Darwin Witmer

This is a sentencing decision for Hesham Aly, who was found guilty by a jury of fraudulent personation with intent to cause disadvantage, contrary to s. 403(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Aly, a former social worker, impersonated two former colleagues and disclosed confidential client information from social service agencies to various organizations and media outlets, motivated by revenge after his termination and a human rights complaint.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the acts, malice, sophistication, significant impact on victims and organizations, breach of trust, and betrayal of professional standards.

Aly absconded before sentencing.

The court sentenced Aly to 4 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the egregious breach of trust and harm caused to vulnerable persons and community institutions.

The applicant, charged with fraudulent personation, brought a pre-trial application seeking to exclude evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) was facially invalid because it failed to sufficiently connect him to the IP address used in the offences or establish that a search of his new residence would afford evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the ITO contained a sufficient circumstantial basis linking the applicant to the IP address and establishing reasonable grounds to believe electronic devices would be found at his residence.

The warrant was validly issued, and no Charter breach occurred.

The applicant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

He brought a motion to exclude breath samples obtained during police investigation on the basis that they were unreasonably seized in violation of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown failed to establish that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the applicant had committed the offence, as the breath sample was administered only thirteen minutes after the applicant stated he had consumed alcohol.

The officer was aware of the "mouth alcohol" issue and the requirement to wait fifteen to twenty minutes before testing, but proceeded with the test anyway.

The court found this constituted a serious Charter violation and excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (switchblade knife) and possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking following a vehicle stop.

The Crown alleged the accused was in care or control of a vehicle with an odour of alcohol emanating from it.

The trial judge found that the initial detention was arbitrary, the search of the vehicle was unreasonable, and the accused's rights to counsel were breached.

The judge determined that the police officer's stated concerns about officer safety were pretextual and that the officer was motivated by a hunch rather than reasonable grounds.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and all charges were dismissed.