CITATION: R. v. Burris, 2026 ONSC 4457
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-30000643-0000/CR-26-30000115-0000
DATE: 20260730
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
DELROY BURRIS
Benjamin Snow, for the Crown
Anita Nathan, for Mr. Burris
HEARD: June 26, 2026
REASONS ON SENTENCE
R. MAXWELL J.
[1] On February 27, 2026, a jury found Mr. Burris guilty of two counts of robbery and one count of possession of property obtained by crime. He appeared before me on June 26, 2026 for sentencing.
I. Circumstances of the Offences
[2] Section 724(3) of the Criminal Code provides that, where the accused is tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, the court may accept as proved, any information disclosed at the trial or at the sentencing proceedings and shall accept, as proven, all facts express or implied that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilt.
[3] Based on the evidence on the trial, I accept the following as the relevant facts for determining the appropriate sentence in this case.
[4] On January 17, 2024 at approximately 6:30pm, Mr. Burris, together with Jahquan Jones and an unknown male robbed the Buy and Sell Kings, a jewelry store in Scarborough. The robbery began by an accomplice, Jahquoy Johnson Jones surveilling the interior of the store for 10 minutes while communicating with his accomplices by phone. After a period of time, Jahquoy Johnson Jones exited the store as Mr. Burris and Jahquan Jones entered.
[5] Using a hammer, Mr. Burris smashed the glass display case and removed jewelry from the case, placing it in his backpack. Mr. Jones also grabbed jewelry from the case.
[6] I accept the evidence of the shop keeper, Arunkumar Gnansekaram that he was scared and pushed an alarm in an attempt to scare the men off, but they continued to smash display cases. I accept the evidence of Anthony Fernando that the jewelry taken was valued at over $100,0000.
[7] The two then left the store, fleeing in a car. The group drove to an LCBO then to Jahquan Jones’ apartment.
[8] Mr. Burris and Jahquan Jones committed a second robbery about a week later, on January 24, 2024. At approximately 4:30pm, as they did in the first robbery, Jahquoy Johnson Jones entered Buster’s Pawn Shop in Scarborough and walked around for a few minutes, intermittently speaking on his phone. As he exited the store, Mr. Burris and Jahquan Jones entered. Mr. Jones confronted the storekeeper, Mr. Ian Griffith, gesturing with his hand to his waist to suggest he was armed while telling him not to move. Mr. Burris used a hammer to break the glass display cases removing all of the jewelry and packing it into a backpack.
[9] I accept the evidence of Mr. Griffith that this was his first experience of being robbed and that he was scared. There was a customer in the store, who remained still during the robbery. I accept Mr. Griffith’s evidence that Mr. Burris and Mr. Jones took all of his jewelry, which was high-value appraised jewelry and that he suffered a loss of $400,000. The owner of the business was not able to recover financially and was forced to permanently close the store after the robbery.
[10] I find as a fact that on February 2, 2024, Jahquan Jones and Mr. Burris attended a jewelry exchange market where Mr. Jones exchanged some of the stolen jewelry for $2400 in cash and then left the area with Mr. Burris.
[11] On February 6, 2024, the police executed a search warrant on an address where Mr. Burris was staying. In a bedroom, the police located an Apple iPhone case containing two clear plastic bags containing numerous rings from the Buy and Sell Kings and Buster’s Pawn Shop. Additional rings from the robberies were located on the dresser.
II. Position of the Parties
[12] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Snow seeks a global sentence of 5 years on the two counts of robbery. He seeks a sentence on count 1 of 3 years less pre-sentence custody of 163 days, or the equivalent of 245 days after applying enhanced credit pursuant to R. v. Summers, [2014] SCR 575, 2014 SCC 26. On count 2, Mr. Snow seeks a sentence of 2 years imprisonment to be served consecutively to count 1. He invites a conditional stay of proceedings on the conviction of possession of property obtained by crime pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729.. He also seeks a mandatory DNA order, a forfeiture order, a non-contact order with the other parties and the victims of the robberies pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code, and a s. 109 order for life.
