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 convicted of two counts of sexual assault against his 18-year-old stepdaughter.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse and occurred in the victim's home, constituting a severe breach of trust.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the profound psychological impact on the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and the collateral immigration consequences of likely deportation.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 3 years for each count, resulting in a global custodial sentence of 6 years, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

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 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 offender, a permanent resident and first-time offender, was found guilty of possessing a loaded restricted firearm.

The Crown sought a 3 to 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day to avoid automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court found that the absence of typical aggravating factors, the offender's stable employment and family life, and the severe immigration consequences justified a more lenient sentence.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by one year of probation.

The offender, a transport truck driver, pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death after rear-ending a stopped vehicle in a highway construction zone, killing two young men.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victims' families, the offender's prior driving record, and his status as a Convention refugee facing potential deportation.

The court found that the proposed sentence of five months to avoid immigration consequences was entirely inadequate given the gravity of the offences.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault after raping the victim at a university party while she was intoxicated.

The court considered the offender's prior criminal record, lack of remorse, and the severe impact on the victim.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in custody, along with a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault after posing as an Uber driver to lure an intoxicated young woman into his vehicle.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and premeditation, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record and the severe immigration consequences he faced as a refugee claimant.

The court sentenced the offender to 12 months of imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The appellant appealed his eight-month sentence for impaired driving, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the judge erred by sentencing him in absentia.

The Superior Court dismissed these grounds, finding the plea was voluntary, counsel had explained the immigration consequences, and the judge reasonably exercised his discretion to sentence the appellant after he absconded.

However, the appeal was allowed in part because the sentencing judge failed to consider the collateral immigration consequences of the sentence.

The sentence was reduced to six months less a day to account for these consequences.

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 accused sought to withdraw a guilty plea after learning it carried serious immigration consequences.

A majority held that an accused must show a reasonable possibility of subjective prejudice, meaning they would have pleaded differently if informed.

The court found the plea was uninformed but dismissed the appeal because that prejudice was not established.

The appellant appealed his eight-month sentence for uttering a death threat to a correctional officer.

The appeal raised the issue of collateral immigration consequences that were not considered at sentencing.

As a landed immigrant, a sentence of six months or more would trigger mandatory deportation without a right of appeal under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the appellant's immigration status and the danger opinion process initiated by the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The court reduced the sentence to six months less one day, finding that while collateral immigration consequences are relevant to sentencing, the sentence must remain proportionate to the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.

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 offender, a 33-year-old first-time offender and mother of four, acted as the getaway driver for her boyfriend in two armed robberies at bus stops.

The principal offender used an imitation firearm and received a five-year sentence.

The court considered the offender's lesser role, her lack of a criminal record, and the potential immigration consequences of her sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration, reduced to 4 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault involving brief anal penetration of the complainant during a workplace party after consensual dancing and kissing.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused’s lack of criminal record, positive pre‑sentence report, and rehabilitative prospects.

The defence sought a sentence of six months less a day due to immigration consequences that could lead to deportation.

The court held that while immigration consequences may be considered, they cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range.

A custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years’ probation was imposed as proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for two counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon arising from a domestic relationship, as well as the sentence imposed.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider consent and self-defence, misapprehended evidence, and provided legally insufficient reasons.

The court held that neither consent nor self-defence were live issues at trial, the alleged misapprehension did not constitute reversible error, and the reasons satisfied the functional requirements for appellate review.

However, the Crown conceded that the sentencing judge should have apportioned pre-sentence custody across the convictions.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal in part to apportion pre-sentence custody equally among the assault convictions.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following a guilty plea to sexual assault arising from the non‑disclosure and transmission of genital herpes (HSV‑2) during unprotected sexual intercourse.

The sentencing judge had imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation, emphasizing the offender’s lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown argued the sentence was manifestly unfit and that the sentencing judge improperly minimized the importance of denunciation and general deterrence.

The Superior Court held that the sentencing judge made no error in principle and that the disposition was defensible in the context of a novel “test case” with little appellate guidance.

The Crown’s appeal from sentence was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal criminal convictions entered following guilty pleas, arguing he was unaware that the convictions would trigger deportation proceedings under immigration law.

Applying the factors governing extensions of time for criminal appeals, the court considered whether the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, whether the delay was adequately explained, and whether the proposed appeal had merit.

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the immigration consequences months after the conviction and reasonably formed an intention to appeal once informed of the risk of deportation.

Although the applicant initially benefited from the plea and some factors weighed against relief, the court concluded that the potential deportation consequences and possible issues with the voluntariness and unequivocal nature of the plea raised an arguable appeal.

The extension of time to file a notice of appeal was granted.

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.