(SGT?) Franck Gervais (split from Walts, posers)

[kratz]

With the charge, we should be cautious of our comments, as it'll now be in the courts.

I echo Crantor, I'm happy to see this moving forward.

 

[Pieman]

It's good they laid charges.

The public national flogging was also good as well. 

Indeed. Guy is probably going to have to leave the country after this one. How else do you recover from becoming infamous like that?

 

[cupper]

It would be interesting to see the expression on his face when he realizes just how F'd up his life has become from this point forward. A criminal record, regardless of what the final disposition is, (if he is found guilty (just to be fair) ). The public notoriety means he will have a tough time living in his current community, get a new job when (or if) he gets fired from his current job. The pressure on his marriage. Complete loss of respect which he was trying to achieve from those around him.

He thought his life sucked before he started doing this. Well he ain't seen nothing yet.

Interesting that he has been charged under both Section 130 and 419. He just went from a summary offense and max 6 moths jail time to the possibility of an indictable offense with a max of 5 years.

Guy is probably going to have to leave the country after this one. How else do you recover from becoming infamous like that?

And he won't be allowed to leave the enter another country regardless, due to that criminal record.

 

[JS2218]

Interesting that he has been charged under both Section 130 and 419. He just went from a summary offense and max 6 moths jail time to the possibility of an indictable offense with a max of 5 years.

And he won't be allowed to leave the enter another country regardless, due to that criminal record.

+1

It will be interesting to see which charge sticks (or if both do). Is it more serious to impersonate a public officer, or to use military items/uniforms without authority? Also, is a CAF member considered a "public officer" by virtue of his rank (i.e. a Snr NCO or officer), or is it any CAF member? Hopefully it will give some greater jurisprudence to Canadian law for walts who play dress up.

 

[George Wallace]

+1

It will be interesting to see which charge sticks (or if both do). Is it more serious to impersonate a public officer, or to use military items/uniforms without authority? Also, is a CAF member considered a "public officer" by virtue of his rank (i.e. a Snr NCO or officer), or is it any CAF member? Hopefully it will give some greater jurisprudence to Canadian law for walts who play dress up.

I think that if you get into technicalities of the Law here, "public officer" here refers more to "public OFFICIAL", not what would be considered in the same context as a military "officer".

For instance: An officer of the Court is not in the same sense equal to an officer in the military.  Or, more simple example would be to look at the difference in meaning when referring to a police officer, as opposed to an officer in the military.

 

[mariomike]

Also, is a CAF member considered a "public officer" by virtue of his rank (i.e. a Snr NCO or officer), or is it any CAF member?

“public officer” includes

(a) an officer of customs or excise,

(b) an officer of the Canadian Forces,

(c) an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and

(d) any officer while the officer is engaged in enforcing the laws of Canada relating to revenue, customs, excise, trade or navigation;
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html

 

[Haggis]

Marionmike beat me to it by a few mouse clicks.  However, it will be up to the courts to determine if he held himself out to be "an officer of the Canadian Forces".  The CCC definition is silent on what constitutes an "officer", but the NDA reads:

“officer” means

(a) a person who holds Her Majesty’s commission in the Canadian Forces,

(b) a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and

(c) any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-1.html

 

[ueo]

Legal definitions aside, others in Canada suggest that we should pity this person as he was trying to "...show his respect"! See Toronto Star, Vinay Menon's article posted Saturday or hard copy in the Sunday edition. He is a regular paid contributor to the Star and seems to express a point of view contrary to what's being expressed here. Sorry for not including a direct link but I'm old and a bit of a luddite.

 

[George Wallace]

Marionmike beat me to it by a few mouse clicks.  However, it will be up to the courts to determine if he held himself out to be "an officer of the Canadian Forces".  The CCC definition is silent on what constitutes an "officer", but the NDA reads:

“officer” means

(a) a person who holds Her Majesty’s commission in the Canadian Forces,

(b) a person who holds the rank of officer cadet in the Canadian Forces, and

(c) any person who pursuant to law is attached or seconded as an officer to the Canadian Forces;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-1.html

Yes.  This refers to an officer in the CAF.  Personating a Public Officer per section 130 (1)(a) Criminal Code does not refer to an officer of the CAF, but a Public Official, which could cover any rank, as outlined by Marionmike.  That distinction has to be made by those who can not differentiate between the two instances.

 

[George Wallace]

Legal definitions aside, others in Canada suggest that we should pity this person as he was trying to "...show his respect"! See Toronto Star, Vinay Menon's article posted Saturday or hard copy in the Sunday edition. He is a regular paid contributor to the Star and seems to express a point of view contrary to what's being expressed here. Sorry for not including a direct link but I'm old and a bit of a luddite.

That is fine for the 'Bleeding Hearts' to come to his defence over the issue of CBC's broadcast; but it does not cover the other occasions where he donned a CAF uniform, such as his wedding.  That does not show respect for the CAF.  Nor does it cover the fact that for twelve years he has been boasting to his co-workers of his military service.  He has been caught up in a lie.  How many other lies has he told? 

