The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol after entering a guilty plea.
He argued the plea was not informed because he relied on incorrect immigration advice that a conviction would not affect his immigration status in Canada.
After the conviction he learned the offence rendered him inadmissible to Canada as a foreign national and subject to removal proceedings.
The court held that a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and in the unusual circumstances the appellant’s reliance on erroneous legal advice regarding immigration consequences meant he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.