Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20211208 DOCKET: C69924

MacPherson, Coroza and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Angelina Codina Applicant (Appellant)

and

Grand Valley Institution for Women Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel: Angelina Codina, acting in person Ian B. Kasper, appearing as duty counsel Shain Widdifield and James Stuckey, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: December 7, 2021

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael R. Gibson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 17, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 6164.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted of four counts of providing advice or representation contrary to s. 91(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, c. 27 and one count of knowingly counselling a person to make a misrepresentation in relation to the administration of the IRPA, contrary to s. 126.

[2] The appellant is a disbarred lawyer and is not a licensed immigration consultant under the IRPA.

[3] The appellant is currently incarcerated at Grand Valley Institution pursuant to a warrant of committal issued by Molloy J. of the Superior Court on May 29, 2018.

[4] The appellant appealed her conviction; the appeal was dismissed by this court: R. v. Codina, 2020 ONCA 848. The appellant appealed her sentence; the appeal was dismissed: R. v. Codina, 2019 ONCA 986.

[5] The appellant applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the warrant of committal. The application was dismissed by Gibson J.: Codina v. Grand Valley Institution for Women, 2021 ONSC 6164. The application judge said, at paras. 20, 21, 25 and 26:

Ms. Codina has unsuccessfully tried the arguments in her present application multiple times before this Court and the Court of Appeal. The basis for her arguments is identical or essentially the same. In this application, she has sought to recast them in a slightly different guise.

I agree with the submission of the Respondent that in the present habeas corpus application, Ms. Codina offers only the veneer of new argument.

In accordance with s.782, [of the Criminal Code], Ms. Codina’s warrant of committal alleges that she was convicted, and there is a valid conviction to sustain the warrant, as has been determined by the Court of Appeal.

I am satisfied that the application does not show a substantial ground for the order sought, that the application is frivolous, vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the court’s process, and that it can be determined without a full hearing.

[6] The appellant appeals from the application judge’s decision.

[7] We see no merit in the appellant’s appeal. We specifically endorse the application judge’s analysis and conclusion. That conclusion is, in a word, obvious.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“S. Coroza J.A.”

“Sossin J.A.”