Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20210224 Docket: M52099 & M52188 (C65015)

MacPherson, van Rensburg and Jamal JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Angelina Marie Codina Appellant/Applicant

Counsel: Angelina Codina, acting in person Vanita Goela, for the respondent

Heard: in writing

Reasons for Decision

[1] The applicant Angelina Codina applies to re-open her conviction and sentence appeals and seeks judicial interim release pending the disposition of this application and any rehearing of her appeals.

[2] The applicant was convicted by a jury of four counts of providing advice or representation to persons on immigration matters for consideration without being authorized to do so, contrary to s. 91(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), and one count of knowingly counselling a person to make a misrepresentation in an immigration application, contrary to s. 126 of the IRPA. She was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, less two years’ credit for pre-sentence custody, for a net sentence of five years, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $30,200.

[3] The applicant’s conviction and sentence appeals were bifurcated. Her sentence appeal was heard and dismissed on December 16, 2019: R. v. Codina, 2019 ONCA 986. Her conviction appeal was dismissed from the bench on October 26, 2020, for reasons released on December 30, 2020: R. v. Codina, 2020 ONCA 848 (“Codina (2020)”).

[4] Rather than apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the applicant now asks this court to re-open her appeals based on an alleged miscarriage of justice. She asserts that s. 91 of the IRPA is ultra vires Parliament, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) did not have the jurisdiction to arrest or charge her, she could not be convicted because she used a corporation to provide immigration services, and the trial judge misdirected the jury.

[5] We see no basis to reopen the appeals. All these points were dealt with in this court’s comprehensive reasons dismissing the applicant’s appeal from conviction: Codina (2020), at paras. 51-64 (s. 91 of the IRPA is not ultra vires Parliament), 47-50 (jurisdiction of CBSA to arrest and detain the appellant), 78-82 (exclusion of evidence of the corporate organization to provide immigration services), and 83-101 (jury instructions). Nothing was overlooked. There is no basis to assert a miscarriage of justice.

[6] The applicant also asserts that the appeals should be reopened because a new independent federal body has been created to regulate and govern immigration consultants. That, however, is irrelevant to the charges against the applicant, who in any event was never an authorized immigration consultant.

[7] The application to re-open the conviction and sentence appeals is dismissed. Given this conclusion, the application for bail is dismissed as moot.

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“M. Jamal J.A.”