G. Tsimiklis

The applicant brought a motion to strike previously entered guilty pleas for trafficking in cocaine and common assault.

He asserted the pleas were not voluntary because he maintained his innocence and felt pressured by defence counsel to accept a negotiated resolution.

Evidence showed counsel did not conduct a proper plea comprehension review and advised the applicant to answer the court’s plea inquiry questions affirmatively to ensure acceptance of the plea.

The court held that a valid guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed under s. 606 of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the applicant never admitted guilt and entered the plea under improper circumstances, the court concluded the plea was involuntary and constituted a fraud on the court.

The pleas were struck and the matter ordered to proceed to trial on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE program stop on Highway 404.

The Crown alleged the accused attempted to back up the ramp to avoid the checkpoint.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on observations of impairment including odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, red face, swaying gait, and admission of consuming four drinks.

However, the court acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding the degree of impairment, finding the breath test evidence admissible but the impairment charge not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.