R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No.

1264
Ontario Judgments

Ontario Court of Appeal

A. Hoy A.C.J.O., D. Watt J.A. and E.F. Then J. (ad hoc)
Heard: September 12, 2018.
Judgment: March 13, 2019.
Docket: C63897

[2019] O.J. No. 1264 | 2019 ONCA 202

Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Yashpal Singh Girn, Appellant

(100 paras.)
Case Summary

Criminal law — Procedure — Pleas — Setting aside guilty plea — Voluntariness — Appeal
by accused from conviction and sentence for domestic violence offences dismissed —
Accused was permanent resident who pled guilty to seven offences arising from three
domestic violence offences in 2015 and was sentenced — Months later, he was charged
with further 26 counts arising from three subsequent incidents — He pled guilty to eight
counts and received 12-month sentence pursuant to joint submission — Removal order
was issued — Accused failed to establish guilty plea was uninformed due to
unawareness of immigration consequences or proposed sentence — No ineffective
assistance of counsel was established.

Criminal law — Appeals — Grounds — Miscarriage of justice — Appeal by accused from

conviction and sentence for domestic violence offences dismissed — Accused was
permanent resident who pled guilty to seven offences arising from three domestic
violence offences in 2015 and was sentenced — Months later, he was charged with
further 26 counts arising from three subsequent incidents — He pled guilty to eight
counts and received 12-month sentence pursuant to joint submission — Removal order
was issued — Accused failed to establish guilty plea was uninformed due to
unawareness of immigration consequences or proposed sentence — No ineffective
assistance of counsel was established.

Appeal by the accused, Girn, from a conviction and sentence for offences related to domestic violence. The
accused was a permanent resident of Canada who had yet to apply for citizenship. In early 2015, the accused
pled guilty to seven offences arising from three incidents of domestic violence against his spouse. He received a
brief jail term followed by probation. Approximately two months after sentencing, three further incidents occurred
that led to charges on 26 counts involving offences against the accused's spouse's person and property, and
multiple breaches of probation. The accused was detained in custody. In 2016, while in custody, an immigration
officer told the accused he faced the prospect of being deemed inadmissible on the basis of serious criminality.
The following day, the accused entered a guilty plea to eight of the 26 counts, including assault causing bodily
 Page 2 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

harm, and break and enter with intent. A joint submission resulted in a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment,
less 247 days' credit, plus three years' probation. In 2017, a removal order was issued for the accused as a
result of his convictions and sentence for assault causing bodily harm. The accused obtained an extension of
time to appeal his convictions and sentence.

HELD: Appeal dismissed.

The accused failed to establish that his guilty plea was uninformed due to unawareness of the immigration
consequences of his plea and the sentence jointly proposed by counsel. The accused was aware that his
convictions and sentences had immigration consequences that included removal from Canada, and that any right
of appeal from a removal order could not be asserted for a term of imprisonment exceeding six months. He was
aware that he was pleading guilty, and that counsel jointly sought a 12-month sentence. The accused relied on
fellow inmates for legal advice rather than counsel. No prejudice arose, as a trial would have put the accused at
jeopardy for 26 rather than eight counts, and likely provided a basis for the Crown seeking a penitentiary
sentence. The accused failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance from counsel. His plea of guilty
was voluntary, unequivocal and informed. The legal effect of that plea and the congruity of the admitted facts
with the essential elements of the relevant offences resulted in inevitable convictions. There were no
circumstances that compromised the fairness of the proceedings either in connection with the entry of the
conviction or the determination of a fit sentence. As a spousal abuse recidivist and serial probation order violator,
the sentence imposed upon the accused could be regarded as lenient.

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 606(1.1)

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 36(1)(a), s. 64(1), s. 64(2)

Appeal From:
On appeal from the convictions entered and from the sentence imposed by Justice Salvatore Merenda of the
Ontario Court of Justice on March 24, 2016.

Counsel

Lakhwinder Sandhu, for the appellant.

Andrew Hotke, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

 Page 3 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

D. WATT J.A.

1 On March 23, 2016, the appellant, Yashpal Singh Girn was in jail. That day he had a visitor. It
was an officer from the Canadian Border Services Agency ("CBSA"). The officer brought some
documents and explained them to the appellant.

2 The documents related to convictions entered against the appellant on two separate
occasions in 2015 and advised him that, because of those convictions, there were reasonable
grounds to believe that he was inadmissible to Canada. A decision whether to allow him to
remain in Canada or to order his removal would be made in the near future after a complete
review of his case. He was advised to complete some forms and submit them to the CBSA
office.

3 The next day, the appellant pleaded guilty to eight further offences committed on two days in
October 2015. His lawyer and the trial Crown made a joint submission on sentence to the
presiding judge. They proposed a sentence of twelve months in custody, followed by probation
for a term of three years. With credit of 247 days for 165 days of actual pre-disposition custody,
the custodial component of the sentence imposed was four months. The judge acceded to the
joint submission and imposed the proposed sentence.