[13] On behalf of Mr. Burris, Ms. Nathan argues that after considering all the relevant mitigating factors, including Mr. Burris’ status as a youthful black man with no criminal record and strong rehabilitative prospects, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, [2016] CarswellOnt 15975), strict bail conditions (R. v. Downes, (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.), and other collateral considerations, the passing of sentence should be suspended, with Mr. Burris’ pre-sentence custody apportioned equally between the two counts of robbery, with a period of probation of 2-3 years to follow. She is not opposed to any of the ancillary orders requested. In the alternative, she submits that if additional custody is required, it should not exceed six months, in light of potential immigration consequences for Mr. Burris. She asks that Mr. Burris be permitted to serve any additional custody as a conditional sentence.
III. Circumstances of the Offender
[14] Materials were filed on behalf of Mr. Burris on the sentencing hearing which provide some insight into Mr. Burris’ life. The material filed included:
Letters of support from Mr. Burris’ parents and sister, common-law partner, his ex-partner, and a close friend;
A letter from a prospective employer;
A letter confirming Mr. Burris’ participation in a program called Urban Rez Solutions Social Enterprise;
Records from the Toronto South Detention Centre reflecting periods of partial and full lockdown at the jail during Mr. Burris’ incarceration from February 26 until today;
An affidavit from Mr. Burris addressing the impact of the conditions of his pre-sentence incarceration on his wellbeing and his ability to access resources;
A letter from a landlord confirming that housing is available for Mr. Burris to rent immediately.
[15] Mr. Burris was 23 years old at the time of the offences. He is now 25 years old. Mr. Burris is a black man, born and raised in Jamaica with his mother and sister. His father left Jamaica for Canada when Mr. Burris was a young boy, due to security concerns related to his job as a police officer. Mr. Burris had a close relationship with his father as a child and his abrupt departure took an emotional toll on him. As a child he grew up wishing to emulate his father and become a police officer as well. After his father left Jamaica, he saw him only once or twice a year.
[16] His mother immigrated to the United States when he was 12 or 13 years old. He remained in Jamaica with family until the age of 19. Mr. Burris graduated from high school in Jamaica and completed an apprenticeship in construction and electrical work from 2017 to 2019.
[17] In 2020, his father sponsored him to come to Canada. He initially lived with his father in Cananda, but an issue arose and his father would not allow him to continue to live with him. His relationship with his father has been “on and off” since that time. He only started speaking to his father again after he was charged with these offences.
[18] After leaving his father’s home, an employer assisted him in paying for his housing for a period of time. Thereafter, he lived with a family friend in Etobicoke or with his then girlfriend.
[19] Mr. Burris completed an apprenticeship in cabling from March to December of 2020 and has worked intermittently in construction, electronic cabling, and general labour. There have been times when he has worked two fulltime jobs at the same time, one in the daytime and one in the evening. There have also been times when he has been between jobs, particularly when the construction work slows down in the winter. He worked for a few months off and on while on bail for two years. Through counsel, he stated that he was unable to sustain work because of the curfew condition in his bail. A letter from his prospective employer suggests that he will have work in temporary labour once he is released. He had a prospect of resuming his work at a movie theater, a job he previously had and which was arranged through his aunt but he was unable to arrange transportation to the theatre and that employment ended.
[20] Mr. Burris has children who he supports. He has a 4-year-old son and a 9-year-old stepdaughter who live in Jamaica and who he keeps in contact with, although he has not returned to Jamaica since the birth of his son. He also has a 3-year-old daughter who lives in Canada. Prior to his incarceration, he helped with childcare. His ability to see his children while he was on bail was limited by the curfew condition. He has been unable to see his children since he was incarcerated following his trial. Mr. Burris hopes to continue to work in construction to support his family and save money and start a business with his father.
[21] Mr. Burris enjoys a close and supportive relationship with his mother and sister. He has seen his mother only a few times since immigrating to Canada but speaks with her over the phone and through text messages regularly. He also keeps in regular phone and text contact with his sister. Mr. Burris attempted to shelter his mother from his feelings of isolation after moving to Canada and being unable to see family because he did not want her to feel guilty for leaving.
