R. v. Quick (M.R.), (2016) 345 O.A.C. 237 (CA)

• Judge: Laskin, Gillese and van Rensburg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Wednesday June 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2016), 345 O.A.C. 237 (CA);2016 ONCA 95

R. v. Quick (M.R.) (2016), 345 O.A.C. 237 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.006

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Marc Ross Quick (appellant)

(C59755; 2016 ONCA 95)

Indexed As: R. v. Quick (M.R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Gillese and van Rensburg, JJ.A.

February 2, 2016.

Summary:

As a result of a plea bargain, the accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, breach of a court order, and dangerous driving. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment (in addition to three months of pre-sentence custody credited on a two for one basis) and three years' probation for dangerous driving, and six months' imprisonment on each of the other two convictions, to be served concurrently. As this was the accused's third conviction for a Criminal Code driving offence, his driver's licence was suspended indefinitely (Highway Traffic Act, s. 41(1)(h)). The accused appealed his convictions on the ground that when he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, he did not understand that his licence would be indefinitely suspended.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty plea and conviction on the dangerous driving charge, and ordered a new trial on that charge.

Editor's note: For a prior case involving the accused in this matter see [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 694.

Criminal Law - Topic 4233

Procedure - Pleas - Guilty plea - Expungement or setting aside - On April 10, 2010, the accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, breach of a court order, and dangerous driving - He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment (in addition to time served) and three years' probation for dangerous driving, and six months' imprisonment on each of the other two convictions, to be served concurrently - As this was the accused's third conviction for a Criminal Code driving offence, his driver's licence was suspended indefinitely (Highway Traffic Act, s. 41(1)(h)) - If he had waited until September 26, 2010, to plead guilty to dangerous driving, the indefinite suspension would have been barred by the limitation period in s. 41(3) of the Act - The accused appealed his convictions on the ground that when he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, he was unaware that his licence would be indefinitely suspended - The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that there was a realistic likelihood that the accused would not have pleaded guilty and would have asked for a trial had he known that on his conviction for dangerous driving, his licence would be automatically and indefinitely suspended - He was a truck driver - His licence was his livelihood - For him, the consequences of losing his licence indefinitely instead of for one year (as he was told), were significant - They were drastic - Had he not asked for a trial, at the very least, he would have sought to postpone his plea for six months to take advantage of the limitation period - Whether he had a viable defence to dangerous driving was irrelevant - The prejudice lay in the fact that in pleading guilty, he gave up his right to a trial - His unawareness of the indefinite suspension under the Act rendered his plea to dangerous driving uninformed - The court had the jurisdiction to allow the appeal only on the conviction that resulted in the miscarriage of justice - The court set aside the guilty plea and conviction on the dangerous driving charge, and ordered a new trial on that charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 4967

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Conviction appeal following guilty plea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4233].

Criminal Law - Topic 4989

Appeals - Indictable offences - Power of Court of Appeal - Power to allow appeal where miscarriage of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4233].

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4233].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. R.T. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 81; 10 O.R.(3d) 514 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Slobodan (M.L.) (1993), 135 A.R. 181; 33 W.A.C. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sumbler (D.) (1997), 33 O.T.C. 270 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. B.D., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 962 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Stewart (A.E.), [2002] O.T.C. 999; 33 M.V.R.(4th) 103 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 21].

R. v. Grewal, 2011 ONSC 4288 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Aujla (G.), [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 285; 2015 ONCA 325, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Shiwprashad (K.) (2015), 337 O.A.C. 57; 328 C.C.C.(3d) 191; 2015 ONCA 577, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Henry (A.) (2011), 282 O.A.C. 99; 2011 ONCA 289, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Meehan (M.), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 1782; 2013 ONSC 1782, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Rulli (P.), [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 10; 2011 ONCA 18, refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

Breese Davies and Owen Goddard, for the appellant;

Roger Shallow, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 17, 2015, by Laskin, Gillese and van Rensburg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Laskin, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on February 2, 2016.