4 About one year later, the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada issued a deportation order directing the removal of the appellant from Canada on the
grounds of serious criminality.

5 The appellant sought and obtained orders from judges of this court extending the time within
which he could appeal his convictions and seek leave to appeal his sentence.

6 In the reasons that follow, I will explain why I have concluded that both appeals fail and
should be dismissed.

The Background Facts

7 The grounds of appeal advanced do not require a detailed description of the circumstances of
the offences to which the appellant pleaded guilty. But the procedural history of the prosecution
and the removal proceedings are important to better understand the grounds of appeal
advanced and their determination.

The Early History

8 As a result of three separate incidents with his spouse in the first half of 2015, the appellant
pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two counts of assault, one count of assault with a
weapon, two counts of failure to comply with a probation order and single counts of break and
enter with intent and uttering threats. The dispositions included brief jail terms (taking into
account time spent in pre-disposition custody) followed by periods of probation.

9 The terms of probation included requirements that the appellant keep the peace and be of
good behaviour and that he not communicate in any way with the complainant.
 Page 4 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

The October Offences

10 As a result of three separate incidents occurring on two days in October 2015, about two
months after he had been sentenced on prior similar offences, the appellant was charged with
26 counts involving offences against the person and property of his spouse and failures to
comply with three separate probation orders. Some of the offences were punishable by terms of
imprisonment of ten years or more.

11 The appellant was detained in custody.

The Immigration Notice

12 The appellant entered Canada when he was 14 years old in 1996. He is a permanent
resident and has not applied for citizenship.

13 While in custody on March 23, 2016, an Immigration Enforcement Officer from the CBSA
told the appellant that he may be deemed inadmissible to Canada as a result of his previous
convictions for break and enter with intent and assault with a weapon. The officer explained that
"serious criminality" referred to crimes committed in Canada that were punished by terms of
imprisonment of at least six months. The officer also reminded the appellant of his obligation to
make submissions about why he should remain in Canada. The letter provided to the appellant
by the officer contained most of this information.

14 In cross-examination on his affidavit in support of his application to withdraw his guilty plea
and advance his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant confirmed that he
understood from the officer that he could be subject to a removal or deportation order. He also
appreciated that, because he had not received sentences of six months or more for his previous
offences, he could appeal any removal order made against him. He was also made aware that
any sentences of imprisonment exceeding six months which resulted in a removal order, left him
without a right of appeal from that order.

The Pleas of Guilty

15 On March 24, 2016, the day following his meeting with the Immigration Enforcement Officer,
the appellant appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty to 8 of the 26 counts arising out of the
incidents in October of 2015. Counsel had represented the appellant in prior proceedings in
another jurisdiction and was the only lawyer the appellant had retained in connection with the
charges from October 2015.

16 In advance of his court appearance, the appellant met with his counsel who explained that
he and the Crown would be making a joint submission for a sentence of 12 months in custody
on all charges.

17 In the courtroom, the appellant pleaded guilty to all eight counts on which he was arraigned.
Included were counts charging assault causing bodily harm and break and enter with intent,
each of which carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for at least ten years.

The Sentences Imposed

18 Where permitted to choose mode of procedure, the Crown proceeded by indictment.

 Page 5 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

Counsel on both sides admitted that the sentence that should be imposed was 12 months'
imprisonment, less credit of 247 days for 165 days of pre-disposition custody, to be followed by
3 years of probation with several proposed terms. Neither counsel suggested how to apportion
the pre-disposition custody among the various convictions or how the individual sentences
should be calculated or served to arrive at the proposed sentence of about four months.

19 The sentencing judge's endorsements on the Information indicate that he attributed the
custodial sentence and term of probation to the conviction of assault causing bodily harm. On
the other counts, he suspended the passing of sentence, imposed periods of probation on the
same terms as for the conviction of assault causing bodily harm, and directed that the sentences
be served concurrently.

The Immigration Proceedings

20 On May 3, 2017, the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
issued a removal order for the appellant as a result of his convictions and sentence for assault
causing bodily harm.

21 On September 18, 2017, the Immigration Appeal Division dismissed the appellant's appeal
from the removal order for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant had no right of appeal because he
was found to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality (the conviction of assault causing
bodily harm), which had been punished by imprisonment of at least six months (four months
plus credit of 247 days for the pre-disposition custody).

The Appellate Proceedings

22 Judges of this court extended the time within which the appellant could appeal the
convictions entered and sentence imposed on March 24, 2016.

The Grounds of Appeal

23 The appellant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea and have a new trial, or wants his sentence
reduced so that he can appeal his removal order. He identifies two errors in the proceedings that
he says resulted in his conviction and sentence:

i. his plea of guilty was uninformed because he was not aware of the collateral
immigration consequences of the joint submission on sentence; and
ii. his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in his representation.

