Robbery Charges in Alberta: What You're Actually Facing

A charge under section 343 of the Criminal Code for robbery sits at the high end of property offending — closer to violent crime than to property crime, both in its statutory framing (life maximum across every variant) and in its sentencing practice. Robbery is theft accompanied by violence, threats of violence, or the use of a weapon. The Crown's case typically rests on identification, on the conduct alleged to have taken place at or before the moment of taking, and on whether any object used or displayed was a firearm, an imitation firearm, or some other offensive weapon.

This page explains the four modes of robbery under s. 343, the punishment structure under s. 344 — substantially restructured by Bill C-5 in 2022, clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, and, at sentencings on or after July 18, 2026, subject to the individualized exception in s. 718.4 — the bail framework under the reverse-onus provisions of s. 515(6) as amended in July 2026, the defences that operate in these files (identification, intent, imitation-weapon questions, party liability), and the sentencing framework, including the statutory sentencing provisions added in 2026. KJR Law represents people facing robbery charges across Calgary and Southern Alberta. Theft simpliciter is addressed on our theft defence page.

Do Not Give a Statement Before You Speak with a Lawyer

Robbery investigations move quickly at the front end. Where police identify a suspect, they will typically attempt an interview — at the scene, at the holding cells, or at the detachment — before counsel has been consulted. What is said in that interview frequently establishes the elements of the offence the Crown would otherwise have to prove circumstantially: that the accused was present, that the accused took property, that violence or a weapon was used or displayed, that the conduct was knowing and intentional. You are not obliged to give the police a statement. Once a person is arrested or detained, s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to choose whether to speak to the authorities (R v Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151), and s. 10(b) gives the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be told of that right. Call a lawyer first. There is no version of "telling police what happened" that improves the file in a robbery investigation.

The Four Modes of Robbery — Section 343

Section 343 of the Criminal Code defines robbery in four ways. The Crown can establish robbery by proving any one:

1. Section 343(a) — theft using violence or threats of violence, to a person or property, to extort what is taken or to overcome resistance to the taking. The classic "stick-up" — the violence or threat is the means of accomplishing the theft, and it may be directed at a person or at property.
2. Section 343(b) — theft accompanied by personal violence to the person robbed. Steals from a person and, at the time of the theft or immediately before or immediately after, wounds, beats, strikes, or uses any personal violence to that person.
3. Section 343(c) — assault with intent to steal. Assaults a person with intent to steal from them, whether or not the theft is ultimately completed. Attempted robbery without weapon involvement frequently falls under this provision.
4. Section 343(d) — theft while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof. Steals from a person while armed with an offensive weapon or an imitation. Being armed is sufficient; this mode does not require that the weapon be used. Imitation firearms — realistic-looking replicas, BB guns, airsoft pieces — fall within this provision.

The line between modes matters. A theft accomplished by shoving a person to overcome their resistance engages (a); personal violence to the person being robbed engages (b). The display of an object the victim reasonably believes to be a firearm engages (d) even where the object is in fact a toy or imitation. But an imitation is not a "firearm": it does not trigger the s. 344(1)(a) firearm minimums, and an imitation-firearm robbery is punished under s. 344(1)(b) (no mandatory minimum), with a separate s. 85(2) count available. Charge selection on the Crown's part, and pre-trial work to disaggregate the file, both turn on a precise reading of which mode is in play.

Punishment Under Section 344 — After Bill C-5 and Hilbach

The s. 344 punishment framework was substantially restructured by Bill C-5 (S.C. 2022, c. 15) in November 2022. The four-year mandatory minimum for robbery with an ordinary firearm under former s. 344(1)(a.1) was repealed. The mandatory minimums for robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm, or with any firearm in connection with a criminal organization, were retained. The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 considered both provisions on s. 12 Charter challenge. Writing for the majority, Martin J. held that both the (then-)four-year minimum and the five-year minimum were constitutional. The s. 344(1)(a)(i) minimum therefore stands as enacted; the seven-year minimum for a subsequent offence in s. 344(1)(a)(ii) was not before the Court and has not been struck. At any sentencing on or after July 18, 2026, whatever the date of the offence, they operate subject to s. 718.4, discussed below.

