Canada Case Law

R. v. McQuarrie

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Balancing denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public with rehabilitation, the court imposed 8 years 6 months (rounded to 3,100 days) on the robbery conviction, granted a conditional stay on the assault (Kienapple), credited pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1 (948 days served = 1,422 days credit) leaving 1,678 days to be served; imposed DNA sampling authorization, lifetime weapons prohibition and a no-contact order while in custody.

Source excerpt

• Robbery
• Assault with a weapon
• Kienapple principle (conditional stay)
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Victim vulnerability
• Weapons prohibition

Read case analysis

R. v. Francois

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Augustus Francois’s sentence appeal for robbery and attempted robbery, holding the sentence was fit and immigration consequences did not justify a lesser one.

• Robbery
• Attempted robbery
• Sentencing principles
• Denunciation and deterrence
• Youthful offender
• Collateral immigration consequences

Read case analysis

R. v. Watson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Kyle Watson’s conviction appeal for robbery, holding the trial judge could accept the core evidence while rejecting some details.

• Robbery
• Credibility assessment
• Evidence
• Trial exhibits
• Appeal review
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

R. v. Antonius

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing for robbery involving a violent dog theft resulted in an 18-month conditional sentence order, house arrest, restitution, DNA order, and weapons prohibitions.

• Robbery
• Conditional sentence order
• Restitution
• Weapons prohibition
• Dna databank order
• Gladue factors

Read case analysis

R. v. LeRoy

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court accepted the parties' negotiated joint submission, found the prerequisites of s.753.1 met on the basis of expert evidence (substantial risk of reoffending and reasonable possibility of eventual control), designated the offender a long-term offender, and imposed the agreed determinate sentence (10 years) to be served consecutive to existing sentences with a 10-year period of long-term supervision, concluding the joint submission did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and did not offend totality or other sentencing principles.

Source excerpt

• Aggravated assault
• Kidnapping
• Robbery
• Pointing a firearm
• Long-term supervision
• Totality principle

Read case analysis

R. v. Sturgeon

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning the presence of a passenger, that error was not material because independent corroboration — the appellant’s possession of the stolen Louis Vuitton sunglasses two days after the robbery — sufficiently corroborated the eyewitness identification; therefore the verdict was not unreasonable and no miscarriage of justice occurred, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Eyewitness identification
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Corroboration
• Robbery
• Assault
• Disguise

Read case analysis

R. v. LeBlanc

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given the serious privilege and confidential informant issues and the potential that the innocence at stake test may be engaged, and because the Crown agrees that other grounds of appeal should be determined first, the court converted the matter to a solicitor appeal, granted a s.684(1) order and appointed counsel (Mr. Lacy) for the limited purpose of pursuing the motion for directions; the Associate Chief Justice will case manage the matter and the motion will proceed only if other grounds fail.

Source excerpt

• Production under s.683(1)(a) criminal code
• Appointment of counsel under s.684(1) criminal code
• Innocence at stake test
• Confidential informant privilege
• Solicitor appeal
• Case management

Read case analysis

R. v. Gilmore

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court allowed the Crown appeal, finding the sentencing judge erred in principle by anchoring proportionality solely to his prior sentence and failing to give sufficient weight to the offender's escalating violent record, offences on public transit and the public protection objective; the appropriate global sentence is 26 months' imprisonment (less credit for ~23 months PSC) and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order, with materials sent to CSC under s.760 and the probation order set aside.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Robbery
• Breach of probation
• Long-term supervision order (ltso)
• Proportionality
• Public protection

Read case analysis

R. v. Al-Enzi

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal: the sentencing judge did not err in imposing consecutive mandatory‑minimum sentences because the offences were distinct wrongs committed on different dates against different victims, the judge's comment about the appellant's parenthood did not produce a reversible error, and the evidence of family hardship was insufficient to outweigh the sentencing objectives.

Source excerpt

• Kidnapping
• Robbery
• Home invasion
• Mandatory minimums
• Consecutive sentences
• Mitigation

Read case analysis

R. v. Smith

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court accepted a joint sentence for firearm-related robbery and possession offences, imposed concurrent custodial terms, and ordered forfeiture, DNA sampling, and a lifetime firearms ban.

• Robbery
• Unlawful possession of prohibited firearm
• Pretrial custody credit
• Joint submission on sentence
• Section 109 lifetime firearms prohibition
• Section 490.1 forfeiture

Read case analysis