24 The grounds are discrete, yet related. The sparse trial record has been supplemented by
materials furnished in accordance with our protocol for claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. I would admit this material as fresh evidence because I consider it to be in the interests
of justice to do so.

Ground # 1: The Uninformed Plea of Guilty

25 An examination of the plea proceedings, as well as the information provided in connection

with the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, is essential to understanding this alleged
 Page 6 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

error and its determination.

The Plea Proceedings

26 When the appellant entered his pleas of guilty, he was represented by counsel who had
appeared on his behalf throughout these proceedings and had acted for him in a prior unrelated
prosecution in another jurisdiction. Counsel had participated in resolution discussions with the
Crown as well as pre-hearing conferences with the judge before whom the appellant pleaded
guilty.

27 When the appellant was arraigned and entered his pleas of guilty, the presiding judge did
not conduct a plea inquiry in accordance with s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Defence counsel indicated that he had conducted a plea inquiry with the
appellant and was satisfied that the appellant was familiar with the allegations made against him
and wanted to plead guilty to the counts on which he would be arraigned. Defence counsel
informed the judge that there would be a joint submission on sentence and that the appellant
understood that the judge did not have to impose the sentence counsel recommended.

28 The appellant indicated that he was prepared to proceed in accordance with what defence
counsel had said.

29 None of the participants inquired or said anything about the appellant's immigration status in
advance of entering the guilty pleas. During sentencing submissions, defence counsel told the
trial judge that someone from Immigration had visited the appellant and told him that he was to
report to Immigration on his release from custody after completing his sentence.

30 No one asked anything about the appellant's immigration status after defence counsel's
mention of it during submissions. The appellant said nothing about immigration in his allocution.

The Further Evidence

31 In his affidavit filed in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the appellant
acknowledged the visit of the Immigration Enforcement Officer and the officer's instructions that
he report to the Immigration Office on his release from custody. He told trial counsel about this
visit. The lawyer never told him that he should contact an immigration lawyer, or that he would
be deported after he had served his sentence and would not be able to appeal the deportation
order. The appellant claimed that he never expected that his imminent removal from Canada
would occur as a result of his guilty plea.

32 In cross-examination, the appellant agreed that the Immigration Enforcement Officer had
spoken to him about his prior convictions in 2015 and had told him that, as a result, he may be
inadmissible to Canada. The appellant understood that because the sentences imposed on
those convictions were less than six months, he could appeal a deportation order. He also
understood that receiving sentences of six months or more meant that he could not appeal any
deportation order made as a result.

33 The appellant testified that he told his trial counsel that he was a permanent resident. He
denied that trial counsel advised him about the seriousness of the charges he faced and the
impact of his prior convictions. Before he pleaded guilty, trial counsel told him that he and the
Crown would be (jointly) recommending a sentence of 12 months.
 Page 7 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

34 In further cross-examination, the appellant denied telling trial counsel that he had an
inheritance in India and wished to return there. Trial counsel did not tell him that deportation
could follow as a result of his convictions or that he would have no right to appeal a deportation
order if the sentence imposed exceeded six months in jail. Had he known that deportation would
follow from conviction, he would not have pleaded guilty.

35 The appellant did not change his mind about pleading guilty after he spoke to the
Immigration Enforcement Officer. He made this decision because he knew from what other
inmates at the jail had said, that pre-trial custody did not count in determining the length of
sentence and a person who has a family cannot be deported.

36 In his affidavit, trial counsel explained that the appellant told him that he (the appellant) was
a citizen of India where he wished to return to collect an inheritance to which he would not be
entitled if he became a Canadian citizen. Counsel told the appellant to stay out of trouble
because further trouble would increase the length of sentence the judge would impose and that
any sentence over six months would result in a deportation order that the appellant could not
appeal or seek to have stayed.

37 Trial counsel testified that he told the appellant that he could apply for legal aid certificates
for immigration and family law counsel. The appellant declined to do so because he would not
be staying in Canada. After counsel received and reviewed the Crown disclosure, he told the
appellant that he would be "looking at deportation" because the sentence he would likely receive
would exceed six months in custody. The initial position of the Crown was that a penitentiary
sentence should be imposed. As a result of the plea inquiry conducted with the appellant,
defence counsel was satisfied that the appellant understood that the judge would make the final
decision about sentence even though counsel would be jointly suggesting a custodial sentence
of 12 months, less pre-disposition custody, and a period of probation.

38 It was the evidence of trial counsel that the appellant understood the joint submission and
instructed him to proceed. He was unconcerned about the immigration implications because he
planned to return to India.