Current penalty structure:

Four points of practical importance:

• The "ordinary firearm" minimum was repealed in 2022. The 2022 repeal of s. 344(1)(a.1) means a robbery committed with an ordinary firearm (long gun, non-restricted handgun, and the like), not in connection with a criminal organization, no longer carries a mandatory minimum. Both that variant and a robbery committed without any firearm now fall under s. 344(1)(b). Sentences in those files are set by reference to ordinary sentencing principles and the Alberta starting-point framework rather than by a statutory floor.
• The restricted/prohibited-firearm and criminal-organization minimums remain. Where the Crown can prove the firearm was restricted or prohibited (handguns are typically restricted; certain modified firearms are prohibited), or where the robbery is alleged to have been committed in connection with a criminal organization, the five-year (first) and seven-year (subsequent) minimums continue to apply. Hilbach upheld the five-year minimum under s. 344(1)(a)(i). At sentencings on or after July 18, 2026, these minimums are subject to s. 718.4 (next point).
• Section 718.4 — a shorter term for the individual offender. At any sentencing on or after July 18, 2026, whatever the date of the offence, s. 718.4(1) requires the court to impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the five- or seven-year minimum if, in the circumstances, the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender. The question is about the offender actually before the court, not a reasonable hypothetical, and a court that imposes a shorter term must record its reasons (s. 718.4(4)). The shorter term is itself a minimum term of imprisonment (s. 718.4(5)), so it does not open the door to a conditional sentence. A constitutional challenge under s. 12 of the Charter remains available, but it is no longer the only route below the minimum.
• Section 85 — using an imitation firearm. Section 85(1) (using a genuine firearm in the commission of an indictable offence) expressly excludes robbery from its scope: where a real firearm is used, the firearm consequences are carried by s. 344 itself, not by a separate s. 85 count. Section 85(2), which addresses the use of an imitation firearm, is not excluded — so where the object was an imitation, the Crown can lay a s. 85(2) count alongside the robbery. A s. 85 sentence is served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offence (s. 85(4)); it carries a maximum of 14 years and, following Bill C-5, no mandatory minimum.

Alberta Sentencing — Starting Points and the Range

Robbery sentencing in Alberta operates under a starting-point framework established by the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The foundational decision is R v Johnas, 1982 ABCA 331, a five-judge panel that set a three-year starting point for unsophisticated armed robbery of unprotected commercial outlets — the convenience-store and gas-bar cases — where the victim suffered no actual physical harm and the robbery had modest or no success (paras 19, 33). The framework has been refined in subsequent decisions for armed robbery generally and for particular factual contexts. For home invasion robbery — a plan to commit the robbery, targeting a dwelling for money or property expected to be there; arming with an offensive weapon; breaking or forcing entry into a dwelling known or reasonably expected to be occupied; confining the occupants, even briefly; threatening them with death or bodily harm while armed; and stealing or attempting to steal money or other valuable property — the Court of Appeal set a higher starting point of eight years in R v Matwiy, 1996 ABCA 63, for a mature offender with no prior record (para 30). Following R v Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 and R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, a starting point is a guideline rather than a binding tariff: it gives the sentencing judge a frame of reference for the gravity of the offence, but a judge need not refer to one, and departing from one is appropriate where proportionality requires it (Parranto, paras 36, 40–41).

From the starting point, sentences move up or down on the strength of:

• Aggravating factors: use of a firearm (especially restricted or prohibited), serious injury to a victim, planning and sophistication, targeting vulnerable victims, prior record (particularly for offences of violence), conduct during the offence (taunting, gratuitous violence), and breach of court orders at the time of the offence.
• Mitigating factors: youth, absence of prior record, genuine remorse, voluntary restitution, demonstrable rehabilitation, mental-health context, addiction context where treatment has been engaged, and Gladue factors for Indigenous accused (s. 718.2(e); R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688).

