R. v. Klair, 2023 BCSC 937

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Klair, 2023 BCSC 937 Date: 20230227 Docket: 71305-2 Registry: Chilliwack Rex v. Navjot Klair Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Walkem On appeal from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, dated November 9, 2021(R. v. Klair, Chilliwack Docket No. 71305-1) Oral Reasons for Judgmentat

Summary Conviction Appeal Counsel for the Crown: D.J. WilliamsCounsel for the Accused: S. Williams (as Agent for V. Michaels)Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Chilliwack, B.C. February 27, 2023Place and Date of Judgment: Chilliwack, B.C. February 27, 2023 [1] THE COURT: This matter was a

summary conviction appeal of Navjot Klair, who had, at the Provincial Court, pled guilty to aCriminal Code impaired driving offence and was sentenced to a driving prohibition and a fine pursuant to s. 320.24 on November 9,2021. At that time, Mr. Klair, who is an Italian national, was in Canada on a student visa, attending school here. [2] The evidence—undisputed evidence—was that he was not advised of the impact that a criminal conviction might have on hisimmigration status.

As a result of that conviction, in April 2022, he was deported. [3] This application comes before me, supported by the Crown, on the grounds that, his guilty plea, for lack of better phrasing, wasnot fully informed. In order to be fully informed, he would have had to have been notified of all of the legal consequences of that plea,which in this case would include the immigration consequences that flowed from that plea.

In order for that plea to have been valid, hewould have had to have understood that there was a real risk that his immigration status would change and that he could be deported. [4] I was referred to the authorities as follows: R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25 , [2018] 1 S.C.R. 696, although it involveddifferent charges, ultimately involved much the same circumstances; R. v. Evans, [2022] O.J. No. 137 (Ont. C.A.); and similarly, R. v.Adgey, (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 426. [5] Having heard argument from both counsel, I am satisfied that the

summary conviction appeal should be allowed. I grant leavefor the accused to withdraw his guilty plea. I quash the conviction and remit the matter to the court of original jurisdiction for a newtrial. “A. Walkem J.”