R. v. Ghotra
- Citation
- 2021 SCC 12
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 April 2021
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment at the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 April 2021
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment at the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge and the Court of Appeal correctly found the undercover officer did not induce the offence or deprive the accused of the capacity to resist; therefore there was no entrapment or abuse of process warranting a stay and the conviction must stand.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction affirmed.
- Reasons of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Miller J.A.) adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
02
Material facts
Parties
Akash Ghotra
Appellant Counsel: Alan D. GoldHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Katie DohertyCanadian Civil Liberties Association
Intervener Counsel: Danielle GlattBritish Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Intervener Counsel: Gerald ChanCriminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario
Intervener Counsel: Michael W. LacyAmounts and remedies
- Docket Number: 39,215
- Decision Year: 2,021
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal Judgment at the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether police conduct constituted entrapment or abuse of process
- 02
Whether the undercover officer provided the accused with an opportunity that deprived him of a reasonable capacity to resist
- 03
Whether a stay of proceedings was warranted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the undercover police conduct amounted to entrapment/abuse of process and that a stay of proceedings should be entered because the officer induced or provided the opportunity to commit the offence.
- Respondent
- Crown argued the officer did not induce the offence and merely provided an opportunity; trial judge and Court of Appeal correctly found no entrapment and opposed a stay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal law principles and case law as applied by the Ontario Court of Appeal and adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada
Entrapment exists where state conduct crosses the line from providing an opportunity into improper inducement or otherwise deprives an accused of a reasonable capacity to resist committing the offence.
- 02
Criminal law principles and appellate precedent as applied by the courts
A stay of proceedings for abuse of process is a drastic remedy reserved for cases where state conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge and the Court of Appeal correctly found the undercover officer did not induce the offence or deprive the accused of the capacity to resist; therefore there was no entrapment or abuse of process warranting a stay and the conviction must stand.
Obiter and limits
- The Supreme Court adopted the reasons of Justice Miller of the Ontario Court of Appeal without additional elaboration.
- Interveners’ civil liberties concerns were considered but did not alter the outcome in the absence of a finding of entrapment.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction affirmed.
- Reasons of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Miller J.A.) adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 13 April 2021
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 13 April 2021
R. v. Ghotra Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2021-04-13 Neutral citation 2021 SCC 12 Report [2021] 1 SCR 521 Case number 39215 Judges Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm On appeal from Ontario Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Ghotra, 2021 SCC 12, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 521 Appeal Heard: April 13, 2021 Judgment Rendered: April 13, 2021 Docket: 39215 Between: Akash Ghotra Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario Interveners Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para.
1) Wagner C.J. Akash Ghotra Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Ghotra 2021 SCC 12 File No.: 39215. 2021: April 13. Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law — Abuse of process — Entrapment — Internet child luring — Accused starting conversation in internet chat room with undercover police officer posing as underage girl — Accused proposing that they meet for sex and later arrested at meeting place — Accused convicted of internet child luring at trial but applying for stay of proceedings based on entrapment — Trial judge concluding that officer did not provide opportunity to commit offence and dismissing application — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing accused’s appeal — Conviction upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Hourigan, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.), 2020 ONCA 373, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 416, 455 D.L.R. (4th) 586, 464 C.R.R. (2d) 83, [2020] O.J. No. 2650 (QL), 2020 CarswellOnt 8060 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction entered by Durno J., [2016] O.J. No. 7161 (QL), and the dismissal of the application for a stay of proceedings, 2016 ONSC 5675, 342 C.C.C. (3d) 128, 33 C.R. (7th) 98,
[2016] O.J. No. 4761 (QL), 2016 CarswellOnt 14383 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed. Alan D. Gold, for the appellant. Katie Doherty, for the respondent. Danielle Glatt, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Gerald Chan, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. Michael W. Lacy, for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — We are all of the view to dismiss the appeal for the reasons of Justice Miller of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Alan D. Gold Professional Corporation, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto. Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein, Toronto. Solicitors for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association: Stockwoods, Toronto. Solicitors for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario: Brauti Thorning, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.