R v Quick

R. v. Quick

2016 ONCA 95
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Laskin, Gillese and van Rensburg JJ.A. | February 2, 2016

Background

Marc Quick was charged with criminal harassment, breach of a court order, and dangerous driving after repeatedly driving his car too close to a vehicle carrying his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in December 2009. After a judicial pre-trial, Quick's lawyer told him that if he pleaded guilty to all three charges, the Crown would seek a reformatory term and probation, withdraw other charges, and he would lose his driver's licence for one year.

Quick decided to plead guilty and was convicted on April 10, 2010. But his lawyer had missed something crucial: Quick had two previous drinking and driving convictions from 1997 and 2000. Under section 41(1)(h) of the Highway Traffic Act, a third conviction for a Criminal Code driving offence triggers an automatic indefinite licence suspension. Quick only learned about this after pleading guilty. As a truck driver, his licence was his livelihood.

Issues

1. Did Quick understand the Highway Traffic Act consequences from his previous convictions and the court clerk's standard caution?
2. Must an accused understand collateral consequences like HTA licence suspensions for a guilty plea to be informed?
3. Should all three convictions be quashed or only the dangerous driving conviction?

The Informed Plea Requirement

The Court of Appeal ruled that Quick's guilty plea was not informed. For a guilty plea to be valid, it must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed. While Quick's plea was voluntary and unequivocal, the court found he didn't understand the true consequences.

The key legal question was whether "collateral consequences" — non-criminal penalties like provincial licence suspensions — must be understood for a plea to be informed. The Crown argued that only criminal consequences matter, but the court disagreed. Justice Laskin held that when collateral consequences are "legally relevant" penalties imposed by the state, an accused's unawareness can render a plea uninformed.

The court applied a subjective test: would there be a "realistic likelihood" that Quick would not have pleaded guilty if he'd known about the indefinite suspension? Given that Quick was a truck driver and his licence was his livelihood, the answer was clearly yes. The court noted he could have either gone to trial or postponed his plea by six months to take advantage of the HTA's ten-year limitation period (section 41(3)).

Key Takeaway

Collateral consequences imposed by the state — like automatic licence suspensions — can invalidate a guilty plea if the accused was unaware of them and they would have affected the decision to plead guilty.

Before pleading guilty to any driving offence, make sure you understand not just the criminal penalties, but also any automatic provincial licence suspensions that might apply based on your driving record. The court specifically noted that trial judges should ensure accused persons understand "the nature and length of any licence suspensions" before accepting guilty pleas to driving offences.