both the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.” Further, the court suggested that where an accused has served a significant part of his or her pre-sentence incarceration in “lockdown” conditions, which had an “adverse effect” on the accused, such additional credit will be appropriate. See also: R. v. Henry, 2016 ONCA 873, [2016] O.J. No. 5897, para. 9; R. v. Borsi, 2019 ONCA 989; R. v. Rajmoolie, 2020 ONCA 791, 155 O.R. (3d) 64; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, paras. 40-53; R. v. Peti, 2025 ONCA 536.

40In Marshall, at para. 52, the Ontario Court of Appeal for Ontario explained that Duncan credit is “not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence.” In assessing these factors, it approved courts looking at the institutional records since “we are now charged with determining an appropriate sentence and, in doing so, we must consider whether a Duncan credit is appropriate.”: R. v. Bristol, 2021 ONCA 599, para. 11.

41In R. v. K.P., 2025 ONSC 3286, at paras. 42 to 45, Mandhane, J. reviewed baseline standards set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (“Mandela Rules”): UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules): resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 8 January 2016, A/RES/70/175.

42At para. 45, Mandhane, J. found keeping an offender in solitary confinement because of mental health issues constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Mandela Rules prohibit solitary confinement of prisoners with mental disabilities, and indefinite or prolonged confinement beyond fifteen consecutive days: Rules 43, 44, 45(2). Here, Mr. Pichler was kept in close confinement for 518 consecutive days.

43The harsh conditions of being held in close confinement for over seventeen months must be considered when determining an appropriate sentence. Although, a four-year sentence is fair and within the range for this offence, when I consider the mitigating factors and balance this with the aggravating factors, I have determined a sentence of three years is appropriate. It reflects general deterrence for the offence committed but also recognizes the deplorable and inhumane conditions Mr. Pichler has been housed in for the past 17 months.

Disposition

44Having regard to all the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the principles of sentencing, a fit sentence in this case is 3 years.

45Mr. Pichler has spent 653 days in custody since October 12, 2024 (21.5 months). Enhanced credit at 1.5 days for each day in custody pursuant to Summers, is 979.5 days rounded up to 980 days. The time served to date will reduce Mr. Pichler’s sentence and leave 115 days to serve.

46Mr. Pichler will also be placed on probation for a period of two years. In addition to the statutory conditions, Mr. Pichler is ordered:

• Not to attend at the 7-11 located at 372 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.

• Participate in any counselling or treatment programs as directed by the probation officer.

47The following ancillary orders will be imposed:

(i) an order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. Robbery is a primary designated offence pursuant to the Criminal Code;

(ii) an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Pichler from possessing any firearms, ammunition, and other weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life; and

(iii) an order forfeiting the airsoft pistol.

Justice C. Rhinelander

RELEASED: July 27, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Pichler, 2026 ONSC 4361

Footnotes

1. 12026 ONSC 3333
2. 2R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754