Immigration consequences

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted robbery arising from a carjacking spree and was sentenced to 2.5 years' incarceration.

He appealed on two grounds: that the sentencing judge erred in treating denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for a youthful first-time offender, and that the sentencing judge failed to account for collateral immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal found that despite a misstatement of the law, the sentencing judge did not overemphasize denunciation and deterrence, as evidenced by a below-range sentence.

The court also held that immigration consequences could not be avoided without imposing an unfit sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had recently started an intimate relationship.

He absconded prior to his sentencing hearing, which proceeded in his absence.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the intimate relationship and the use of force, as well as the mitigating factor of potential collateral immigration consequences.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a lifetime SOIRA order.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from his conviction for assault with a weapon, entered following a guilty plea.

He argued his plea was uninformed regarding potential deportation consequences.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, failed to properly account for the delay, and his counsel did not act diligently.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant's claims regarding his lack of knowledge of immigration consequences lacked credibility and contradicted the record from the plea hearing.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found over 280 grams of cocaine and crack cocaine in his residence.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing collateral immigration consequences.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding the commercial nature and large quantity of drugs warranted a penitentiary term to address denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including assault and assault with a weapon against his pregnant wife, and received a suspended sentence.

Facing certain deportation, he applied to extend the time to appeal his convictions and sentence, arguing his pleas were procedurally flawed and uninformed regarding immigration consequences, and alternatively sought a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural irregularity caused no prejudice, the appellant was fully informed of the immigration consequences before pleading guilty, and a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious domestic violence involved.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that he was unfit to stand trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of the immigration consequences, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as he had been properly found fit to stand trial and a conditional discharge was disproportionate to the offence.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal his 2017 convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed because he was unaware they would render him inadmissible to Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding it moot because the Immigration Appeal Division had recently granted a conditional stay of his removal order.

The court also noted the application would have been dismissed regardless due to the applicant's significant delay in bringing the application and serious credibility issues with his evidence.

The appellant, a permanent resident of Canada, appealed his conviction on the basis that his guilty pleas were uninformed.

He was unaware of the serious immigration consequences of his pleas, specifically that he would be deported without a right of appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearm-related offences and possession of cocaine.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating that trial counsel did not adequately inform the appellant of the specific immigration consequences, and that the appellant would have proceeded to trial had he been aware of the deportation consequences.

The court found the appellant satisfied both prongs of the test for setting aside a guilty plea: lack of awareness of a legally relevant consequence and prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty pleas were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and breach of recognizance against his former intimate partner.

The parties initially presented a joint submission structured to minimize the accused's immigration consequences, proposing two consecutive sentences of six months less a day.

The accused later sought to strike his guilty pleas but failed to file the necessary motion materials after multiple adjournments.

The court denied a further adjournment and proceeded to sentencing.

Applying the Cerasuolo test, the court accepted the joint submission, finding it fell within the appropriate range given the mix of aggravating and mitigating factors, and strongly recommended that immigration officials exercise discretion against removing the accused from Canada.

The appellant appealed his guilty pleas to dangerous driving and failure to comply with conditions of a recognizance, arising from a serious motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle and a stolen vehicle.

The trial counsel failed to adequately advise the appellant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and joint submission on sentence.

The Crown conceded that the appellant demonstrated he was unaware of these consequences.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant established a reasonable possibility that he would not have pled guilty had he known of the immigration consequences, thereby meeting the threshold for setting aside the guilty pleas.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The parties agreed that the trial judge was inadvertently misled regarding the immigration consequences of the sentence.

A sentence of exactly 6 months would preclude an appeal of a removal order, whereas a sentence under 6 months would permit such an appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal varied the effective sentence from 6 months to 5 months 29 days concurrent on all counts, with the probation order remaining unchanged.

The variation included credit for 98 days of pre-trial custody.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon after stabbing the victim during a bar fight.

The victim was the initial aggressor, punching the offender unprovoked, but the offender retaliated by drawing a knife and stabbing the fleeing victim in the back.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the knife belonged to the offender, despite the mixed verdict.

The court rejected arguments to artificially reduce the sentence to avoid deportation consequences or to grant enhanced credit for harsh jail conditions without evidence.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent following conviction for careless use of a firearm under s. 86(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, a licensed gun owner, fired a semi-automatic restricted firearm inside his apartment while intoxicated, discharging three bullets.

One bullet penetrated into a neighboring apartment where a child's toys were stored.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional discharge demonstrably unfit, holding that the sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on general deterrence and denunciation, and in treating intoxication as a mitigating rather than aggravating factor.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted a suspended sentence with probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal but sought leave to introduce fresh evidence and to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was imposed without consideration of collateral immigration consequences that arose from amendments to federal immigration legislation introduced after sentencing.

The Crown conceded that had these consequences been known at sentencing, they would have affected the result.

The court granted the fresh evidence application, granted leave to appeal sentence, and allowed the appeal, imposing a suspended sentence with credit for six months less one day of pre-sentence custody and two years' probation.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed on June 5, 2012 by the Ontario Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 6 months less one day due to potential immigration consequences that were not known during the original sentencing process.

An applicant convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking sought bail pending his sentence appeal under s. 679(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant had been sentenced to two years in custody, less five months' pre-sentence credit.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing the appeal lacked sufficient merit.

The applicant's primary ground of appeal concerned collateral immigration consequences, as a sentence of six months or greater would render him inadmissible to Canada and subject to deportation without a right of appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the bail application, finding the appeal lacked sufficient merit and that continued detention would not cause unnecessary hardship.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a 16-month global sentence imposed for trafficking in crack cocaine while on probation.

Although the sentencing judge initially misunderstood counsel's submission regarding the proposed sentence, the Court of Appeal found the sentence was fit given the nature of the offense, the quantity and type of drugs involved, and the breach of probation.

The sentencing judge appropriately declined to impose an unfit sentence to avoid adverse immigration consequences for the appellant.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Two offenders were sentenced after a jury conviction for importing cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Each offender attempted to import nearly four kilograms of high‑purity cocaine concealed in luggage after travelling from Panama.

The court reviewed the established six‑to‑eight‑year sentencing range for first‑offender couriers importing multiple kilograms of cocaine, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Arguments that potential immigration consequences for one offender should justify a sentence below the range were rejected as speculative and inconsistent with proportionality principles.

Considering mitigating factors including lack of criminal records, the court imposed custodial sentences near the low end of the range.

The accused was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the death of her three‑year‑old child following a prolonged pattern of physical abuse.

Medical evidence established multiple blunt‑force injuries of varying ages, including skull fractures and internal bleeding, culminating in a fatal head injury inflicted while the child was in the accused’s sole care.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation that earlier injuries resulted from an accidental bookcase incident and found beyond a reasonable doubt that she had inflicted numerous prior assaults over weeks or months.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in cases involving violence against vulnerable children and abuse of parental trust, the court imposed a substantial penitentiary term.

Immigration consequences were considered but given only modest weight.

Sentencing for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and the concept of the mandatory minimum as an "inflationary floor" in firearm sentencing jurisprudence.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s relatively modest record and the severe immigration consequence of automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Aggravating factors included the dangerous combination of a loaded handgun and drug trafficking activity.

The court imposed the three‑year mandatory minimum for the firearm offence with a consecutive one‑year sentence for drug trafficking, resulting in a four‑year global sentence, with enhanced pre‑trial custody credit at 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions.