purposes. That the information was erroneous does not make his
guilty plea uninformed.
 The respondent emphasizes that the decision in R. v.
Wong,  1 S.C.R. 696,  S.C.J. No. 25, 2018 SCC 25,
364 C.C.C. (3d) 1 requires an appellant who seeks to set aside on
appeal a guilty plea as uninformed to demonstrate not only that
he or she was unaware of a legally relevant collateral consequence, but also that this lack of awareness caused him or her
subjective prejudice. The respondent says that the appellant has
failed to satisfy either requirement.
 The respondent argues that the inability to appeal a deportation order is not a legally relevant collateral consequence.
Admittedly, state compelled immigration consequences of a custodial sentencing disposition are legally relevant collateral consequences of a guilty plea. But it is sufficient to satisfy the
“informed” component of a guilty plea where an accused is aware
that deportation is a potential consequence. He or she need not
know precisely how likely deportation will be or how limited the
options may be to avoid it.
 Even if the inability to challenge a deportation order on
appeal were a legally relevant collateral consequence of a guilty
plea, the appellant’s claim should be rejected. The appellant
asserts that he was unaware that the joint submission for
a 12-month sentence would leave him without a right of appeal
because his lawyer failed to advise him of this, and his fellow
inmates said that immigration authorities did not consider time
spent in pre-disposition custody as part of a sentence. This explanation beggars belief. He did not ask his counsel, rather relied on
advice from fellow inmates, well knowing the substance of the
joint submission — 12 months in custody plus probation. Trial
counsel testified that he told the appellant that if he spent
more than six months in jail he would be deported without a right
 Further, the respondent continues, any lack of knowledge
is the appellant’s own doing. He knew the substance of the joint
submission and the fact that a sentence of six months or more
meant no appeal. He also knew that the sentencing judge was not
bound by the joint submission. His approach of deliberate ignorance should be unavailing.
 The respondent also takes issue with the appellant’s claim
of subjective prejudice arising from his uninformed guilty plea.
Any assertion that the appellant would have pleaded not guilty
and proceeded to trial or insisted on different conditions, had he
known there was no right of appeal, lacks evidentiary support.
In addition to the circumstances already mentioned, it is plain