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 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 appellant was convicted of breaking and entering in connection with a bank vault theft in Burlington.

He appealed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial counsel failed to bring a Carosella application for a stay of proceedings based on lost police booking video evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that a Carosella application would have had no chance of success given the innocent explanation for the loss of evidence and the appellant's lack of diligence in requesting it.

The court also found that the mid-trial instruction provided by the trial judge was actually more beneficial to the defence than the standard lost evidence instruction.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed as fit and free from error.

The appellant appealed both her conviction for fraud under $5,000 and her sentence of three months imprisonment with restitution of $6,339.20.

The conviction appeal was not pressed and was dismissed as fully warranted by the evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued for a conditional discharge based on collateral immigration consequences, as she faced deportation as a foreign national convicted of an indictable offence.

The court dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the three-month term was fit and at the very low end of the appropriate range for fraud involving social assistance funds, particularly given the appellant's prior similar conviction and breach of probation.

The appellant, a permanent resident, pleaded guilty to eight offences arising from assaults on his spouse.

The day before his plea, an Immigration Enforcement Officer informed him that he could be deemed inadmissible to Canada due to prior convictions and that he would lose his right to appeal a removal order if he received a sentence exceeding six months.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a joint submission of 12 months' imprisonment less 247 days pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a four-month custodial term.

A removal order was subsequently issued.

On appeal, the appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming it was uninformed because he was unaware of the specific immigration consequences regarding appellate rights, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate understanding of the immigration consequences and failed to establish prejudice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft from mail contrary to s. 356(3) of the Criminal Code.

Both the Crown and the appellant agreed that the guilty plea was uninformed because the appellant was not aware of the immigration consequences of a conviction for that offence.

The parties agreed that had the appellant been fully informed, he would have pled guilty to the lesser included offence of theft under $5,000 contrary to s. 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

On consent, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction for theft from mail was set aside, and a conviction for theft under $5,000 was substituted.

The sentence remained unchanged and had already been served.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 15-year-old passenger in his Uber vehicle.

The Crown sought 12 months jail; the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 90 days.

The court imposed 11.5 months jail structured as two consecutive sentences of 173 days each (plus 3 days presentence custody) to remain below the 6-month threshold that would trigger mandatory deportation consequences under immigration law.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for offences involving children, and noted the defendant's lack of remorse, empathy, and insight into his conduct as aggravating factors.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 18 months incarceration (less pre-sentence credit) imposed for multiple offences including making false documents, possessing identity documents, using forged documents, possession of property obtained by crime, and trafficking in identity information.

Duty counsel argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider serious immigration consequences, specifically that the appellant faced deportation to the United Kingdom as a permanent resident.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record of 24 convictions for dishonesty and multiple failures to comply with community supervision orders.

The court rejected the argument that a conditional sentence should be imposed to preserve immigration appeal rights, holding that sentencing flexibility should not be misused to avoid collateral statutory consequences.

The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and importing less than one kilogram of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years in penitentiary, while the defence sought six to nine months.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years (1,278 days) on the importing charge, with credit for restrictive bail time reducing the sentence to serve to three years (1,098 days), and a concurrent six-month sentence on the possession charge.

The court considered the defendant's background, employment history, and character references, but emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the serious nature of drug importation and the defendant's prior trafficking conviction.

The defendant pleaded guilty to common assault after initially facing a robbery charge.

The assault occurred when the defendant, as part of a group, physically searched a 17-year-old victim on a public street, including forcibly pulling down the victim's pants.

The defendant was bound by two probation orders at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge, citing potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding that while immigration consequences were relevant, they were minor and did not warrant a discharge given the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's prior record, and the need for denunciation and specific deterrence.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon (a USB charger cord) against his six-year-old son.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 30 days custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offence, the accused's exemplary rehabilitation efforts, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, mental health issues at the time of the offence, and strong family support warranted restraint and emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

The court distinguished the case from Crown authorities involving offenders with criminal records and lack of remorse.

The defendant was convicted after trial of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that the defendant was driving after he breached a police roadblock.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a ninety-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a ninety-day intermittent sentence with three years' probation, community service, and an enhanced victim surcharge, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his long-term permanent resident status and family ties in Canada.

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 appealed his sentence of twelve months plus three years probation for arson, seeking leave to appeal and challenging the custodial portion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the collateral immigration consequences of the sentence.

The appellant, a 19-year-old with special needs who was unaware of his non-citizen status at sentencing, would have been deported to a refugee camp in a country where he had no connection or supports.

The court imposed a fit sentence of six months less a day, which the appellant had already served.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking contrary to Section 279.01 of the Criminal Code, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking contrary to Section 279.02, and assault contrary to Section 266.

The offender, a 25-year-old permanent resident from Macedonia, exploited a vulnerable 21-year-old woman addicted to cocaine by encouraging her to work at strip clubs and spas, exercising control over her movements, threatening her with violence, and taking the majority of her earnings.

The exploitation occurred over approximately five days in late October 2014 and involved approximately $600-$800 in earnings.

The offender received an 18-month sentence on the trafficking charge, 18 months concurrent on the material benefit charge, and 90 days concurrent on the assault charge, followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Two accused pleaded guilty to theft over and mischief under relating to a jewelry store theft of $64,000 worth of jewelry in Toronto on December 12, 2016.

The Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted for a "time served" disposition with 12 months probation.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Pre-sentence reports revealed significant criminal histories and substance abuse issues not disclosed at the time of the guilty pleas.

The court imposed 8 months in reformatory for Flores and 90 days in jail for Criado, applying the public interest test from R. v. Anthony-Cook.

Two young, first-time offenders pleaded guilty to smoking on board an aircraft and mischief to property following disruptive behaviour aboard a Cuba-bound flight.

The defendants consumed duty-free alcohol, became intoxicated, smoked in the washroom, and made a bomb threat that caused the aircraft to return to Toronto.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and restitution, while the defendants sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed conditional discharges with 12-month probation, 100 hours additional community service, alcohol counselling, $500 fines for the aviation offence, and $7,500 restitution each to the airline.

The defendant, a bank employee, pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud involving the theft of over $11,000 from the bank and its clients.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The defendant claimed he committed the frauds to raise money to save his sister from kidnapping and rape threats by a Syrian militia group.

The court found the defendant's testimony credible and accepted that his motivation was to protect his sister from serious harm.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the case—involving duress-like conditions and a humanitarian motivation—warranted a departure from the typical sentencing range for breach of trust frauds.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed following guilty pleas to multiple property offences and a breach of recognizance, arguing that the convictions created unforeseen adverse immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Relying on the principles in R. v. Pham, the appellant sought to replace the convictions with a conditional discharge.

The court accepted fresh evidence concerning potential immigration consequences but held that granting a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

The offences involved multiple fraudulent transactions over an extended period, a breach of recognizance, and significant retail losses.

The court concluded that substituting a discharge solely to mitigate immigration consequences would produce an unfit sentence and improperly skew the sentencing process.

The appellant, a non-citizen convicted of drug offences, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment pursuant to a joint submission.

Neither counsel nor the Crown had advised the sentencing judge that a two-year sentence would strip the appellant of his right to appeal a removal order under the IRPA.

The Supreme Court held that collateral immigration consequences are a relevant factor in sentencing, flowing from principles of individualization and parity, but must not be allowed to skew the sentencing process or produce artificial sentences.

Since the Crown conceded the sentence should be reduced by one day and both sentences fell within the fit range, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to two years less a day.