Markham Robbery With a Firearm Lawyer

Home › Markham Criminal Defence › Robbery With a Firearm

Two Markham robberies, two guns, one offence, and completely different floors. If the gun was a restricted handgun, conviction carries a minimum of five years, and the Supreme Court has upheld that floor. If it was a non-restricted hunting rifle, there has been no minimum at all since 2022. Same section, same life maximum, different world. That is why these prosecutions so often come down to two questions that sound technical and decide everything: was the object a firearm, and if so, which class. For robbery charges generally, start with our main Markham robbery page; this page is the firearm deep dive.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

Five years or no minimum: what actually decides it

Section 344(1) gives every robbery a maximum of life imprisonment. It attaches a mandatory minimum in exactly two situations: a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence, or any firearm is used and the robbery is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. The minimum is five years for a first offence and seven for a second or subsequent one.

Everything else has no floor. A knife robbery has no minimum. An imitation gun robbery has no minimum. And since 2022, a robbery with a non-restricted firearm, the category most hunting rifles and shotguns fall into, has no minimum either.

So the practical question in a Markham gun robbery file is rarely what the sentence for robbery with a firearm is. It is what, exactly, the Crown can prove about the gun. That inquiry has two steps, and each is a genuine contest.

The s. 344 outcomes, gun by gun

Sources for the table: s. 344(1) for the penalties, s. 84(1) for the classes, s. 85 for the imitation count. Every row below the first two is a materially better sentencing position, which is why classification gets litigated like guilt.

Question one: can the Crown prove a firearm at all?

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines a firearm as a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person. The definition includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm. Capability is part of the definition, which makes it part of the Crown’s burden.

Now consider how these cases actually arrive. In a large share of robbery files the gun is never recovered. Proof then runs on witness description and camera footage: a dark object, a hand held at waist level, a phrase remembered under stress. Whether that evidence proves a firearm, as defined, beyond a reasonable doubt is a real question, not a formality. And if the evidence supports only an imitation, the consequences shift dramatically: the robbery itself remains complete under s. 343(d), which expressly includes imitations, but the s. 344(1)(a) minimums fall away. What can arise instead is a s. 85(2) imitation firearm count, with a 14 year maximum served consecutively where it applies.

The whole object spectrum, from bats to replicas to the real thing, is mapped on our Markham armed robbery page. This page stays on the firearm rungs.

"Used in the commission": more contested than it sounds

Section 344(1)(a) does not say possessed or carried. It says the firearm is used in the commission of the offence. Use is an element the Crown must prove, not a label the charge sheet settles, and the distance between a gun produced, pointed or invoked to force compliance and an object that sat unmentioned in a bag is where this element gets litigated.

What did each witness actually see, and when? What do the cameras show in the seconds around the taking? Was the object referenced by words or gesture, or has the allegation grown in the retelling? These are intensely fact specific questions, and the answers matter twice: once for whether the minimum provision is engaged at all, and again at sentencing even where it is not. The gap between the floor and no floor is measured in years, so no responsible defence treats the use element as conceded.

Question two: which class was it?

Section 84(1) draws the lines, and in plain language they run like this. Every handgun is at least restricted, because the restricted class includes any handgun that is not prohibited. A handgun becomes prohibited if its barrel is 105 mm or shorter, or it is designed for 25 or 32 calibre ammunition. Rifles and shotguns cut down below 660 mm overall, or to a barrel under 457 mm, are prohibited; so are automatic firearms, even if altered to fire one shot per trigger pull. The C-21 amendments also brought unlawfully manufactured firearms, what police call ghost guns, into the prohibited class. Most conventional hunting rifles and shotguns are non-restricted, which after the 2022 repeal means no robbery minimum.

Here is what matters for the defence: classification is proven, not presumed. It arrives through measurement, examination, sometimes test firing, and expert reports, and every step can be tested. Was the barrel measured correctly and by the standard the definition requires? Was the object capable of discharge at all? Is the report describing the gun seized, with continuity intact from the scene? Classification is a live evidentiary issue, not a label police get to assume, and in a minimum case the classification fight often is the sentencing fight.

The same s. 84(1) machinery drives possession prosecutions under ss. 91, 92 and 95. That lane, licences, classes and the possession ladder, lives on our Markham firearms offence page.

What Hilbach settled, and what it did not

In R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the five year minimum in s. 344(1)(a)(i) against a challenge under s. 12 of the Charter, and it addressed the former four year minimum as well. Its companion case, R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, struck down a different firearm minimum, the one for intentionally discharging a firearm at a place, not robbery’s.

One more Supreme Court decision completes the constitutional map. In R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, the Court struck down the former mandatory minimums attached to the loaded restricted firearm possession offence in s. 95. Possession minimums fell there; use in robbery minimums stood in Hilbach; and Parliament repealed the remaining possession minimums in 2022. The line the law draws is between having a gun and using one to take property, and it treats the second as categorically graver.

The criminal organization branch

The second route into the minimum needs no handgun at all. If any firearm is used and the robbery was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, the 5 and 7 year floors apply even to a non-restricted rifle. When that allegation appears, it becomes the case within the case: it sets the minimum, it independently reverses the bail onus under s. 515(6)(a)(ii), and it changes how the Crown frames everything else.

In York Region, gang overlay firearm allegations tend to trace back to the York Regional Police Guns, Gangs and Drug Enforcement Unit. YRP’s annual report describes the unit’s Project Chatter, launched in October 2024, ending with 23 arrests, 330 charges and 32 firearms seized across York Region and the GTA. Where an organization allegation rests on association evidence, social media, phone contacts, shared addresses, it can and should be tested piece by piece, because the sentencing stakes it carries are as heavy as the robbery itself.

Show cause at Newmarket: preparing for reverse onus

Robbery is not a s. 469 offence, so bail runs through the Ontario Court of Justice, and for a Markham arrest that means the Newmarket courthouse at 50 Eagle St. W., the OCJ courthouse serving York Region. But s. 515(6)(a)(vii) lists robbery alleged to have been committed with a firearm: the onus reverses, and you must show cause why detention is not justified. Note the word alleged. The reverse onus attaches at the allegation stage, long before anyone has proven what the object in the video actually was.

A show cause plan is built, not improvised. Sureties are chosen for genuine supervisory capacity, their finances documented, their obligations explained before they testify. The plan answers the file’s specific concerns: residence, reporting, curfew terms, no contact and no go conditions. Under the OCJ practice direction on bail, sureties can attend by audio-video and contested hearings generally proceed by video unless the court directs otherwise, and the OCJ runs weekend and holiday bail courts. Our Markham bail lawyer page walks through the mechanics in detail.

And if the first hearing goes badly, the file is not over. Detention orders are reviewable in the Superior Court of Justice, which at Newmarket schedules bail hearings and reviews in the same building, and a review argued on a strengthened plan with new sureties is a different hearing than the one that failed. The worst outcome is treating the first attempt as the only one, or burning it on a plan that was never going to carry a reverse onus.

The repeat offence escalator in s. 344(2)

The seven year minimum is not reserved for people with a prior robbery. Under s. 344(2), earlier convictions that count toward second or subsequent status include s. 344 itself, using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence under s. 85, the discharge offences in ss. 244 and 244.2, and a list of serious offences committed with a firearm. Two limits matter: a prior conviction is ignored if ten years have passed between convictions, excluding time spent in custody, and under s. 344(3) it is the sequence of convictions that counts, not the sequence of the underlying events.

The practical takeaway: an old s. 85(2) imitation firearm conviction can quietly turn today’s file into a seven year floor. Record review is step one of every firearm robbery retainer, because the difference between first and subsequent offence is not cosmetic, it is two years of the minimum.

From Hold-Up Unit investigation to jury trial, one address

The charge name in the headlines is real. When York Regional Police announced charges after the May 14, 2026 armed robbery of a commercial building near Warden Avenue and Masseyfield Gate in Markham, the release listed Robbery with a Firearm alongside Disguise with Intent. Commercial and bank robbery investigation in York Region is the Hold-Up Unit’s verified lane, and Markham arrests process through #5 District at 8700 McCowan Rd.

From there the file moves through the Newmarket courthouse at every stage: OCJ case management, much of it by video; the defence election; a preliminary inquiry available on request because the maximum is life; and a Superior Court jury trial upstairs in the same building. R. v. Jordan sets presumptive ceilings of 18 months for a case finishing in the OCJ and 30 months for one finishing in the Superior Court, net of defence delay, so the clock runs from the charge date. On the Toronto side the same framework plays out across three buildings; our Toronto robbery lawyers page covers that version.

If a conviction comes, the consequences reach past the sentence. A s. 109 weapons prohibition is mandatory for an offence of violence in this range, and for restricted or prohibited firearms and devices the prohibition is for life. Possessing anything covered afterwards is a fresh offence under s. 117.01, and a weapons offence committed while under a prohibition order is itself a reverse onus bail situation.

The imitation fallback: how the Crown pivots when the gun cannot be proven

Watch what happens in a file where the object was never recovered and the video is ambiguous. The Crown’s primary theory, a real and restricted firearm carrying the five year floor, weakens. The fallback is not an acquittal; it is a pivot. Section 343(d) includes imitations, so the robbery count survives on the weaker proof. And s. 85(2) makes using an imitation firearm during an indictable offence its own charge, with a 14 year maximum that s. 85(4) requires to be served consecutively.

The asymmetry is worth understanding before anyone celebrates the missing gun. The real firearm count, s. 85(1), expressly excludes robbery because s. 344 handles firearms internally. The imitation count has no such exclusion. So the proof failing downward can trade a minimum for an extra consecutive count, and which position is actually better depends on the whole file. This is exactly the kind of trade off that should be mapped with counsel before any election or resolution decision, not discovered after one.

