Les conditions de retrait d’un plaidoyer de culpabilité

Nersysyan c. R., 2005 QCCA 606 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision[6] Le requérant a le fardeau de démontrer les motifs sérieux et valables justifiant la radiation de son plaidoyer de culpabilité. Le facteur primordial à considérer est le déni de justice. Dans ce contexte, il incombe à l’appelant d’établir qu’il avait des moyens de défense valables et non futiles à présenter. Il ne suffit pas de spéculer sur l’issue du procès qui a été évité. Or, dans le présent cas, l’appelant se contente d’une dénégation générale des actes qu’on lui reproche;

[7] Par ailleurs, l’insatisfaction subséquente devant la « manière dont les choses ont tourné » ou devant la peine infligée ne suffit pas pour obtenir la radiation du plaidoyer lorsque celui-ci demeure un geste éclairé et volontaire quant à l’ensemble des circonstances entourant les infractions reprochées et le procès lui-même;

[9] La Cour fait siens les commentaires de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta dans R. c. Hunt :


18. It is clear that the consequence of deportation was not anticipated by anyone at the time the guilty plea was accepted and a conviction entered.

19. We are of the view that this «consequence» does not invalidate the guilty plea nor, in the circumstances of this case, result in a miscarriage of justice. We are mindful of this Court’s decision R. c. Slobodan (1993), 135 A.R. 181 (C.A.) where it was held that an unanticipated mandatory five year licence suspension, in addition to the sentence imposed for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, namely a fine or $2,000.00 and a one year driving prohibition, did not «translate into a legal consequence» which entitled the appellant to change her guilty plea.

20. Although leave to reconsider the correctness of Slobodan was granted to the appellant, we do not find it necessary to decide that issue in order to dispose of this case.

21. We decide, that where there has been an unequivocal free and voluntary admission of the facts constituting the offence, not disputed on appeal, that an unexpected legal consequence such as occurred here is not such as to allow the withdrawal of the plea of guilty. In R. c. Hoang 2003 ABCA 251 (CanLII), [2003] A.J. No. 1555, 2003 ABCA 251, this Court stated at paragraph 36 that:

The requirement that the accused understand the nature and consequences of a guilty plea is not a requirement to canvass every conceivable consequence which may result of may be forgone. Such a requirement be a practical impossibility.