39 Trial counsel did not discuss with the appellant any apportionment of the time spent in pre-
disposition custody among the various offences, so that with credit, the sentence imposed would
not exceed six months in custody. A sentence under six months was simply impossible
according to trial counsel because of the appellant's record and the fact that he committed the
offences while bound by the terms of several probation orders.

The Arguments on Appeal

40 The appellant says that his plea of guilty should be set aside because it was not fully
informed. He did not know that he would have no right of appeal from the deportation order
because his sentence, including credit for time spent in pre-disposition custody, exceeded six
months.

41 In the appellant's submission, the mere fact that he understood the general nature of the
warning provided by the Immigration Enforcement Officer was not sufficient to render his plea of
guilty informed. What is more, counsel had a duty to advise the appellant specifically that a jail
 Page 8 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

sentence that exceeded six months deprived him of the right to appeal any deportation order
made as a result of that conviction and sentence.

42 The respondent rejects any suggestion that the appellant's guilty plea was uninformed
because he lacked specific information about the availability of appellate review to challenge
deportation orders.

43 According to the respondent, the record of trial proceedings as amplified by the fresh
evidence demonstrates that the appellant knew that there were immigration consequences of
his convictions. And he knew from what the Immigration Enforcement Officer had told him the
day before he pleaded guilty, that if he received a custodial sentence of six months or more, he
would lose his right to appeal the deportation order. The appellant's essential complaint is that
he relied on information provided by fellow inmates that time spent in pre-disposition custody
was not included in the sentence calculations for immigration purposes. That the information
was erroneous does not make his guilty plea uninformed.

44 The respondent emphasizes that the decision in R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25, 364 C.C.C. (3d)
1 requires an appellant who seeks to set aside on appeal a guilty plea as uninformed to
demonstrate not only that he or she was unaware of a legally relevant collateral consequence,
but also that this lack of awareness caused him or her subjective prejudice. The respondent
says that the appellant has failed to satisfy either requirement.

45 The respondent argues that the inability to appeal a deportation order is not a legally
relevant collateral consequence. Admittedly, state compelled immigration consequences of a
custodial sentencing disposition are legally relevant collateral consequences of a guilty plea. But
it is sufficient to satisfy the "informed" component of a guilty plea where an accused is aware
that deportation is a potential consequence. He or she need not know precisely how likely
deportation will be or how limited the options may be to avoid it.

46 Even if the inability to challenge a deportation order on appeal were a legally relevant
collateral consequence of a guilty plea, the appellant's claim should be rejected. The appellant
asserts that he was unaware that the joint submission for a 12-month sentence would leave him
without a right of appeal because his lawyer failed to advise him of this, and his fellow inmates
said that immigration authorities did not consider time spent in pre-disposition custody as part of
a sentence. This explanation beggars belief. He did not ask his counsel, rather relied on advice
from fellow inmates, well knowing the substance of the joint submission -- 12 months in custody
plus probation. Trial counsel testified that he told the appellant that if he spent more than six
months in jail he would be deported without a right of appeal.

47 Further, the respondent continues, any lack of knowledge is the appellant's own doing. He
knew the substance of the joint submission and the fact that a sentence of six months or more
meant no appeal. He also knew that the sentencing judge was not bound by the joint
submission. His approach of deliberate ignorance should be unavailing.

48 The respondent also takes issue with the appellant's claim of subjective prejudice arising
from his uninformed guilty plea. Any assertion that the appellant would have pleaded not guilty
and proceeded to trial or insisted on different conditions, had he known there was no right of
appeal, lacks evidentiary support. In addition to the circumstances already mentioned, it is plain
that, from the outset, the case was headed for resolution, not for trial. Indeed, this was the
appellant's history with all prior incidents. Nor was the appellant in a position to insist on different
 Page 9 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

conditions on entry of his pleas of guilty. As counsel said in cross-examination, a sentence that
aggregated less than six months inclusive of pre-disposition custody was "impossible" given the
circumstances of the case.

The Governing Principles

49 For the most part, the parties are not at odds about the principles that govern our decision in
this case, only the result that should follow from their application.

The Requirements of a Valid Guilty Plea

50 To be valid, a plea of guilty must be voluntary, unequivocal and informed: Wong, at para. 3;
R. v. Quick, 2016 ONCA 95, 129 O.R. (3d) 334, at para. 4.

The Informed Guilty Plea

51 For a plea of guilty to be informed, the accused who enters it must be aware of the nature of
the allegations made by the Crown and the effect and consequences of the plea: Wong, at para.
3; Quick, at para. 4; R. v. T. (R.) (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at p. 519.

52 An informed guilty plea means that an accused must be aware of the criminal consequences
of the plea and the legally relevant collateral consequences. A legally relevant collateral
consequence is a consequence that bears upon sufficiently serious legal interests of the
accused. Immigration consequences bear on sufficiently serious legal interests, falling within the
legally relevant collateral consequences of a guilty plea: Wong, at para. 4.