[22] Letters filed by his family members and friends reflect that he has a support system to encourage a more stable and productive life when he is released. His mother Brendalyn describes Mr. Burris as a caring and compassionate person who supports his family and friends. His father Delroy Sylvester described him as hardworking, loving and reliable. His sister Chantol expressed similar observations about her brother as a family-oriented person who occupies an important role in their lives. Maria Wright, the mother of two of Mr. Burris’ children spoke of his commitment to his children, despite the fact that they live in Jamaica. He speaks with them on the phone multiple times a week. She relies on Mr. Burris’ financial support, as she is unemployed. His current partner, Shanaloy Cowan, expressed that Mr. Burris’ association with Jahquan Jones was a significant contributing factor to his involvement in criminal activity and that, through programming received through the Toronto South Detention Centre, he has gained important insight and focus on transforming his life. His friend and surety Karim Jones also spoke very positively of Mr. Burris. All expressed that the crimes he has committed do not reflect his true character.
[23] His sister expressed a view that Mr. Burris’ lifestyle was quite different before meeting Mr. Jones and that Mr. Jones was a very negative influence on his life. He was also living in an environment of violence, losing a close cousin and two friends to gun violence.
[24] Mr. Burris had no criminal record or outstanding charges at the time of these offences.
IV. Analysis
A. Principles of Sentencing
[25] I begin with the most fundamental principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code.
[26] The overriding purpose of sentencing is to encourage respect for the law and the maintenance of a “just, peaceful and safe society”. This will be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions which have one or more of several objectives enumerated in s. 718(a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.
[27] As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58, the individualization of the sentencing process means that these objectives will not necessarily point to the same sentencing disposition. Sentencing judges need to prioritize and blend different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
[28] Section 718.1 provides that the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence I impose must reflect the circumstances of the offence and the attributes of the individual responsible for the crime: see also R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 391 C.C.C. (3d) 309, at para. 30.
[29] Further, a court must impose a sentence taking into consideration the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
[30] The principle of totality is an important component of the principle of proportionality. In a case where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. The court is required to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate sentence is just and appropriate: R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, at paras. 16-17.
[31] As the Court of Appeal for Ontario set out in R. v. Jewel, 1995 CanLII 1897 at para 27, when sentencing on multiple offences, the court must first identify the gravamen of the conduct giving rise to all of the criminal offences then determine the total sentence to be imposed. Once the appropriate total sentence has been determined, the court should impose sentence with respect to each offence which result in the total sentence and which appropriately reflect the gravamen of the overall criminal conduct.
[32] Because Mr. Burris is a youthful first-time offender, the principle of restraint is also important. The sentence imposed on a youthful first time offender must reflect the principles codified in sections 718.2(d) and 718.2(e) of the Code, requiring the court to: (1) avoid imprisoning young adults when possible; (2) make the sentence as short as possible to achieve the principles and objectives of sentencing when imprisonment is necessary; (3) prioritized rehabilitation and specific deterrence, as the paramount sentencing objectives; (4) avoid focusing exclusively on denunciation and general deterrence or elevate those objectives above rehabilitation and specific deterrence; (5) consider young adults’ reduced moral culpability and the harsher impact that incarceration causes them due to their stage of life: R. v. Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), at pp. 9-12; R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at para. 31.
[33] Given the high rehabilitative prospects of first-time youthful offenders and the potentially negative impact imprisonment can have on a youthful person by “hardening young defendants into an anti-social path”, the Court must take care to properly apply the principles of rehabilitation, restraint, and specific deterrence. The reasons must make clear why a term of imprisonment is required for a first-time offender: Habib, at paras. 32-36.
B. The Range of Sentence for Robbery
[34] Sentences for robbery vary greatly, depending on the circumstances in which the crime took place. Absent a firearm, the offence of robbery does not carry a minimum sentence: Criminal Code, s. 344. Without the use of a firearm, the offence of robbery carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment: Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a), (a.1) and (b).