Statutory sentencing provisions added in 2026. S.C. 2026, c. 11 added several provisions that bear directly on robbery:

• Section 334.1(1) — the court must treat as aggravating that the robbery was committed with intent to sell or barter the stolen property, or to fraudulently return it to a retail merchant.
• Section 334.1(2) — the court must treat as aggravating that the offence interfered with the access to or functioning of essential infrastructure (as defined in s. 52.1(2)), or caused it to be unsafe or unfit for use.
• Section 718.2(a)(viii) — evidence that the offence was committed with the use of violence, threats or attempts of violence against another person, where the offender has been convicted of one or more such offences within the previous five years, is an aggravating circumstance.
• Section 718.07 — where the robbery was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, the court must give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence.

Parliament has directed that these four provisions apply to proceedings that were ongoing on July 15, 2026 (S.C. 2026, c. 11, s. 58(3)). Whether they can be applied to an offence committed before that date may be contested under s. 11(i) of the Charter. Separately, for offences committed on or after July 15, 2026, s. 718.3(4)(b)(iv) requires the court to consider directing consecutive sentences where one of the offences was committed with violence, threats or attempts of violence and the offender has a conviction for such an offence within the previous five years.

Conditional sentences. Post-Bill C-5, the conditional sentence framework under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code is more permissive than it was under the previous statutory bar (S.C. 2012, c. 1), which had categorically excluded offences prosecuted by indictment carrying a 14-year or life maximum. In robbery files where no mandatory minimum applies (that is, outside s. 344(1)(a) territory), a conditional sentence is not categorically barred, with one exception: s. 742.1(d) bars a conditional sentence for a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by indictment with a maximum of 10 years or more, which captures a robbery committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. Where s. 344(1)(a) applies, s. 742.1(b) bars a conditional sentence, and that remains so where the court imposes a shorter term under s. 718.4, because that term is itself a minimum (s. 718.4(5)). Outside those bars, two limits keep a conditional sentence narrow in practice: it cannot exceed two years less a day, and the Alberta starting points for armed and commercial robbery sit at or above three years. A conditional sentence is therefore realistically confined to the lowest-conduct files — typically first offenders where the fit sentence falls below the two-year ceiling — and remains subject to the community-safety analysis under s. 742.1(a) and the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing in ss. 718–718.2. Whether it is available is fact-specific. A discharge is not available for robbery in any form: s. 730(1) excludes offences punishable by imprisonment for life.

Bail in Robbery Files — The Reverse Onus Where a Firearm Is Alleged

Bail in robbery files is structured by s. 515 of the Criminal Code. For a robbery alleged to have been committed with a firearm, s. 515(6)(a)(vii) imposes a reverse onus: the accused must show cause why detention is not justified, rather than the Crown having to show cause why bail should be denied.

The July 2026 amendments raised what the accused must show. Under s. 515(6) as amended, the accused must show cause "by clearly demonstrating that their proposed release plan addresses the risks posed by the accused as they relate to the grounds referred to in subsection (10)" — attendance in court, the protection and safety of the public, and confidence in the administration of justice. This applies to bail proceedings that were ongoing on July 15, 2026 and to those begun since, whatever the date of the alleged offence (S.C. 2026, c. 11, s. 58(2)). A concrete release plan, tied to each of those grounds, is the centre of a reverse-onus hearing.

Other reverse-onus pathways can arise in robbery files, including:

• s. 515(6)(a)(i) — the robbery is alleged to have been committed while the accused was at large on release for another indictable offence;
• s. 515(6)(a)(ii) — the robbery is alleged to have been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization;
• s. 515(6)(a)(xii.1) — violence was allegedly used, and the offence would be the accused's third or subsequent indictable offence in the commission of which violence was used (added in July 2026);
• s. 515(6)(b.2) — violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted with a weapon, and the accused has a previous conviction for another offence involving violence with a weapon, within 10 years of the day they were charged, where each offence carries a maximum of 10 years or more (the look-back was five years before the July 2026 amendments).