The Immigration Consequences

53 For permanent residents of Canada, s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA") declares them inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a
maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament
for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed.

54 Under s. 64(1) of the IRPA, permanent residents found to be inadmissible to Canada on

grounds of serious criminality have no right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division from a
removal order. For these purposes, "serious criminality" refers to a crime punished in Canada by
a term of imprisonment of at least six months: s. 64(2), IRPA.

55 Taken together, ss. 36(1)(a) and 64(1)-(2) of the IRPA render a permanent resident
convicted of a Criminal Code offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least
ten years inadmissible to, and thus, removable from Canada and without a right of appeal when
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least six months.

Knowledge of Immigration Consequences

56 Some pre-Wong authorities have considered the nature and extent of a permanent
resident's knowledge of immigration consequences that will defeat a claim that a guilty plea was
uninformed.
 Page 10 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

57 In R. v. Shiwprashad, 2015 ONCA 577, 328 C.C.C. (3d) 191, the appellant, a permanent
resident, was subject to a removal order arising out of convictions for sexual offences. The
Immigration Appeal Division stayed the order for four years on certain conditions. The stay order
contained the following wording:

IMPORTANT WARNING

This stay of removal is cancelled and your appeal is terminated by operation of law and
you may be removed from Canada, if you are convicted of another offence referred to in
subsection 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sentence of more than
six months imposed or punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least ten years) before
your case has been finally reconsidered.

58 During the currency of the stay order, the appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of
robbery. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that was the functional equivalent of a
sentence of nine months in custody. He was subsequently deported: Shiwprashad, at paras. 10,
16, 25-28.

59 On appeal, the appellant sought to set aside his guilty plea on the ground that his counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of his
plea.

60 This court dismissed the appeal, satisfied that the appellant knew that:

i. he was subject to deportation;

ii. the stay of his deportation would be cancelled if he committed any further offences
punishable by imprisonment for ten years or more or if he were sentenced to
imprisonment for a term of six months or more; and
iii. he could be deported.

See Shiwprashad, at paras. 72, 75.

61 In R. v. Coffey, 2017 BCCA 359, the appellant sought to set aside his guilty plea as
uninformed on the basis that he was unaware of the collateral immigration consequences of the
guilty plea and two-year sentence. In particular, the appellant said that he did not know at the
time of his guilty plea that as a permanent resident he could face deportation or that the length
of his sentence, based on a joint submission, would prevent him from appealing his removal
order.

62 The British Columbia Court of Appeal was satisfied that the appellant was aware that his
permanent resident status in Canada could be jeopardized by his conviction and sentence. He
was concerned that his guilty plea might lead authorities to initiate a removal process and
instructed his lawyer not to raise immigration status during plea negotiations. Despite his
concern, he did not choose to consult an immigration lawyer. A sentence of six months or less
was unfeasible in the circumstances: Coffey, at paras. 46-49.

63 The appeal was dismissed. In delivering the reasons of the court, Garson J.A. concluded, at
 Page 11 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

paras. 50-51:

In summary, an informed guilty plea requires the accused to have some awareness of the
potential immigration consequences of their plea. Further, immigration consequences
may be a necessary consideration in sentencing. However, an accused need not
necessarily know the precise immigration consequences of their conviction and sentence.
Case-by-case analysis is required to determine the degree to which an accused person
must be aware of the specific details of the immigration consequences of their guilty plea.
In this case, because of what I have termed Mr. Coffey's willful blindness, I conclude that
Mr. Coffey's plea was sufficiently informed. It follows that his counsel did not contribute to
an uninformed plea. On this basis alone I would dismiss the appeal.

64 In R. v. Tyler, 2007 BCCA 142, 218 C.C.C. (3d) 400, the appellant sought to have his guilty
plea struck on the basis that it was uninformed because he did not know the likely immigration
consequences flowing from his plea. In dismissing his appeal, Donald J.A. wrote, at paras. 23-
25:

While the automatic effect of a further conviction of possession of a break-in instrument

may not have been fully understood by the appellant, I am satisfied that he knew that his
status in Canada was in serious jeopardy. He pleaded guilty to achieve the short term
gain of early release and he put aside consideration of the longer term consequences, no
doubt hoping that things would work out as time went on. This was a free choice; his first
lawyer urged him to try the charges but that would have meant staying in jail for several
more months.
Does the ignorance of the automatic effect of the conviction vitiate the plea? If that were
so, then pleas could be struck on the basis that the outcome was not precisely as
anticipated. That kind of certainty is not to be expected of the criminal process, especially
when judges are free to depart from bargains struck by counsel, within certain reasonable
limits. See R. v. Hoang, 182 C.C.C. (3d) 69, 2003 ABCA 251 P 36:
The requirement that the accused understand the nature and consequences of a
guilty plea is not a requirement to canvas every conceivable consequence which may
result or may be foregone. Such a requirement would be a practical impossibility.
American jurisprudence has held the accused should be aware of the probable direct
consequences of the plea: Parker v. Ross, 470 F.2d 1092 (4th Cir. 1972).
Here the appellant knew he had been deported for possession of a break-in instrument,
received a stay on good behaviour, and then pleaded guilty to the same offence within a
few months of receiving the stay. I agree with respondent's counsel that the difference
between awareness of an automatic effect, and knowledge of a highly probable result, is
too fine a distinction.

