Hussein Aly


B.A.(Spec.Hons.), LL.B

Barrister & Solicitor

Hussein Aly credits his tremendous success as a trial lawyer on his mentorship from his partners, but his partners recognize a natural when they see one.  He is extraordinarily clever, extraordinarily hardworking, and extraordinarily talented.  Partner Brian Ross says, “Hussein is incredible.  And the most incredible thing about him is that he is consistently incredible.”

Mr. Aly is also renowned among lawyers outside of the firm.  The Law Society of Ontario has certified him as a Specialist in Criminal Law.  He’s regularly asked to present on criminal law issues to other criminal lawyers and he writes a regular column about them for the Criminal Lawyer Association’s regular publication, ‘For the Defence’.

Mr. Aly chooses the cases he takes on based on the case, not the economic circumstances of the client.

Contact him by telephone at 647-220-1382, or by email at


Mr. Aly's Cases

Hussein Aly has defended his clients against hundreds of criminal charges.  A brief summary of some of his cases can be found below.

Please note: Past successes do not ensure future success

Possession of Cocaine, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine, Trafficking Cocaine

R. v. I.Z

I.Z was charged with possession of a quarter kilogram of crystal-meth for the purpose of trafficking.  I.Z entered his home to find the police executing a search warrant.  He was searched incident to arrest and the crystal-meth was found inside a knapsack he was wearing.  After three hours of deliberations, the jury found I.Z not guilty.

R. v. N.A

N.A was charged with possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  He was charged the police discovered a large amount of cocaine in a bag containing his identification and prescription medicine.  The driver of the motor vehicle, who was a licensed paralegal, also provided a statement that claiming the bag belonged to N.A.  After a two-week trial, a jury found N.A not guilty of all charges.

R. v. A.B

A.B was charged after 2.2 kilograms of cocaine was found concealed inside two truck pistons he was bringing into Canada.  After a two-week trial a jury found A.B not guilty of importing cocaine.

R. v. K.F

K.F was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.  The police discovered the cocaine after stopping K.F for an not wearing his seatbelt.  At trial, the officers’ evidence was disbelieved by the trial judge.  As a result, the trial judge found violations of K.F’s section 8 and 9 rights pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the cocaine from evidence; K.F was found not guilty. 

R.v. D.R.

D.R. was charged with importing eight ounces of cocaine into Canada.

In Jamaica, D.R. had swallowed 30 capsules which contained cocaine. Upon his arrival at Pearson International Airport, D.R. was detained for investigation as a drug swallower. D.R. was told that he would not be free to leave until he produced a stool sample which proved he had not ingested cocaine. A short time later, D.R. admitted to having swallowed cocaine and he was arrested.

The Crown sought a conviction and a sentence in the range of four to five years in prison.

D.R. chose trial by jury.

D.R. admitted during his trial that he had intentionally imported the cocaine into Canada but argued that he should be excused from criminal liability because he acted under duress. D.R. testified that he imported the cocaine into Canada because his own brother and a corrupt Jamaican police officer made him an offer he could not refuse: swallow and import the pellets of cocaine or die.

After a week-long trial, the jury returned their verdict and found D.R. not guilty of importing cocaine

R. v. M.M.

M.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.  The police illegally arrested M.M. in the Trethewey area of Toronto.  The police seized M.M’s car keys and pushed the panic alarm until they found his vehicle.  The police searched the vehicle and found one ounce of cocaine in the glove box.

M.M. was acquitted at trial after Mr. Aly obtained a directed verdict based on the lack of evidence demonstrating possession (knowledge and control) of the cocaine.

R. v. K.B.

K.B. was charged with possession of cocaine.  Peel police illegally stopped his vehicle in a strip mall parking lot. The police searched K.B. and his vehicle and found cocaine.

K.B. was acquitted.  The trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt based on the evidence of a passenger who testified for the defence and claimed that the cocaine belonged to them. 

R. v. C.R.

C.R. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.  The police illegally stopped his vehicle in downtown Toronto based on a false claim that he had committed an unsafe lane change.  The police searched C.R.’s vehicle and found one ounce of crack cocaine, and several digital scales.

At his preliminary inquiry, C.R. was discharged of all charges.  Mr. Aly successfully argued that there was no evidence of possession of the cocaine.


R. v. S. H.

S. H was charged with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder.   After a successful 11b motion all charged were ordered stayed.

R. v. A.A

A.A and his two co-accused were charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and several other related charges in relation to an incident where the complainant was shot.  After a five-week trial a jury found A.A and his two co-accused not guilty of the charges they faced.

