Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judges: Simmons, Monahan, and Pomerance, JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Aaliyah-Elizabeth Sampat Appellant
Counsel
Aaliyah-Elizabeth Sampat, acting in person
Dan Stein, appearing as duty counsel
Étienne Lacombe, for the respondent
Heard: September 9, 2025
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice L.A. Crawford of the Ontario Court of Justice on April 8, 2025.
Reasons for Decision
1The appellant represented herself as a registered practical nurse in five care homes over a period of 14 months, using the credentials of an actual nurse. She was employed on this basis, and administered medication to a number of residents of the homes. She pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 [s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code], forgery [s. 368(1)(a) of the Code] and impersonation to gain advantage [s. 403(1)(a) of the Code] and was sentenced to 11 months in custody followed by two years' probation.
2The appellant appeals her sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge committed three errors in principle. First, by overstating the aggravating features of the case, second, by giving insufficient weight to mitigating factors, including her medical conditions, her history of abusive relationships and the fact that this was her first custodial sentence; and third, that the sentence was demonstrably unfit. Having now served five months of her custodial sentence, she submits that a sentence of time served followed by the two-year probation period imposed by the sentencing judge would be appropriate.
3At the conclusion of the parties' submissions, we advised that the sentence appeal was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.
4The sentencing judge properly took account of the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentencing judge concluded that principles of denunciation and deterrence were paramount, given that the appellant engaged in the fraudulent conduct over an extended period of time, involving extensive premeditation, preparation and execution. The appellant took advantage of the high regard with which nurses are held in the community, receiving remuneration for work she was not entitled to perform and, in doing so, put numerous residents of the care homes at risk. At the time of these offences, the appellant was serving a conditional sentence for a previous fraud conviction.
5The appellant argues that her cognitive deficits and mental health issues warranted imposition of a lesser sentence. We note that, despite these challenges, the appellant was capable of executing the fraudulent scheme at various institutions, without detection, for a significant period of time. In any event, the sentencing judge gave express consideration to the appellant's medical conditions, observing that there was no evidence that these conditions could not be treated in custody. Finally, as the sentencing judge properly found, it is of little moment that the fraudulent conduct might have been suggested to the appellant by an allegedly abusive partner. Whatever the origin of the plan, it was the appellant who implemented and carried it out, at various care homes, for an extended period of time. In short, the sentencing judge did not err in concluding that a conditional sentence would be unfit, and a custodial sentence was required in these circumstances.
6Finally, even accepting that this was the appellant's first sentence of actual incarceration, the custodial sentence of 11 months was well within the range for serious offences of this type.
7Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the sentence appeal is dismissed.
Janet Simmons J.A.
P.J. Monahan J.A.
R. Pomerance J.A.
Footnote
1We acknowledge that, while the appellant's conduct extended over 14 months, the period during which she was actually employed at care homes was much shorter.