See also R. v. Kitawine, 2016 BCCA 161, 386 B.C.A.C. 24, at paras. 20, 25-28.

Setting Aside Pleas of Guilty

65 An accused who seeks to set aside a presumptively valid guilty plea, on the basis that the
plea was uninformed because he or she was unaware of a legally relevant collateral
consequence at the time of entering the plea, must establish:
 Page 12 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

i. that she or he was in fact unaware of a legally relevant consequence of entering

the plea at the time of pleading guilty; and
ii. subjective prejudice.

See Wong, at paras. 6, 9, 19.

66 To establish subjective prejudice, an accused must file an affidavit establishing a reasonable

possibility that he or she would have either:

i. elected to plead not guilty and go to trial; or

ii. plead guilty, but with different conditions.

See Wong, at paras. 6, 19.

Of necessity, a reviewing court must assess the veracity of an accused's claim. This inquiry is
subjective to the particular accused who seeks to set aside their plea, but allows for an objective
assessment of contemporaneous evidence to determine the credibility of the accused's
subjective claim: Wong, at para. 6.

67 In connection with the first form of prejudice -- where an accused would have pleaded not
guilty and opted for trial -- there will always be cases in which the accused may have little to no
chance of success. However, that is not to say that a remote chance of success at trial means
the accused is not sincere in his or her claim that the plea would have been different.
Sometimes, certain but previously unknown consequences of a conviction make even a remote
chance of success at trial a chance worth taking. Provided a court accepts the veracity of the
accused's statement, when tested against the objective contemporaneous evidence, then the
accused has demonstrated prejudice and should be entitled to withdraw their guilty plea: Wong,
at para. 20.

68 The second form of prejudice -- where an accused would have pleaded guilty, but only on
different conditions -- will be established where a reviewing court finds that the accused would
have insisted on those conditions to enter the guilty plea and those conditions would have
alleviated, in whole or in part, the adverse effects of the legally relevant collateral consequence:
Wong, at para. 21.

69 On the other hand, the mere possibility of different conditions, without more, is not
automatically sufficient. It is only where an accused credibly asserts that she or he, during the
plea negotiation phase, would have insisted on additional conditions, but for which she or he
would not have pleaded guilty. Said in another way, an accused must articulate a meaningfully
different course of action to justify vacating a plea, and satisfy the reviewing court that there is a
reasonable possibility that she or he would have taken that course: Wong, at paras. 22-23.

70 A final point concerns the consequences of focusing the prejudice analysis on the subjective
choice of the accused. It does not follow from this focus that a court must automatically accept
an accused's claim. The credibility of the claim is at large, not a given. The court must measure
the accused's claim about what his subjective and fully informed choice would have been
against the objective circumstances as revealed by the evidence. Relevant factors in this
 Page 13 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

assessment include, but are not limited to:

i. the strength of the Crown's case;

ii. any concessions or statements from the Crown about its case (for example, a
willingness or refusal to participate in a joint submission or reduce the charge to a
lesser included offence);
iii. any available defence; and
iv. the strength of connection between the plea of guilty and the collateral
consequence (where the collateral consequence depends on the length of the
sentence, a court may have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim).

See Wong, at paras. 26, 28.

The Principles Applied

71 As I will explain, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal. In my view, the appellant
has failed in his attempt to set aside his guilty plea on the basis that it was uninformed because
he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his plea and the sentence jointly proposed
by counsel.

72 At the outset, I do not contest the proposition that the immigration consequences of an
accused's plea, conviction and sentence fall within the legally relevant collateral consequences
of which an accused must be aware to make an informed guilty plea.

73 Two inquiries determine whether a guilty plea should be set aside on the ground that it was
uninformed because the accused was unaware of legally relevant collateral consequences:

i. Was the accused misinformed or not informed about a legally relevant collateral
consequence of entry of the plea?
ii. Did this misinformation or lack of information result in prejudice to the accused?

74 At the first step or stage of the analysis to determine whether the accused was misinformed
or not informed about a legally relevant collateral consequence of his plea, the assessment is
objective. In this case, the critical issue is whether the accused was aware of the immigration
consequences of his plea to the extent necessary to meet the "informed" requirement for a valid
guilty plea.