[35] It is well-recognized that employees of small commercial businesses like variety stores and gas stations, which are open late, often have only one employee working and are especially vulnerable to robbery: R. v. Lewis, 2009 ONCA 792, at para. 3; R. v. Asif, [2020] O.J. No. 10150 (ONSC), at para. 40; R. v. Edusei, [2020] O.J. No. 3447, 2020 ONSC 4856, at para. 45; R. v. Nouri 2015 ONSC 116, at para. 33; R. v. Mitsaki, 2022 ONSC 5390, [2022] O.J. No. 4224, at para. 24. I see the employees of pawn shops and small stand-alone jewelry stores to be similarly vulnerable. They often work alone and are susceptible to robberies due to their high-value inventory and the ease with which it can be stolen. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Lewis stated, at para. 3 that such robberies, involving vulnerable employees, “will attract heavy sentences.
[36] In support of her position for a shorter, sharp sentence, Ms. Nathan referred me to the following cases:
[37] R. v. Brown, 2013 ONSC 7910: Three accused (Mr. Brown, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Elvie) were convicted after trial of two counts of robbery. Two men were robbed by 6-8 men while in their hotel room. Wynn was sentenced to 90 days in jail, together with a penitentiary sentence for firearm offences in Quebec. He was 22 years old at the time of the offences, had no criminal record, was a father to three children. Elvie was 24 years old at the time of the offence, he had a criminal record for firearm possession in a motor vehicle, and he was the father of two children. He received a four-month conditional sentence. Aggravating factors included that the defendants were part of a larger group of robbers, the robbery had similarities to a home invasion and the complainants were held against their will. Attenuating the seriousness of the offence were the fact that no real or imitation weapon was used, the accused did not wear masks, and there was no violence.
[38] R. v. Panchan, 2013 ONSC 5567: the accused was found guilty after trial of robbery and aggravated assault. Ms. Panchan aided the two co-principals. She had lesser culpability than the two co-principals. Both Ms. Panchan and one co-accused were youthful first-time offenders with good rehabilitative prospects. The court sentenced Ms. Panchan to 90 days imprisonment, reduced to forty-five days on account of the mitigating effect of delay. She was permitted to serve the sentence on weekends. Her co-accused was sentenced to 12 months which was reduced to six months in light of the mitigating effect of delay, to be served intermittently.
[39] In support of her alternative position for a conditional sentence, Ms. Nathan referred me to the following cases:
[40] R. v. Arsenault, 2006 CanLII 34406: the accused robbed a bank using a note. The threat of violence was implied. The accused had no criminal record and a favourable pre-sentence report. The accused was sentenced to 15 months incarceration, which was varied on appeal to a 15-month conditional sentence, having regard for the above-noted factors.
[41] R. v. McLean, 2013 ONSC 6270: The accused pled guilty to robbery and possession of an imitation firearm used in the commission of an offence and assault causing bodily harm. The accused robbed a mobile phone store, disguised and armed with an imitation firearm. He assaulted two employees of the store during a struggle. The accused was 21 years old at the time of the offences and was a first-time offender. At the time of sentencing, he was 25 years old. He had a difficult upbringing. He worked during his time on bail. He had been associating with a negative peer group at the time of the offences. He was sentenced to a conditional sentence of 2 years less 1 day, reduced to 1 year after for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.
[42] R. v. Ngabirano, 2023 ONSC 1706: The accused attempted a carjacking with two others. He first attempted to steal a car by holding a gun-shaped plastic tool and pressing it against the victim’s stomach while demanding her keys. He and the others wore dark hoodies. The victim screamed and they ran off. They then boarded an Uber and stole the car from the driver. The accused held a gun-shaped plastic tool during the robbery. The driver’s cell phone was also stolen. The accused was 18 years old at the time and had no criminal record. He had a positive pre-sentence report and the sentencing judge held that the accused had already begun rehabilitation. There were potential immigration consequences if he were to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than six months. The accused pled guilty. He was sentenced to three months in jail followed by a conditional sentence of 21 months less one day.
[43] The Crown Mr. Snow referred me to a number of cases in support of his position that a penitentiary sentence in the range of 5 years is a fit sentence.
[44] R. v. Nourie, [2015] O.J. No. 49, 2015 ONSC 116, at para. 39: Ms. Nourie was not present for the robbery but was central to planning the robbery, she drove the accomplices to the location, and she was involved in post-offence conduct. She was a first-time offender with children. She expressed remorse. She was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment after trial.
