Yes No Share to Facebook
Pleading of Guilty as Charged:
Requires That the Accused Person Actually Believes in Guilt
Last Updated: August 22 2026
Question: Can a court reject my guilty plea if I believe I am innocent in Ontario?
Answer: Yes. In Ontario, a plea of guilty cannot be accepted if the court is aware the accused does not actually believe they are guilty, because a guilty plea must be voluntary, fully understood, and factually supported by an admission of the essential elements of the offence. Courts are required in the interest of justice to reject a guilty plea where innocence belief cannot co-exist with guilt, and then proceed by setting the matter for trial, including where the court has reason to believe the plea is not genuine (for example, as discussed in R. v. McIlvride-Lister, 2019 ONSC 1869 and R. v. Scotney, 2005 CanLII 17917). Criminal Code Canada requirements at Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 include court satisfaction about voluntariness, understanding, and that the facts support the charge under section 606(1.1), and similar safeguards apply under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 section 45(3). If you are facing an Ontario charge and your plea does not reflect your true belief, Paralegal support from Paladin LLP can help you assess your options and next steps, including how plea inquiries work in court, call (289) 925-1572.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
A Guilty Plea Requires Belief of Guilt
A person charged with an offence may believe that the charge is unwarranted, meaning that the allegations are untrue; and yet, for various personal reasons the accused person may be willing to plead guilty to the charge, despite the belief in a lack of guilt. In such circumstances, the court, whose duty is to ensure that justice is properly done, is legally required to reject an attempt to plead guilty.
Note: Please contact Paladin LLP by phone at: (289) 925-1572 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
Jurisprudence
If a person attempts to plead guilty, despite the person holding a belief of innocence, if the court knows that the person holds a belief of innocence, then the law requires that the court decline to accept an attempt to plead guilty. The court, whose duty is to ensure truth and serve justice, must instead commit the case to a Trial. The requirement that courts serve the interests of justice and decline to accept an ingenuine guilty plea was explained within the case of R. v. McIlvride-Lister, 2019 ONSC 1869, wherein it was stated:
[72] A belief in factual innocence cannot co-exist with a plea of guilt. Where a person, who believes herself to be innocent, pleads guilty for reasons unrelated to culpability, the result is a miscarriage of justice. The system can only convict and sentence persons who have genuinely admitted guilt, or have been proven guilty by the prosecution. A person who adheres to a belief that they are innocent is entitled to have a trial.
[73] This proposition finds support in authority. In K. (S.), Carthy J.A. ruled that a trial judge ought to have inquired into a plea when it came to light that the accused had emphatically declared his innocence to the authors of pre-sentence reports. In striking the plea on appeal, the court observed that the accused’s “state of mind was induced by his trial counsel and perpetuated by the trial judge who failed to intervene and make inquiry as to the validity of the guilty pleas when he read the pre-sentence reports”. Carthy J.A. sounded a note of caution about the process of plea bargaining, saying:
The system was tilted askew by the simple fact that a person protesting innocence became engaged in plea bargaining.
. . . .
Plea bargaining is an accepted and integral part of our criminal justice system but must be conducted with sensitivity to its vulnerabilities. A court that is misled, or allows itself to be misled, cannot serve the interests of justice.
In the case of R. v. Scotney, 2005 CanLII 17917, while also relying upon the Court of Appeal case in the matter of R. v. S.K., 1995 CanLII 8926, it was similarly said that the administration of justice will disallow a plea of guilty where an accused person disbelieves the guilt. Specifically, it was stated:
[8] I have reviewed R. v. S.K. 1995 CanLII 8926 (ON CA), [1995] 99 C.C.C. 3rd 376, wherein the Ontario Court of Appeal cited with approval the report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (1993) chaired by the Honourable G. Arthur Martin.
If the plea comprehension inquiry is desirable in the American context where ascertaining that an accused denies guilt is not fatal to the plea of guilty proceeding, it follows, in the Committee’s view that such an inquiry is even more desirable in Ontario, where a plea of guilty cannot proceed if the accused denies guilt. The greater scope in Ontario for the courts to decline to accept a plea of guilty heightens the importance of the courts ensuring through inquiry that a plea of guilty is sufficient in law.
[9] Carthy J.A. went on to indicate that,
Statements made in the course of the inquiry following a guilty plea may, although not admitted by the Crown, justify the Court in rejecting the guilty plea and proceeding to trial.
And further,
The Court should not be in the position of convicting and sentencing individuals, who fall short of admitting the facts to support the conviction unless that guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor should sentencing proceed on the false assumption of contrition. That did not happen here, but worse, the sentence became impossible to perform. Plea bargaining is an accepted and integral part of our criminal justice system but must be conducted with sensitivity to its vulnerabilities.
Accordingly, where a court is aware that a person denies guilt, the court should be unwilling to accept a plea of guilty and instead, in the public interest of seeing that justice is properly done, set the matter for Trial.
Statutory
Furthermore, in addition to the case law decisions as provided above, the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 at section 606(1.1), as well as the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 at section 45(3), both contain conditions that are applicable to the acceptance of a guilty plea by a court. These statutes specifically state:
606 (1.1) A court may accept a plea of guilty only if it is satisfied that
(a) the accused is making the plea voluntarily;
(b) the accused understands
(i) that the plea is an admission of the essential elements of the offence,
(ii) the nature and consequences of the plea, and
(iii) that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the accused and the prosecutor; and
(c) the facts support the charge.
45 (3) A court may accept a plea of guilty only if it is satisfied that the defendant,
(a) is making the plea voluntarily;
(b) understands that the plea is an admission of the essential elements of the offence;
(c) understands the nature and consequences of the plea; and
(d) understands that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the defendant and the prosecutor.
Conclusion
Although a guilty plea may encourage expediency, public respect for the justice system requires that only persons who genuinely perceive guilt should plead guilty. Where a court perceives that a person is pleading guilty despite a belief of innocence, the court should refuse to accept the guilty plea.
NOTE: A considerable number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicate a need for prompt and capable legal support rather than a particular designation. In Ontario, the Law Society that governs lawyers also regulates licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Key to this role are advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise. Paladin LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and effective advocacy aimed at securing favourable and efficient outcomes for clients.