75 The authorities teach that where immigration consequences may ensue from a guilty plea,
conviction and sentence, an accused must be aware of those consequences for his or her plea
to be informed. Those immigration consequences include removal from Canada -- in a word,
deportation. But the authorities have resisted imposition of a fixed quantum or standard of
information necessary to characterize the plea as "informed". Instead, the jurisprudence
counsels a case-by-case analysis consistent with both the subjective nature of guilty pleas and
the level of understanding of the consequences of entry of guilty pleas generally. No trial.
Conviction. Sentence. No case suggests that knowledge of "consequences" includes knowledge
of appellate rights and their limitations.
 Page 14 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

76 In this case, the appellant was aware from what he had been told and documents he had
received from an Immigration Enforcement Officer that convictions and sentences had
immigration consequences. Those consequences included removal from Canada. He was also
aware that both criminal convictions and the sentences imposed were the reasons for those
consequences.

77 He learned further that he "may or may not have the right to appeal to the Immigration
Division should a removal order be issued" against him. He was also aware that "a term of
imprisonment of at least six months" meant that he had no right of appeal from the removal
order. And he was invited to make written submissions explaining why his removal should not be
sought. In addition, the appellant was aware that he would be pleading guilty, as he had in all
other cases involving his spouse, and that his lawyer and the Crown would be asking the judge
to impose a sentence of 12 months in custody followed by probation for three years.

78 In my respectful view, in the circumstances of this case, the appellant had an adequate
understanding of the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty and the proposed sentence,
which he understood the judge was not required to impose on the lawyers' say-so. In particular,
he was aware that those consequences included removal from Canada -- perhaps without a
right to appeal the removal decision.

79 As in Coffey to which I have earlier referred, there is also an element of wilful blindness in
the appellant's approach: see Coffey, at paras. 47-51. He relied on fellow inmates for legal
advice, rather than picking up counsel's suggestion of obtaining a legal aid certificate for
immigration purposes. And on his belief, despite the plain language in the documents he
received from the Immigration Enforcement Officer, that he would only be given a warning, not
removed from the country. He rolled the dice. And lost.

80 In light of my response to the first inquiry, it is unnecessary to consider the second. That
said, I am also satisfied that the appellant has not established the prejudice component of the
test.

81 To begin, the appellant's affidavit is barren of any viable suggestion that, but for the alleged
informational deficit, he would have pleaded not guilty and taken the case to trial. His assertion
that his estranged spouse would not have testified against him is completely at odds with her
conduct. A trial would have put him at risk of conviction of three times the number of offences to
which he had pleaded guilty, deprived him of the mitigating effect of his pleas of guilty on
sentence and likely provided sustenance for the Crown's request that he receive a penitentiary
sentence.

82 Nor is this a case in which with further information the appellant might have pleaded guilty
with different conditions. He pleaded guilty to only 8 of 26 counts. The sentence imposed, no
matter how the pre-disposition custody credit was apportioned, would not have resulted in
leaving a right of appeal open to him. The likely certainty of removal cannot justify a sentence
that is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and applicable sentencing principles of the
Criminal Code.

83 It is for these reasons that I would not permit the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea on the
basis that it was uninformed.
 Page 15 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

Ground # 2: The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

84 This ground of appeal is discrete from, yet related to the claim that the appellant's plea of
guilty was uninformed. Having already determined that the plea of guilty was not uninformed,
there is no need to retill the same ground in connection with this issue.

The Added Background

85 In his affidavit filed in support of his claim that his plea of guilty was uninformed and that his
counsel provided ineffective assistance, the appellant alleged that counsel never showed him
the Crown disclosure or advised him of the available modes of trial. He did not anticipate
deportation would follow conviction and sentence without any right to challenge the order on
appeal as he said in his affidavit:

I plead guilty as I never expected that as a result of my guilty plea and sentence,
deportation order is imminent. I thought that I will get warning from the immigration and
that everything will be over. I plead guilty as I knew that I spent a lot of time in custody
and there is no surety. I also knew that if I went to trial, my wife will not come to court to
testify against me.

86 The appellant also asserted that trial counsel never said anything to him about speaking to
an immigration lawyer after the appellant told counsel of his immigration status. Nor did counsel
ever suggest apportioning the pre-disposition custody credit to ensure that no sentence
exceeded six months in custody.

87 Trial counsel responded that he reviewed Crown disclosure with the appellant on five
occasions when they met in the courthouse cells. Counsel recommended trial in the Ontario
Court of Justice based on the uncomplicated facts, the lack of any viable defences and the fact
that the appellant would likely remain in custody pending trial because of his record, breach of
probation orders and lack of a surety. Counsel told the appellant to stay out of trouble because
further offences would likely increase the length of any sentence he would later have imposed
upon him, and that any sentence exceeding six months would mean that he could not appeal
the removal order. The appellant did not have any interest in retaining an immigration lawyer
because he told counsel that he intended to return to India where he could collect an
inheritance.

