CRIMINAL | Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

• Author: Izadi, Melody

September 1, 2020By Melody Izadi

One Ontario Court of Justice judge says accused cannot plead guilty by phone

In R. v. Candelaria, 2020 ONCJ 194, Justice Downes ruled, amidst the adjustments the courts have had to make due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that an accused cannot plead guilty via telephone. This means, according to Justice Downes, an accused can only enter a guilty plea in person or via video link during these unprecedented times.

At the time of the Candelaria judgment, the criminal courts nearly closed to all members of the public, including accused persons and their lawyers. Indeed, this was a frustrating but welcome adjustment the justice system was forced to make due to the real and probable threat of the COVID-19 virus. While the consequences of this virus on our planet and people are grave, its effect on the justice system has been a substantial push towards a more streamlined and modernized process.

As such, in an effort to keep justice moving forward and efficiently as much as possible, courts were allowing virtual court appearances to take place all over the province. Both by audio or video or both, accused in custody were given priority to resolve their matters--in the interest of justice and humanity. The justice system quickly adjusted to and accommodated this new world order. The court and counsel are flexible and open to new court practices and procedures. Surprisingly, however, Justice Downes seemingly thwarted the court's newest accommodation: guilty plea by telephone.

The accused, Mr. Candelaria, was in custody at the time of his anticipated guilty plea. He was requesting a sentence of time served, while the Crown was asking for some additional custody. Justice Downes held that not only did the courthouse he presides in have an "extremely limited capacity" to accept the plea by video link, but that a self-represented accused such as Mr. Candelaria could not plead guilty via telephone. According to His Honour, this was in accordance with the Criminal Code. While His Honour very briefly addressed the injustice that befell Mr. Candelaria, the focus of his ruling was seemingly on applying pressure to the Court and the jail systems to facilitate more sustained video link appearances for the accused. This judgment meant that, while Justice Downes hoped the courts and jail would take his advice seriously and implement more accommodations quickly, Mr. Candelaria would have to wait in custody indefinitely while this was done...