The examination of the case law found inconsistencies in the characterization of the guilty plea. At times the courts have viewed the guilty plea as a procedural device or a waiver of trial rights. Under this view, courts have upheld conviction by guilty plea even when the accused claimed the plea was mistakenly or involuntarily entered. Although courts have held that the validity of a guilty plea may be vitiated by the accused's lack of understanding, by improper inducements, or by factual inaccuracy, courts have tended to view guilty pleas as constituting conviction by consent, assuming the plea's validity. Appellate courts have shown considerable deference to the trial judge's decision as to whether or not to accept the guilty plea. In the negotiation of guilty pleas, the prosecution and the defense may be more conciliatory than adversarial. Unless the trial court recognizes this and makes independent inquiry, the court may not be sufficiently informed by the parties to be able to judge the acceptability of the guilty plea. The developing jurisprudence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a new focus for evaluating and reforming the guilty plea process. Particularly, the recent constitutionalization of the procedural rights effectively waived by the guilty plea may mean that a trial court must now be more solicitous in accepting a guilty plea, so as to ensure that it constitutes a valid waiver of rights. The author's comparative review of investigatory models of summary criminal process in other jurisdictions suggests ways in which the reliability and fairness of the guilty-plea process might be enhanced. 110-item bibliography and subject index