Where bail is granted in a robbery file, standard conditions typically include:

• No contact with the alleged victim or witnesses;
• Geographic restrictions excluding the location of the alleged offence;
• Reporting conditions to a bail supervisor or peace officer, frequently several times per week;
• A specified residence and curfew, or in serious files, house arrest;
• A firearms prohibition;
• A prohibition on possessing imitation weapons, replicas, or any object that could be used or interpreted as a weapon;
• In some files, electronic monitoring on an ankle bracelet;
• Surrender of passport and travel restrictions.

Breach of any bail condition is itself an offence under s. 145 of the Criminal Code, and a breach alleged while on release places the accused under a reverse onus at the next bail hearing (s. 515(6)(c)). Where conditions are imposed that are overbroad or not properly connected to the alleged risk, a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code is available.

The Defences That Operate in Robbery Files

Robbery files reward careful work on the elements of the offence and on the identification of the accused. The arguments that do the work in these files:

Mistaken identity. Robbery investigations frequently rest on surveillance footage, eyewitness identification, and dock identification at trial. Eyewitness identification is well-known to be unreliable, particularly where the incident was brief, the witness was under stress, the lighting was poor, or the offender was masked or partially concealed. The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hay, 2013 SCC 61 confirmed that a jury must be cautioned about the well-recognized frailties of eyewitness identification, and that eyewitness testimony that could not on its own prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt cannot alone support a conviction (paras 40–41). The procedure used in any photo lineup or live lineup, the warnings given to the witness, and the manner of any in-court identification are all reviewable.

The "imitation weapon" question. Where the Crown alleges robbery under s. 343(d) on the strength of an imitation weapon, the issue is whether the object was an imitation of an offensive weapon and whether the surrounding circumstances bear that out. Where the object was concealed, where its appearance was ambiguous, or where the complainant's perception is open to challenge, the imitation-weapon element is contestable. As noted above, an imitation is not a firearm for the purpose of the s. 344(1)(a) minimums; on the same facts, the line between robbery under s. 343(d) and theft simpliciter can come down to this analysis.

No theft, or no intent to steal at the time of violence. Where the conduct alleged does not actually amount to theft (no property was taken, or what was taken was lawfully the accused's), the robbery falls. Where violence preceded any intention to steal — a fight that happened to occur near property, then a later separate taking — the temporal element of robbery may not be made out. The taking and the violence must be sufficiently connected in time and purpose.

Party liability under section 21. Where multiple participants are alleged — driver, lookout, principal — the Crown's case against each turns on s. 21 of the Criminal Code. Whether a party knew of the principal's intent to use a weapon, whether the principal's use of the weapon was a foreseeable consequence of the joint enterprise, and whether the party rendered actual assistance to the offence are all separately contestable. Reduction of liability from full robbery to aiding or abetting a lesser offence is a meaningful resolution path in appropriate multi-accused files.

Minimum sentences — section 718.4 and section 12. Where s. 344(1)(a) applies, the five- and seven-year minimums are not the end of the sentencing analysis. At any sentencing on or after July 18, 2026, whatever the date of the offence, s. 718.4 requires the court to impose a shorter term of imprisonment where the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender in the circumstances. That inquiry turns on the offender and the offence actually before the court, so the sentencing record — background, circumstances of the offence, rehabilitative steps, Gladue factors — carries the argument. The shorter term remains a minimum term of imprisonment (s. 718.4(5)). A constitutional challenge under s. 12 of the Charter on the R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2 framework is not foreclosed, but Hilbach has upheld the s. 344(1)(a)(i) minimum on that analysis, and any challenge must work with Hilbach's reasoning, not around it.

