COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-00000155-00MO
DATE: 20210201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
ANGELINA CODINA
V. Goela, for the Crown
A. Codina, self-represented
HEARD: 22 January 2021
s.a.Q. akhtar j.
[1] The applicant was charged with four counts of providing advice or representation for consideration 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 relation to the IRPA contrary to s. 126 of the same statute.
[2] The applicant was convicted by a jury of all counts and sentenced, on 29 May 2018, by Molloy J., to seven years imprisonment: R. v. Codina #8, 2018 ONSC 2180. The applicant appealed both sentence and conviction but was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both appeals: see, R. v. Codina, 2020 ONCA 848 and 2019 ONCA 986.
[3] The applicant applies to this court on a writ of habeas corpus alleging that she has been unlawfully detained and should be released. At the end of submissions, I dismissed the application with reasons to follow.
[4] The applicant advances a plethora of grounds to support her application including the unconstitutionality of s. 91(1) of the IRPA, the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to try her under the IRPA, the improper constitution of the indictment upon which she was convicted, the illegality of her arrest by the police, and a change in the law that impacts her convicted status.
[5] The Crown opposes the motion submitting that all of the issues complained about by the applicant have already been argued and dismissed both at trial and on appeal. Moreover, the Crown points out that the applicant has filed an application to re-open the appeal on the basis of her claims regarding the change in the law. That application is due to be heard on 9 February 2021.
[6] In R. v. Olson, 1989 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 296, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-part test to be used in habeas corpus applications. First, the applicant must show that reasonable and probable grounds exist for the complaint. Second, if the court is satisfied that the grounds exist, the application is heard on its merits.
[7] I agree with the Crown that this application fails to overcome the first limb: there are no reasonable grounds for the complaint that the applicant is unlawfully detained.
[8] Nearly all of the grounds outlined by the applicant were determined at trial before Molloy J. and at the Court of Appeal. On both occasions, the applicant’s complaints were dismissed. For example, the claim that the Canadian Border Services Agency lacked jurisdiction to arrest the applicant was discussed and dealt with at paras. 47-50 of the Court of Appeal’s decision; the deficiencies in the indictment at paras. 69-73.
[9] The applicant’s latest claim, regarding a change in the law, is a matter that she seeks to raise before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. If the applicant is successful in persuading the court to re-open the appeal, it would be open to her to apply for bail. If unsuccessful, then the question of whether her detention is unlawful on that basis is resolved.
[10] For these reasons, the application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.
Released: 1 February 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-00000155-00MO
DATE: 20210101
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
ANGELINA CODINA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.