Case information

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Aboriginal law – Principles of fundamental justice – Right to effective assistance of counsel – Guilty plea – Withdrawal – Collateral consequences – Accused pleading guilty to two counts of sexual assault and not understanding that conviction and sentence would result in registration for life on National Sex Offender Registry – Accused seeking to withdraw plea on basis that it was uninformed and gave rise to miscarriage of justice – Conflicting evidence about whether counsel explained consequences of guilty plea to accused – Whether Aboriginal status is a relevant factor in deciding whether to strike a guilty plea – What does the Charter of Rights prescribe in terms of effective representation of aboriginal clients dealing with the criminal justice system – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1)(a)(iii).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Mr. Echalook, is a homeless Inuit man with a physical disability. He allegedly inappropriately touched two women he encountered on the streets of Montreal while under the influence of alcohol. He was charged with two counts of sexual assault, amongst other unrelated offences, for which he pleaded guilty. The Court of Quebec sentenced Mr. Echalook to five days of detention and two years’ probation. Mr. Echalook applied for leave to appeal on the basis of the incompetence of his lawyer. He argued that his lawyer did not explain the consequences of pleading guilty to a sexual assault charge, and did not take into account his aboriginal status in advising him. Both Mr. Echalook and his counsel tendered affidavits in the leave proceeding. They had differing accounts about whether Mr. Echalook was advised, inter alia, of the mandatory nature of his name being entered in the national sex registry as a result of his guilty plea to the sexual assault charge. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Echalook’s application for leave. It held that in light of the conflicting evidence, Mr. Echalook could not satisfy the burden of showing a reasonable chance of establishing on the merits such prejudice as to cause a miscarriage of justice.