was not at all viable. To do so would have been to impose a sentence that would offend the lessons of R. v. Pham,  1 S.C.R.
739,  S.C.J. No. 15, 2013 SCC 15, at paras. 13-16, 24.
The governing principles
 The principles that govern determination of claims of inef-
fective assistance of counsel at trial are well settled. An appellant
( i) the facts on which the claim is grounded;
( ii) the incompetence of the representation provided by trial
counsel (the performance component); and
( iii) a miscarriage of justice as a result of the incompetent repre-
sentation by trial counsel (the prejudice component).
See R. v. Cherrington,  O.J. No. 4012, 2018 ONCA 653, at
The burden settled upon the appellant is not easily satisfied:
R. v. G. (D.M.) (2011), 105 O.R. (3d) 481,  O.J. No. 1966,
2011 ONCA 343, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 295, at paras. 100-101.
 Once the facts that underpin the claim have been established, the ineffective assistance analysis begins with the prejudice component. This component engages a determination of
whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Either because
of some procedural unfairness in the proceedings, a compromise
of the reliability of the verdict or some combination of both consequences: R. v. B. (G.D.),  1 S.C.R. 520,  S.C.J. No.
22, 2000 SCC 22, at paras. 28, 34; Cherrington, at para. 27. Where
the reviewing court does not make a finding of prejudice, it is
undesirable for the court to conduct an inquiry into and render
a conclusion upon the performance component: B. (G.D.), at
para. 29; R. v. Lavergne,  O.J. No. 4145, 2017 ONCA 642, at
The principles applied
 For the brief reasons that follow, I would not give effect to
this ground of appeal.
 The decision on this ground of appeal is largely predetermined by rejection of the claim that the appellant’s guilty
plea was uninformed because he was unaware of the legally relevant collateral consequences of it — deportation. The principal
contaminant upon which the appellant relied to found his assertion of ignorance was the failures of counsel. Since I have found
the information gap claim unavailing, the alleged inadequacies of