The Arguments on Appeal

88 In support of his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the appellant relies
upon what he says were three critical failures that resulted in a miscarriage of justice:

i. the failure to advise the appellant the sentence of imprisonment of six months or
more meant that he had no right of appeal from a removal order;
ii. the failure to discuss with the Crown or seek from the sentencing judge an order
apportioning credit for pre-disposition custody so that the custodial term did not
exceed six months; and
 Page 16 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

iii. the failure to expressly raise immigration consequences as a mitigating factor on

sentence.

89 The respondent contends that the appellant has failed to establish the facts essential to
underpin his claim of ineffective assistance. The trial counsel's affidavit and cross-examination
contradict the appellant's claims. Additionally, it is clear that the appellant was aware, after the
visit from the Immigration Enforcement Officer the day before he pleaded guilty, of the significant
impact a custodial sentence of six months or more would have on his right to appeal any
removal order. Despite this information, the appellant agreed to plead guilty knowing that the
sentence to be jointly proposed was 12 months in custody.

90 The respondent says that the expanded record fails to support the appellant's claim that he
would have pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial if he had information about the lost right of
appeal on imposition of a jail sentence of six months or more. And the assertion that the
sentence imposed would not exceed six months thus leaving a right of appeal, had his counsel
made submissions about apportioning credit for pre-disposition custody, was not at all viable. To
do so would have been to impose a sentence that would offend the lessons of R. v. Pham, 2013
SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at paras. 13-16, 24.

The Governing Principles

91 The principles that govern determination of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial
are well settled. An appellant must establish:

i. the facts on which the claim is grounded;

ii. the incompetence of the representation provided by trial counsel (the performance
component); and
iii. a miscarriage of justice as a result of the incompetent representation by trial
counsel (the prejudice component).

See R. v. Cherrington, 2018 ONCA 653, at para. 25.

The burden settled upon the appellant is not easily satisfied: R. v. G. (D.M.), 2011 ONCA 343,
275 C.C.C. (3d) 295, at paras. 100-101.

92 Once the facts that underpin the claim have been established, the ineffective assistance
analysis begins with the prejudice component. This component engages a determination of
whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Either because of some procedural unfairness in
the proceedings, a compromise of the reliability of the verdict or some combination of both
consequences: R. v. B. (G.D.), 2000 SCC 22, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520, at paras. 28, 34;
Cherrington, at para. 27. Where the reviewing court does not make a finding of prejudice, it is
undesirable for the court to conduct an inquiry into and render a conclusion upon the
performance component: B. (G.D.), at para. 29; R. v. Lavergne, 2017 ONCA 642, at para. 17.

The Principles Applied

93 For the brief reasons that follow, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal.
 Page 17 of 17
R. v. Girn, [2019] O.J. No. 1264

94 The decision on this ground of appeal is largely pre-determined by rejection of the claim that
the appellant's guilty plea was uninformed because he was unaware of the legally relevant
collateral consequences of it -- deportation. The principal contaminant upon which the appellant
relied to found his assertion of ignorance was the failures of counsel. Since I have found the
information gap claim unavailing, the alleged inadequacies of counsel are somewhat beside the
point. The trial judge was also aware that immigration consequences were in play because, in
his submissions on sentence, defence counsel told the judge that the appellant was to report to
immigration on release from custody. An experienced trial judge would have no difficulty in
fathoming the reason for the attendance or the likely consequence.

95 The full burden of establishing prejudice then rests on the impact of the failure of trial
counsel to discuss with the Crown or submit to the judge an apportionment of the credit for pre-
disposition custody in such a way that the custodial portion of the proposed 12-month sentence
would not exceed six months.

96 This failure had no effect on the reliability of the result of the proceedings. The appellant
pleaded guilty. His plea of guilty was voluntary, unequivocal and informed. The legal effect of
that plea and the congruity of the admitted facts with the essential elements of the relevant
offences resulted in inevitable convictions.

97 It is also far from clear that this apportionment device is so readily available to sentencing
judges. To the extent its application would run afoul of the principle accepted in Pham, that the
risk of deportation cannot justify imposing a sentence inconsistent with the fundamental
principles of proportionality, it cannot assist.

98 Nothing that occurred here compromised the fairness of the proceedings either in
connection with the entry of the conviction or the determination of a fit sentence.

99 The appellant also invited us to rework the sentencing calculus to achieve a result his
counsel should have obtained had he done so at trial. I see no reason to do so. For a spousal
abuse recidivist and serial probation order violator, the sentence imposed could be seen as
rather lenient.

CONCLUSION

100 I would dismiss the conviction and sentence appeals in their entirety, other than to remit
any victim fine surcharge that has been paid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v.
Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58, 50 C.R. (7th) 207.

D. WATT J.A.
A. HOY A.C.J.O.:— I agree.
E.F. THEN J. (ad hoc):— I agree.

End of Document