The s. 8 gateway: how the gun gets into evidence at all

Most recovered firearms enter these files through a search: a vehicle stop that grew, a residence warrant, a search incident to arrest. Every one of those routes has legal preconditions, and s. 8 of the Charter guards them. Was the stop lawful at its inception? Did the detention stay within its purpose? Does the warrant survive scrutiny of the information that obtained it?

These are not technicalities. If the search fails and the firearm is excluded under s. 24(2), the classification question collapses with it, and the minimum goes too. Statements have their own gateway under s. 10(b), and identification procedures their own reliability rules. In a prosecution built to trigger a five year floor, the constitutional litigation is often the main event, which is why the seizure records and warrant materials top the first week document list above.

Ghost guns and the growing prohibited class

The classification map is not static. The C-21 amendments added unlawfully manufactured firearms, the privately made guns police call ghost guns, to the prohibited class in s. 84(1). That matters in robbery files for one blunt reason: a prohibited firearm used in the commission of a robbery engages the five year floor, so a printed or home built pistol now sits on the same rung as a sawed off shotgun.

It also matters for how these objects get proven. A gun with no serial number and no registration history is proven through what it physically is: examination of the frame or receiver, which the s. 2 definition captures on its own, evidence of how it was made, and function testing. Each step generates records the defence is entitled to and should demand. An object that looks printed in a still frame is not evidence of manufacture; an examination report is, and reports have authors who can be cross examined.

The wider possession consequences of the manufactured gun rules, and the licensing system around lawful firearms, are covered on our Markham firearms offence page.

Sentencing a gun robbery: above the floor, and without one

Where the minimum is engaged, it is a floor, not a destination. The Crown will argue for more based on planning, disguise, the role played, discharge or pointing, prior record and the fear inflicted; the defence answers with role, age, background, rehabilitation evidence and the actual conduct proven. The floor sets the argument’s starting line, and everything above it is advocacy.

Where no minimum applies, because the firearm was non-restricted or only an imitation was proven, the range of outcomes opens up dramatically, and preparation drives results. We will not print number ranges here, because quoting sentences without a file is guesswork dressed up as information. What can be said honestly: the firearm findings are the single heaviest factual driver, which is why this page spends its length on how those findings are fought rather than on tables of years.

Two ancillary consequences are fixed by statute either way. A s. 109 prohibition order is mandatory on conviction, for life where the firearm was restricted or prohibited. And the conviction itself lands on a record with immigration and travel consequences that deserve advice before any resolution, especially for permanent residents and visa holders.

What we ask for in the first week of a firearm robbery retainer

The early requests shape everything later, so they go out fast and in writing:

• The complete video canvass, in native format with export logs, not clipped compilations.
• Every witness statement touching the object, with the 911 audio for comparison.
• The seizure records: where, when, by whom, under what authority.
• Exhibit continuity documentation from scene to locker.
• Any firearm examination or classification report, with the examiner’s notes and qualifications.
• The lineup or identification procedure records.
• The basis for any criminal organization allegation, item by item.
• The client’s record, checked against s. 344(2) escalator provisions.
• Anything bearing on the bail plan: employment, sureties, residence options.
• Immigration status documents where the client is not a citizen.

None of this is exotic. It is the checklist the minimums force, and the files that go well are the ones where it starts on day one.

The defence terrain in a gun robbery file

Every file allocates its effort differently, but the terrain repeats:

• Identity and continuity. Camera heavy files still depend on human links between frames, descriptions and seizures.
• Firearm or imitation. The s. 2 capability definition is the Crown’s burden, and an unrecovered gun makes it heavier.
• Classification. Restricted, prohibited or non-restricted decides whether a floor exists at all.
• The use element. Used in the commission is proven conduct, not charge sheet wording.
• The organization allegation. Association evidence gets tested piece by piece.
• The Charter. Stops, searches, statements and lineups each carry exclusion potential that can take the gun, or the identification, out of the case.

Where a minimum is engaged, the classification and use fights are the sentencing fight. Results from past firearm and robbery files are collected on our success stories page.

Why firearm robbery clients in Markham retain Kazandji Law

Kazandji Law defends firearm and robbery prosecutions across York Region from four offices. The Thornhill office at 7191 Yonge St., Suite 310 is the closest to Markham; the Toronto headquarters is at 180 John St., Unit 320, with offices in North York and Oakville as well. Consultations are free, and 647-588-3234 reaches a lawyer, not a queue.

These files are won on early, technical work: preserving camera footage in native format, demanding the examination records behind any classification opinion, and building the show cause plan before the hearing date, not on it. Firearm robbery is one lane of our Markham criminal defence practice; start there if your charge sheet reads differently.

Markham firearm robbery questions, answered

This page is legal information about Canadian law, not legal advice about your situation. Every case turns on its own facts. Statutes and case law summarized here can change; verify the current text or speak with a lawyer before relying on it. Contacting Kazandji Law does not create a lawyer and client relationship until a retainer is confirmed.