Immigration consequences

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 was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5000 and one count of knowingly using a forged document involving significant loans from private lenders.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court found the offences constituted a large-scale fraud, attracting a three-to-five-year range.

However, considering the offender's lack of a prior record and the severe collateral immigration consequences (deportation without appeal), the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment.

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 applicant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in 2008.

Over 11 years later, he was arrested in the United States for immigration violations and sought an extension of time to appeal his Canadian conviction, arguing his plea was uninformed regarding immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the 11-year delay excessive, the proposed ground of appeal weak, and that the applicant failed to establish that the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The offender was convicted of ten counts of fraud and one count of defrauding the public, involving the sale of fictitious shares in gold mining companies to unsophisticated investors.

The total fraud exceeded $1.1 million.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, finding that the principles of denunciation and deterrence required a significant penitentiary term given the magnitude, duration, and devastating impact of the fraud on vulnerable victims.

The court also ordered full restitution of $1,100,799 and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

The offender was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to an armed robbery committed by her son, having disposed of a sweater he wore during the crime.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence, while the defence requested a sentence of less than six months to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court applied a 1:1 credit for 157 days of pre-trial custody to avoid the draconian immigration consequences, sentencing the offender to one day in jail and 18 months of probation.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault against his former domestic partner.

The court found as fact that the offender engaged in non-consensual digital penetration, forced fellatio, and attempted intercourse.

The offender, a permanent resident and pastor, faced deportation without a right of appeal if sentenced to more than six months.

The court held that while immigration consequences are relevant, they cannot dominate the sentencing process.

The court sentenced the offender to 20 months' incarceration, finding a reformatory sentence appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the offender's lack of criminal record.

The offender was convicted of possession of 64.1 grams of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.

He was arrested in an apartment stairwell while intoxicated and brandishing a knife.

The Crown sought a 4-year sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the offender sought a sentence under 4.5 months to preserve immigration appeal rights.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years imprisonment, less 19.5 months credit for pre-sentence custody, finding that his addiction and the circumstances required a sentence long enough to facilitate rehabilitation and protect the public.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing approximately 2.9 kilograms of cocaine hidden in his suitcase.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a sentence of five and a half years, which is below the usual range of six to eight years for first-time importers.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding that the offender's severe cognitive deficits and the certainty of his deportation to Guyana were unusual mitigating circumstances that justified a departure from the usual range.

The offender was sentenced to five and a half years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death after his vehicle struck a pedestrian.

The accident was not his fault, but he left the scene for 20-25 seconds, during which time the pedestrian was run over by a truck and killed.

The court stayed the manslaughter conviction under the Kienapple principle.

Considering the highly unusual mitigating circumstances and collateral immigration consequences, the court sentenced the accused to six months less a day imprisonment, followed by 18 months of probation.

The appellant, a permanent resident, pleaded guilty to robbery and was subsequently deported.

He appealed his conviction, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as his lawyer allegedly failed to advise him of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was already subject to a stayed deportation order and knew that further criminal convictions could lead to deportation.

Even if counsel's performance was deficient, there was no miscarriage of justice because the appellant understood deportation was a potential consequence of his plea.

The appellant, a permanent resident, was convicted of aggravated assault after burning her ten-year-old child with a hot iron.

She appealed her 20-month sentence, seeking a reduction to five months to preserve her right to appeal a removal order under immigration law.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly consider the specific immigration consequences, the 20-month sentence remained fit and proportionate given the egregious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and threatening damage to property following an altercation with a close friend.

The victim suffered a broken orbital bone.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months incarceration, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence, noting the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and potential immigration consequences as a permanent resident.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence (65 days net after pre-sentence credit) and one year of probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects and the victim's desire for reconciliation.