Kenneth Jim

The appellant, Marc Jean, appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to a lack of awareness regarding the significant immigration consequences.

The respondent conceded the appeal should be allowed based on fresh evidence supporting the uninformed plea.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding a reasonable possibility that the appellant would have proceeded differently had he understood the consequences.

The conviction was set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to a lack of awareness of potential immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding it unbelievable that the appellant, given his prior immigration history, was unaware of the potential consequences.

However, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, varying it to reflect the joint submission that had been made at the time of the guilty plea.

The Crown conceded the conviction appeal, acknowledging that the verdicts were unreasonable due to reliance on inadmissible evidence.

The Court of Appeal accepted the concession, setting aside the convictions and entering acquittals.

The applicant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm in 2015 and received a suspended sentence.

He later learned that the conviction constituted 'serious criminality' under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, creating a likely insurmountable barrier to his application for permanent resident status.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, arguing he was not informed of the immigration consequences at the time of his plea.

The court granted the extension, finding the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal had merit based on an uninformed plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, and the interests of justice favoured granting the extension.

A young person was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant sexually assaulted a 14-year-old complainant by grabbing her, pulling her to a secluded location, forcing kisses upon her, and touching her buttocks without consent.

The defence did not challenge the honesty of the complainant's evidence regarding the assault itself, but rather challenged the reliability of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator.

The court found the complainant to be credible and honest, and determined that her identification evidence was sufficiently reliable based on her prior acquaintance with the defendant, the duration and lighting conditions of the assault, corroboration from home security video footage, and the specificity of details she provided to police.

The court also addressed the breach of probation count, determining that the defendant's identity as the person subject to the December 2013 probation order was proven through comparison of identifying information across court documents.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The Crown applied to admit a confession made by the accused during a voluntary attendance at a police station.

The accused was not detained and was repeatedly informed he was free to leave, but repeatedly stated he wanted to go to jail due to homelessness, personal hardship, and perceived injuries.

The defence argued the confession was involuntary due to oppressive personal circumstances and inducement.

Applying the confessions rule and the framework in R. v. Oickle, the court held the accused had an operating mind but found that the confession was motivated by the perceived benefit of incarceration and oppressive circumstances unrelated to police misconduct.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was excluded.

The accused was charged with breaching a non-communication term of a recognizance by sending a Facebook message to the complainant on November 16, 2014.

The Crown called the complainant and the investigating officer.

The defence raised four issues: (1) failure to provide timely notice under the Canada Evidence Act; (2) failure to prove the existence of a live recognizance; and (3) challenges to identity of both the accused and authorship of the Facebook message.

The court found that the defence waived the notice objection by not raising it when documents were tendered, that a live recognizance existed, that the accused was properly identified, and that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sent the Facebook message.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with seven offences arising from two temporally and physically proximate events on May 17, 2014: a dangerous motor vehicle collision causing bodily harm, failure to remain at the scene, break and enter, mischief, assault on a peace officer, impaired operation causing bodily harm, and refusal to comply with a drug recognition evaluation demand.

The Crown led evidence from 15 witnesses.

The accused contested the driving and drug-related charges.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the accused was the operator of the vehicle involved in the collision, as no eyewitness could identify the driver and both front doors of the vehicle were found open.

The court found the accused guilty of mischief, assault on a peace officer, and refusal to comply with the drug recognition evaluation demand, but acquitted on the remaining charges.