[45] R. v. Levin, [2016] O.J. No. 6141, 2016 ONSC 6954: the accused and two accomplices entered a jewelry store in a mall, masked. One of the accused’s associates pried open the jewelry cases while the accused scooped up the jewelry. The associate pulled out a gun and placed it on a stool while he assisted in clearing out the display cases. The associate pled guilty and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The getaway driver who did not enter the store pled guilty and received a sentence of two years and four months imprisonment. The accused was 21 years old at the time of the offences. He had weak employment history. He had no criminal record. He expressed some remorse. He was sentenced to three-year custodial term, less credit of seven months for pre-sentence custody and bail restrictions.
[46] R v. Simpson, [2022] O.J. No. 5276, 2022 ONSC 6396: the accused, who was of Indigenous background, pled guilty to robbery of a jewelry store while armed with a sledgehammer and possession of a restricted weapon. Two accomplices entered the store, broke open display cases using the sledgehammer, then removed jewelry valued at over $500,000. The accused met his accomplices after the robbery with a van to facilitate their escape. A search of an address resulted in the recovery of a firearm with no magazine. The accused had a criminal record, although not extensive. Taking into account the mitigating factors of the accused’s plea and Gladue factors, and having regard for the sentence imposed on his co-accused who was more directly involved in the robbery (a sentence of 4 ½ years less pre-sentence custody credit), the accused was sentenced to four years in custody for his role in the robbery and a one-year consecutive jail term for possession of a restricted weapon.
[47] R. v. Ireland, [2021] O.J. No. 1448, 2021 ONCJ 159: the accused pled guilty to robbery. The accused and his accomplice entered a jewelry store, smashed display cases with a hammer, and stole jewelry valued at over $500,000. The accused was a 27-year-old first time offender and a registered member of the Chippewa of the Thames First Nation. He had a difficulty upbringing but maintained gainful employment as an adult to support his family. He was sentenced to 38 months imprisonment.
[48] Of the cases referred to, I find that the decisions of Levin and Ireland provide the greatest guidance in this case given the similarities in circumstances of the offence and, to some degree, the offenders. In addition, I have also considered two additional decisions.
[49] R. v. Edusei, 2020 ONSC 4856: the accused and his accomplice robbed two convenience stores. Mr. Edusei was found guilty after a trial. In the first robbery, the accused’s accomplice brandished a knife to threaten the employee while the accused ransacked the store and emptied the cash register. Both were wearing masks. In the second robbery, the accused emptied the cash register while his accomplice took trays of lottery tickets. Both were masked. The accused suggested he had a weapon under his clothing. Mr. Edusei was 20 years old at the time of the offences. He had a lengthy youth and criminal record for related offences. He had a challenging childhood. He was sentenced to two years on each robbery, to be served consecutively, for a total term of imprisonment of 4 years (Mr. Edusei was convicted of other offences arising out of the robberies, which attracted terms of imprisonment which ran concurrently to the sentences for the robberies).
[50] R. v. H.A., [2020] O.J. No. 1074 (Ont. S.C.): the accused was found guilty after trial of multiple counts of robbery and attempted robbery using an imitation firearm. Two counts related to an attempted robbery of a convenience store where H.A.’s accomplice pointed what appeared to be a firearm. No property was taken. Two other counts related to a robbery of a convenience store in which H.A.’s accomplice pointed what appeared to be a firearm. Money and cigars were stolen. Two further counts involved a robbery at a convenience store in which money and cigars were taken. H.A.’s accomplice pointed what appeared to be a firearm. A final charge, for which H.A. entered a plea of guilt, related to a robbery of a bank where H.A.’s accomplice brandished a BB gun. They stole $1000. In all instances, H.A. and his accomplice were masked. H.A. was 18 years old at the time of the offences and a first-time offender. He had an addiction to drugs. He had positive supports in the community. The Court sentenced H.A. to 4.5 years in custody less pre-sentence custody credited at just under 3 years.
C. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[51] There are a number of aggravating factors in this case.