We had a member here on this site who boasted of being a Royal Marine.  He is still at large, and still being pursued for defrauding lonely women of large sums of money.  He is a fraud and scam artist who used stories of his military service to enamour himself with the ladies who where his prey.  He was a complete fraud with no military service.  Can we and do we consider the possibility that Franck Gervais may be of the same ilk?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Legal definitions aside, others in Canada suggest that we should pity this person as he was trying to "...show his respect"! See Toronto Star, Vinay Menon's article posted Saturday or hard copy in the Sunday edition. He is a regular paid contributor to the Star and seems to express a point of view contrary to what's being expressed here. Sorry for not including a direct link but I'm old and a bit of a luddite.

Legal definitions and snivelling excuses from the peanut gallery attempting to "explain" his illegal actions aside, he can present his case when he gets his day in court. He had a chance with a microphone in front of his face to say he wasn't a soldier and was "only trying to show his respect." He didn't. In my humble opinion, which is, arguably, as of much value as the "pity the man" brigade's, that excuse is bullshit. I am willing to wait and see what explanation he offers in court, and how an appointed judge deals with it in accordance with the laws he broke.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Legal definitions and snivelling excuses from the peanut gallery attempting to "explain" his illegal actions aside, he can present his case when he gets his day in court. He had a chance with a microphone in front of his face to say he wasn't a soldier and was "only trying to show his respect." He didn't. In my humble opinion, which is, arguably, as of much value as the "pity the man" brigade's, that excuse is bullshit. I am willing to wait and see what explanation he offers in court, and how an appointed judge deals with it in accordance with the laws he broke.

Thank you Michael.

As the matter is now before the courts and the person involved has the presumption of innocence, discussion of the individual's characteristics will cease.

This includes the posting of photo shopped pictures, memes, comments about the individual (for or against) or anything else, except court news posted from a legitimate open source.

Let the accused have their day.

---Staff---

 

[Haggis]

Yes.  This refers to an officer in the CAF.  Personating a Public Officer per section 130 (1)(a) Criminal Code does not refer to an officer of the CAF, but a Public Official, which could cover any rank, as outlined by Marionmike.  That distinction has to be made by those who can not differentiate between the two instances.

He was also charged under CCC 130 (1)(b), likely as an alternative to 130 (1)(a).

I remember a local case during the 1998 Ice Storm where two men were arrested in combat clothing assisting with the clean up operations.  The dead giveaway in that case was that one of the pair was wearing full colonel rank while performing heavy manual labour. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

He was also charged under CCC 130 (1)(b), likely as an alternative to 130 (1)(a).

I remember a local case during the 1998 Ice Storm where two men were arrested in combat clothing assisting with the clean up operations.  The dead giveaway in that case was that one of the pair was wearing full colonel rank while performing heavy manual labour.

I remember that. Wasn't there an issue with someone in uniform trying to steal generators too?

 

[Harris]

So he has now apparently been suspended with pay from his job.  And apparently he also has a full suite of CADPAT clothing based on the photo.  (except apparently head dress) http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/alleged-military-impostor-suspended-from-construction-company-job-1.2102398

 

[cupper]

Just to clarify a bit, under Section 130, he is liable for one of two possible situations. The charge can be tried as either an indictable offense which carries a maximum of 5 years in prison, or as a summary conviction which caries a max of 6 months and / or fines.

My understanding of, and those who are in the legal field can correct me on any errors I make, how this gets pursued will be determined by the prosecutor, and the circumstances of the crime that are discovered in the course of the investigation. If all he did was wear the uniform with medals he didn't receive, without purpose of committing another crime, he most likely would be tried under summary conviction and be punished under those guidelines. If it was discovered through the course of the investigation that he committed another crime such as fraud while impersonating a public officer, then he would be looking at the more serious pursuit of conviction as an indictable offense and liable for a maximum of 5 years behind bars.

 

[X Royal]

Just a guess on my part but a plea may be offered.
Plea to the S.419 charges and the S.130 charge will be dropped.
I'd be surprised if any jail time will be ordered.
My guess is a fine and maybe community service.
And yes a criminal record.

 

[OldSolduer]

Sometimes the public outing is far worse than the actual punishment.

He'll be forever known as a "Walt"

 

[Remius]

I remember that. Wasn't there an issue with someone in uniform trying to steal generators too?

Yup. The two twits went to the wrong house. Ex reserve guy now with the OPP.  ;D

 

[Tibbson]

Just to clarify a bit, under Section 130, he is liable for one of two possible situations. The charge can be tried as either an indictable offense which carries a maximum of 5 years in prison, or as a summary conviction which caries a max of 6 months and / or fines.

My understanding of, and those who are in the legal field can correct me on any errors I make, how this gets pursued will be determined by the prosecutor, and the circumstances of the crime that are discovered in the course of the investigation. If all he did was wear the uniform with medals he didn't receive, without purpose of committing another crime, he most likely would be tried under summary conviction and be punished under those guidelines. If it was discovered through the course of the investigation that he committed another crime such as fraud while impersonating a public officer, then he would be looking at the more serious pursuit of conviction as an indictable offense and liable for a maximum of 5 years behind bars.

Yes, you are essentially correct.  When it comes to hybrid offences it is the Crown who decides how to proceed (summarily or by indictment) based upon the elements of the offence and the circumstances of the individual offences involved.  As others have pointed out too, you can pretty much bet on a number of the lesser charges being dropped as the case moves through the system, provided of course there are not any other details that the public is not aware of.  Sentencing options you note are maximums but given the non-judicial sanctions that have already come about (public scorn, potential loss of his job...) I can see the sentence being minimum, potentially even a conditional discharge dependent upon some form of public service and act of contrition.