Background
Mukwoh Jordan-Wade Land appealed the dismissal of his application to strike guilty pleas entered on charges of dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of a fatal motor-vehicle accident.
After granting an adjournment so Land could consult counsel, the trial judge conducted an extensive plea inquiry on November 28, 2019. The judge found the pleas informed, voluntary, and unequivocal. Months later, Land sought to resile from them.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the trial judge was entitled to find that Land had unequivocally admitted the essential facts when the pleas were made and to reject his later attempt to withdraw them.
The trial judge made no reviewable error in finding Land’s post-plea evidence not credible, and those credibility findings were owed deference. The court also rejected the argument that the judge had to consider the effects of colonialism on Land as an Indigenous person: the issue was not raised below, and the facts did not trigger a duty for the judge to inquire on his own motion.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea may stand where the plea inquiry establishes that it was informed, voluntary, and unequivocal.
- A trial judge may reject later evidence seeking to disavow a plea where that evidence is not credible.
- A judge has no freestanding duty to inquire into an accused’s Indigenous experience where the issue was not raised and no duty to inquire is triggered by the facts.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the substantial weight appellate courts give to a trial judge’s plea inquiry and credibility findings when an accused later seeks to withdraw guilty pleas.
It also applies the Ontario Court of Appeal’s guidance that an Indigenous accused’s circumstances do not automatically require a judge to initiate an inquiry absent a request or facts that trigger that obligation.