Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Flowers, 2020 ONCA 468

DATE: 20200716

DOCKET: C68015

Benotto, Fairburn and Jamal JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Theodore Guy Flowers

Appellant

Counsel:

Theodore Guy Flowers, self-represented

Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: July 9, 2020 by Teleconference

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 29, 2016 by Justice Julie Bourgeois of the Ontario Court of Justice.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is an appeal from conviction on multiple counts arising from a vehicular accident involving alcohol and a search incident to arrest. The appellant entered guilty pleas on February 27, 2017.

[2] He did not show up for his sentencing date. The matter was put over for a very lengthy period of time, the reasons for which are not entirely clear on the record before us.

[3] When the matter ultimately came on for sentencing, the appellant moved to strike his guilty pleas. While he did not bring a formal application to strike, at that point he was a self-represented individual who was detained on other matters. He suggested to the court that he had been under the mistaken impression at the time that he entered his guilty pleas, that the pleas would result in him being granted access to drug treatment programming through drug treatment court. He said that his desire to get into drug treatment was the reason he pled guilty, but that this had not occurred. He also said that he thought that he could strike the guilty pleas if he so desired.

[4] We are satisfied that, at a minimum, the guilty pleas were not informed. There was no s. 606(1.1) Criminal Code plea inquiry conducted. Nor was a plea inquiry even referred to. While not dispositive of whether a guilty plea can withstand scrutiny, we note that none of the elements of s. 606(1.1) were inquired into before the pleas were entered. As well, in the context of a scheduling discussion relating to when the matter would return for sentencing, but prior to the guilty pleas being entered, the trial judge specifically observed that "the plea could be struck and he could be re-arraigned".

[5] In light of the record as a whole, including the absence of any plea inquiry and the comment about the apparent ease with which the plea could be struck, we are not satisfied that the pleas meet the requirements of being voluntary, unequivocal and informed.

[6] The appeal is granted, the guilty pleas are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of original jurisdiction.

"M.L. Benotto J.A."

"Fairburn J.A."

"M. Jamal J.A."