Charter section 8 — unlawful search and seizure. Where police seized property, devices, or other evidence connecting the accused to the offence, the lawfulness of the search is reviewable. Where a search warrant was issued, the question on review is not whether the reviewing judge would have issued it, but whether, on the record before the issuing justice — with misleading information excised, and amplified only to correct good-faith errors — it could have issued (R v Garofoli, [1990] 2 SCR 1421; R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8). Device searches engage R v Vu, 2013 SCC 60.

Charter section 9 — unlawful detention. Where the accused was detained on the street, at a vehicle stop, or through investigative procedures, the lawfulness of the detention engages s. 9. R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52 sets the framework for investigative detention.

Charter section 10 — right to counsel. Statements taken before the right to counsel was implemented, or where the implementation was deficient, are subject to exclusion under R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32.

Collateral Consequences

A robbery sentence is predominantly custodial, but a conviction reaches well beyond the custodial term. The consequences fall into two distinct groups, which are worth keeping separate: orders the sentencing court imposes as part of the sentence, and consequences the conviction triggers under other regimes the criminal court does not control.

Orders the court imposes (ancillary orders). These are part of the sentence itself. Each carries its own statutory test and is open to defence submissions at sentencing:

• A mandatory firearms prohibition under s. 109. On a first order, this prohibits ordinary firearms for a minimum of ten years (measured from release) and prohibits restricted and prohibited firearms for life; on a subsequent order, it is lifetime across the board.
• A DNA order under s. 487.051. Robbery is a primary designated offence under paragraph (a) of the definition in s. 487.04, so the order is mandatory, with no gross-disproportionality exception (s. 487.051(1)).
• Restitution to the victim under s. 738, where the offence caused a quantifiable loss.
• The victim surcharge.

Consequences the conviction triggers elsewhere (non-penal). These flow from the conviction or the record but are not imposed by the criminal court and are not part of the sentence. They arise under other regimes, though their foreseeable severity can bear on the fitness of sentence:

• A permanent criminal record.
• Immigration jeopardy — a robbery conviction can constitute serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, exposing a non-citizen to inadmissibility and removal.
• Professional and trade-licensing consequences.
• Travel and border consequences, including possible inadmissibility to the United States, where robbery is generally treated as a crime involving moral turpitude.

Because these consequences differ in who imposes them and under what test, they are part of the resolution conversation from the first meeting.

Companion Charges

Robbery counts very rarely travel alone. Common companions:

• Section 85(2) — using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. Served consecutively (s. 85(4)). Section 85(1), which covers genuine firearms, does not apply to robbery.
• Assault and assault causing bodily harm — ss. 265–268. Where the violence used during the robbery is also charged separately.
• Aggravated assault — s. 268. Where the conduct caused wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim.
• Unlawful confinement / forcible confinement — s. 279. Where the accused detained the victim during or after the offence.
• Disguise with intent — s. 351(2). Where the accused was masked or disguised during the offence.
• Break and enter — s. 348. In home-invasion files.
• Possession of property obtained by crime — s. 354. Where the proceeds of the robbery were located in the accused's possession.
• Conspiracy — s. 465. In multi-participant files.
• Failure to comply — s. 145. Where the alleged conduct breached release conditions; a breach of a probation order is charged under s. 733.1 instead.

Where We Appear

We act on robbery files in the Alberta Court of Justice, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, and the Court of Appeal of Alberta. From our Calgary office we travel to court in Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, Okotoks, Diamond Valley, Didsbury, Strathmore, Drumheller, Hanna, Brooks, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Fort Macleod, Taber, Pincher Creek, and Cardston, and we appear in matters arising on the Tsuut'ina, Siksika, and Kainai (Blood Tribe) Nations.

If You Have Been Charged with Robbery, Call a Lawyer Today.

Robbery files move quickly at the bail stage and reward early, careful work on identification, on the modes pleaded by the Crown, on the imitation-weapon and firearm-type questions, and on the Charter status of every search, detention, and statement that produced the disclosure.

Initial consultation at no charge. Scope is limited to an initial assessment of your matter and is subject to a conflict check. GST does not apply to a no-charge consultation.