would work out as time went on. This was a free choice; his first lawyer urged
him to try the charges but that would have meant staying in jail for several
Does the ignorance of the automatic effect of the conviction vitiate the plea?
If that were so, then pleas could be struck on the basis that the outcome was
not precisely as anticipated. That kind of certainty is not to be expected of the
criminal process, especially when judges are free to depart from bargains
struck by counsel, within certain reasonable limits. See R. v. Hoang,
182 C.C.C. (3d) 69, 2003 ABCA 251 paragraph 36:
The requirement that the accused understand the nature and con-
sequences of a guilty plea is not a requirement to canvas every con-
ceivable consequence which may result or may be foregone. Such a
requirement would be a practical impossibility. American jurispru-
dence has held the accused should be aware of the probable direct
consequences of the plea: Parker v. Ross, 470 F.2d 1092 (4th Cir.
Here the appellant knew he had been deported for possession of a break-in
instrument, received a stay on good behaviour, and then pleaded guilty to the
same offence within a few months of receiving the stay. I agree with respond-ent's counsel that the difference between awareness of an automatic effect,
and knowledge of a highly probable result, is too fine a distinction.
See, also, R. v. Kitawine,  B.C.J. No. 752, 2016 BCCA 161,
386 B.C.A.C. 24, at paras. 20, 25-28.
Setting aside pleas of guilty
 An accused who seeks to set aside a presumptively valid
guilty plea, on the basis that the plea was uninformed because
he or she was unaware of a legally relevant collateral consequence
at the time of entering the plea, must establish
( i) that she or he was in fact unaware of a legally relevant con-
sequence of entering the plea at the time of pleading guilty;
( ii) subjective prejudice.
See Wong, at paras. 6, 9, 19.
 To establish subjective prejudice, an accused must file
an affidavit establishing a reasonable possibility that he or she
would have either
( i) elected to plead not guilty and go to trial; or
( ii) plead guilty, but with different conditions.
See Wong, at paras. 6, 19.
Of necessity, a reviewing court must assess the veracity of an
accused’s claim. This inquiry is subjective to the particular accused