[52] As noted above, the fact that these were small independent jewelry stores is an aggravating factor, as is the fact that the offences were carefully planned, as reflected by the fact that the perpetrators followed a pattern in both robberies, using the same modus operandi in each. In the case of one of the robberies, the perpetrators intimated that one was armed. In both instances, the losses to the stores were very significant. While some property was recovered, substantial amounts were not. This was not an impetuous or one-off incident. These were targeted and planned robberies.
[53] I would also note that Mr. Burris’ role in the robberies was not peripheral or secondary in nature. He was a co-principal – a central player in the execution of the robberies. He participated directly in breaking the cases and taking the property. Further, these crimes were committed purely for financial gain. As such, his moral blameworthiness is high. While I accept that his moral blameworthiness for his conduct is somewhat attenuated by his personal circumstances growing up as a young black man with limited opportunities once he came to Canada and some difficult family circumstances in his early years, his moral blameworthiness for these crimes remains high.
[54] Second, there was emotional and psychological impact on the victims. This was a frightening incident. The manner in which the robberies were carried out would have been very shocking and scary for the employees who were present.
[55] Third, the perpetrators were masked or disguised, which can only be said to be done for the purpose of defeating the security system.
[56] In mitigation, Mr. Burris comes before the court as a first-time offender. Secondly, at 22 years of age, he was youthful at the time of the commission of the offences. Even where it is clear that a significant sentence is appropriate and necessary, it is important and necessary to keep in mind Mr. Burris’ relative youthfulness at the time of the offences. Any sentence I impose must still leave open the pathway for him to move forward and onward with his life in a pro-social way.
[57] Third, Mr. Burris has support from his family and community and has good rehabilitative prospects. The letters make clear that his family intends to support him when he returns to the community. He has a work history and a desire to continue to work once he has been released. Mr. Burris’ past employer, Garnet Callaghan, provided a letter confirming that Mr. Burris has a standing offer of employment as a laborer with his company. He has an address where he can live upon his release. I accept that, given his age, lack of a criminal record, and the supports he appears to have within his family and community, he has good rehabilitative prospects.
[58] The absence of a guilty plea is not an aggravating circumstance, but rather, reflects the absence of a mitigating circumstance.
[59] I place little weight on Mr. Burris’ expression of remorse during the sentencing hearing. Based on the outcome of the trial, it can be inferred that the jury rejected Mr. Burris’ evidence that he had no involvement in the robberies and that there was a non-culpable explanation for his association to those involved in the robberies and the jewelry which was located at the place where he was living. As such, very little weight can be attached to Mr. Burris’ expression of remorse, which comes now that he is facing sentence and having attempted to mislead the jury about his role.
D. Punitive Pretrial Incarceration Conditions (“Duncan Credit”)
[60] Mr. Burris has spent 163 days in presentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
[61] It is well established that "[p]articularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 52. This is often referred to as "Duncan" credit after the decision in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.
[62] The substandard conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre are notorious: R. v. Powell, 2020 ONCA 743, 153 O.R. (3d) 455, at para. 30; R. v. Doyle, 2022 ONSC 2489, at paras. 54-58; R. v. Donison, 2022 ONSC 741, at para. 58; R. v. McLaughlin, 2020 ONCJ 566, at paras. 37-39; R. v. Dewsome, 2019 ONCJ 444, at para. 56; R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800, at para. 39. I accept that Mr. Burris was not exempted from the impact of the conditions. The parties are in agreement that Mr. Burris was subject to lockdowns and that it would have been particularly difficult for him as he had not spent time in custody prior to his arrest on these charges. He is entitled to some mitigation for the time he has spent in difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.
E. Immigration Consequences
[63] I have not been provided with any evidence of Mr. Burris’ immigration status or his jeopardy as it relates to potential deportation or a removal order. I am advised that he is a permanent resident. The likelihood of a removal order is, at this point, speculative. I do accept however, as a matter of law, that a sentence in excess of 6 months would have implications on Mr. Burris’ ability to appeal a removal order. However, as is clear from the caselaw, immigration consequences cannot justify a departure from what would be a fit sentence.
