Background
Amandeep Singh was convicted of assault with a weapon under section 267(a) of the Criminal Code for slashing his wife’s forearm with a knife during a domestic incident on September 13, 2019(para 10). At sentencing, the Crown recommended 6–9 months’ incarceration, noting aggravating factors like the domestic nature of the assault, the severity of using a knife, and the psychological impact on the complainant(para 11). Singh, a first-time offender with steady employment and strong community support, sought a 10-week intermittent sentence to accommodate work obligations (para 11).
Although the Crown briefly mentioned potential immigration concerns during sentencing (para 12), Singh’s original counsel did not raise the issue until prompted by the judge—and even then, only in vague terms (paras13–14). Ultimately, the sentencing judge imposed a 7-month jail sentence, which triggered automatic deportation under section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA),as permanent residents sentenced to more than 6 months are deemed inadmissible toCanada (para 16).
Singh later appealed the sentence, arguing ineffectiveness of counsel, which deprived him of a fair sentencing process (para 2). TheCourt accepted new evidence (sworn statements from Singh and his former counsel)because they were relevant to the ineffectiveness claim (paras 3–8).
Outcome
Justice Mah of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench allowed the appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found that while it took some time, Singh’s former lawyer eventually admitted to not knowing about the legal impact of a sentence exceeding six months and that he therefore failed to advise the Court of the immigration consequences during sentencing (paras 18, 28–29).
While the sentencing judge had general awareness of Singh’s permanent residency, she was never fully apprised of the automatic deportation implications or how deportation would personally and materially affect Singh (paras 31–33). The Court held that had this information been properly presented, there was a reasonable possibility that a sentence of 6 months less a day—avoiding automatic deportation—would have been imposed (para 33).
The Court reduced Singh’s sentence to 6 months less one day but declined to convert the remainder into a conditional sentence to be served in the community, citing the need for deterrence and the seriousness of the offence (paras 35, 38). The appeal was allowed solely on the ground of ineffective assistance; the judge was not faulted, as she was deprived of the necessary context due to counsel’s failure (paras 36–37).
Key Takeaways
- Immigration Consequences Can Be Material to Sentencing: While immigration effects are technically collateral, the Supreme Court case of R v Pham, 2013 SCC 15 allows sentencing judges to consider them when tailoring a fit sentence, so long as proportionality to the offence is maintained (para 25)
- Counsel’s Duty Includes Knowing Collateral Effects: Defence counsel must understand and inform the Court of collateral consequences—especially immigration risks—in sentencing. Ignorance or failure to do so may justify appellate intervention (paras 27–29)
- The Automatic Deportation Threshold Matters: Sentences of 6 months or more for permanent residents trigger automatic deportation (para 16). Where a sentence is near that threshold, courts may consider whether a slightly lower sentence avoids disproportionate immigration harm while still satisfying relevant sentencing principles (para 35)
- Appellate Relief for Ineffective Counsel Is Possible: The Court accepted that a lack of meaningful advocacy on deportation consequences created a miscarriage of justice for Singh, warranting a reduced sentence even though the Sentencing Judge herself had not been given full information (para 33)
- No Special Leniency Requested: The Court clarified that avoiding automatic deportation via a marginally reduced sentence does not skew sentencing principles or create a two-tier system; rather, it corrects a process that failed to account for significant consequences (paras 34–36).
In sum, it’s important to have skilled counsel who can ensure a sentencing hearing is done right. That can be the difference between jail and house arrest, or staying in Canada and being deported. When sentencingis done improperly, there may be still be a way to get a fair outcome if counsel did not provide the Court with the information it needed to do the sentencing properly.