Jonathan Rudin

The appellant, an Indigenous man, sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing that the trial judge erred by not inquiring into the impact of his Indigenous experiences on the voluntariness of his plea, even though he had not raised this issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while judges have a duty to inquire into the validity of a plea if there are apparent indications of an issue, there is no general affirmative obligation to inquire into an Indigenous person's experiences affecting plea voluntariness unless specific circumstances trigger such a duty.

The court found no such circumstances in this case, and the evidence suggested the plea was voluntary.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

This is a motion decision concerning an application by Aboriginal Legal Services (ALS) for leave to intervene in a criminal appeal.

The motion judge initially declined to grant leave on the material filed but agreed to reconsider on a proper record.

Upon receipt of supplementary materials, the motion judge granted leave to intervene, finding that ALS had an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties on issues relating to Gladue principles and their application to the weight placed on prior criminal records.

The intervention was granted subject to conditions limiting the length of the factum to 10 pages and oral submissions to 20 minutes.

This is a motion decision concerning an application by Aboriginal Legal Services to intervene as a friend of the court in a criminal appeal.

The appellant challenged the admission of his criminal record into evidence at trial, arguing that Gladue principles should inform the probative value and prejudicial effect analysis under R. v. Corbett, and should apply to the use of prior convictions in assessing credibility.

The motion judge found that while Aboriginal Legal Services has recognized expertise in criminal law issues affecting Indigenous peoples, the record did not establish that it could make a useful contribution to the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties.

The motion was dismissed, but the applicant was permitted to re-submit on a proper record with specified conditions.