F. Impact of Incarceration on Mr. Burris’ Children/Family
[64] I accept that incarceration will have an impact on Mr. Burris’ ability to see his children. However, it must be observed that he has never seen his younger child who lives in Jamaica and has had limited opportunities to see either of his children in Jamaica since living in Toronto. He has also had limited opportunities to see his child in Toronto due to distance and a lack of a car. Therefore, while these are relevant considerations, the impact of this factor is attenuated given what Mr. Burris’s circumstances were at the time, in terms of accessing his children. I do accept though that incarceration will impact on his ability to see his child in Toronto and may limited his contact with his children to phone contact.
[65] Similarly, Mr. Burris will be unable to contribute financially to his family while he is in custody. However, as he indicated, he was limited in his ability to work at the time of the offences due to transportation issues and further worked only periodically when he was on bail for two years. The impact of incarceration, therefore, is somewhat attenuated based on the fact that Mr. Burris’ ability to earn money was already limited for most of his more recent years.
G. Onerous Bail Conditions (“Downes credit”)
[66] Mr. Burris also asks that I consider, as mitigating on sentence, the fact that he spent a lengthy period of time on bail subject to a curfew of 6pm to 7am. Mr. Burris was on bail from February 12 to March 6, 2024 when a surety warrant resulted in his re-incarceration. He was released again on March 22, 2024 and remained on bail until the jury returned with its verdict on February 27, 2026.
[67] Time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions should be taken into account on sentencing: R. v. Downes, [2023] 1 SCR 277, 2023 SCC 6.
[68] There has been no evidence filed as to the impact of the onerous bail conditions on Mr. Burris. Ms. Nathan in submissions advised that the curfew is the reason (at least in part) Mr. Burris was unable to work more steadily during his time on bail and impacted his ability to see his children more often. I am prepared to accept that Mr. Burris’ curfew had some impact on his ability to work and see his children and made his period on bail somewhat onerous. I do not place great weight on this factor however, given that it was not a house arrest and Mr. Burris could have requested a variation, but never did. Indeed, when he eventually did seek a variation to the curfew term, the Crown consented. It is also unclear why the curfew would have prevented him from working in labour jobs as he had before.
V. The Appropriate Sentence
[69] Having balanced the gravity of the offence (which I consider to be high), the degree of moral responsibility of the accused (which I consider to be high), and the mitigating factors, I conclude that a fit and appropriate sentence that satisfies the principles of denunciation, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and which has regard for the principles of restraint and totality is a sentence of 3 ½ years in custody or 42 months.
[70] The sentence suggested by the Defence is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender. Nor, in my view, would a sentence of less than 2 years be a fit sentence in all of the circumstances.
[71] Mr. Burris will be given credit for his pre-sentence custody of 164 days, with credit for this at the usual rate, bringing his pre-sentence custody credit of 245 days, pursuant to Summers.
[72] For all of these reasons, Mr. Burris is sentenced as follows:
Count 1 - 24 months less pre-sentence custody of 245 days, or 8 months, leaving a remaining sentence of 16 months;
Count 2 – 18 months consecutive to the sentence on Count 1;
Count 3 – conditional stay of proceedings.
[73] The total remaining sentence to be served is therefore 34 months. The remaining count of possession of property obtained by crime will be conditionally stayed.
[74] There will be a number of ancillary orders.
[75] I make an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Burris from possessing any firearms, ammunition, and other weapons as defined by the Code for 10 years. I have considered the Crown’s request that the order be made for life, however given that Mr. Burris has no criminal record and this will be the first order of its kind for him, in my view, a 10-year term for the s. 109 order is appropriate.
[76] There will be an order under s. 487.051 of the Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. The offence of robbery is a primary designated offence.
[77] I will also sign a forfeiture order, forfeiting the property seized by the police, subject to an exception for any property that rightfully belongs to Mr. Burris, as set out in the order.
[78] Finally, there will be a non-contact order under s. 743.21 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Burris from contacting the following people, directly or indirectly, while he is in custody: Jahquan Jones; Jahquoy Jonhson Jones; Ian Griffith; Arunkumar Gnansekaram and Anthony Fernando.
________________________
Justice R. Maxwell
Released: July 30, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Burris, 2026 ONSC 4457
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-30000643-0000/CR-26-30000115-0000
DATE: 20260730
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
DELROY BURRIS
REASONS ON SENTENCE
Justice R. Maxwell
Released: July 30, 2026