R. N.B

N.B was charged with manslaughter stemming from a confrontation at a park.  Several witnesses claimed that N.B. participated in the group beating which caused the death of the victim.  After a seven-week trial a jury found N.B. not guilty of all charges.

R. v. R.R.

R.R. was charged with attempted murder and discharge firearm with intent to wound.  The complainant alleged that R.R. shot him as they spoke inside a motor vehicle.  After a two-week trial the jury found R.R. not guilty of attempted murder and discharge firearm with intent to wound.

R. v. D.R.(David Bayliss Senior Counsel)

D.R. was charged with 1stDegree Murder of his former associate.  After three weeks of pre-trial motions, and some favourable evidentiary rulings, the Crown withdrew the charges of 1stDegree Murder against D.R. 

R. v. M.A.

After his vehicle struck a pedestrian M.A. found himself charged with Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death.  During M.A. preliminary inquiry the Crown’s witnesses were cross-examined in a fashion which undermined M.A. criminal liability.  In addition, Mr. Aly exposed significant problems with the Accident Reconstruction report.  The advances made at the preliminary inquiry caused the Crown to withdrawal the charges against M.A. 

Sexual Assault

R. v. S.K. 

S.K was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, obstruction of justice, assault and criminal harassment.  His wife alleged that he committed these offences over several days.  After a seven day trial, the jury found him not guilty of al counts.

R. v. S.W

S.W was charged with assault and sexual assault.  It was alleged that he assaulted and sexually assaulted his former girlfriend.  After a four-day trial, S.W was found not guilty by the trial Judge after he was left with a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

R. v. M.R

M.F was charged with sexual assault.  It was alleged that he sexually assaulted a woman after he was introduced to her through mutual friends.  After a thorough cross-examination at the preliminary inquiry, the Crown attorney decided to withdraw all charges against M.R.

R. v. A.M.

A.M. found himself charged with four counts of sexual assault, assault, sexual interference, and threaten death. For monetary reasons, his former spouse fabricated an elaborate account of sexual assault on herself and their daughter.

At the preliminary inquiry, through cross-examination of A.M.’s former spouse and his child, A.M.’s counsel exposed the spouse’s manipulation of the child, and her propensity to fabricate stories and convincingly describe them.

Further, it was demonstrated that the allegations were internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with A.M’s character. As a result of how the evidence unfolded, the Crown asked the judge to discharge A.M. of the charge.

Firearms, Robbery with a Firearm 

R. v. D.M

D.M was charged possession of a firearm.  The police searched his home and found a loaded firearm in his room.  After a two-day trial, D.M was found not guilty by the trial judge.

R. v. D.S.

D.S. was charged with possession of a loaded 9mm handgun that was discovered in his mother’s home after the execution of a search warrant.  The Crown’s theory was that D.S. lived in the home.   In support of their theory the Crown relied upon the presence of his identification, personal documents, and physical presence within the home.  After a multi-day preliminary inquiry Mr. Aly successfully argued that the evidence adduced by the Crown was insufficient to support any inference that D.S. had knowledge of the presence of the firearm.  D.S. was discharged of all the charges he faced. 

R. v. G.Z

G.Z. found himself arrested and charged with eight counts of robbery with a firearm. He was shocked because at the time of the robbery he was at home with his family. He was charged because he was selected out of a photo lineup by a witness who presented himself as reliable; the witness was asked whether he had received information regarding the identity of the suspect, and/or his description, and he stated that he had not. His claim of being free from influence was a lie. The truth was that the witness had received ample information, from other unreliable sources, which made him suspect that G.Z. was involved in the robbery. The witness did his own investigation on Facebook and located several pictures of G.Z. prior to conducting his photo lineup. These pictures were reviewed by the witness, and after much discussion with others he became certain he had found the culprit. In law, these events rendered any identification by the witness fatally unreliable, but it never came to light because he withheld this information from the police.

At G.Z.’s preliminary inquiry the truth was exposed. Other witnesses exposed the witness’s own investigation into the matter. Through cross-examination it was shown that the witness’s identification was holly dependant on his own investigation and his discussions with others; it also demonstrated the willingness of the witness to mislead the police to achieve a result he desired. Mid-way through cross-examination the Crown informed the court that the charges against G.A. should be dismissed because of the events which had transpired. G.Z. is now a free man and a wrongful conviction has been avoided.  

Impaired Driving, Impaired Over 80

R. v.  A.K

A.K was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle.  He was found in the driver’s seat of the motor vehicle outside of an afterhours nightclub.  The police suspected that he was impaired by drug causing them to make a demand that he accompany them for a sobriety test.  A.K failed the test and was charged.  At trial, A.K was found not guilty after he rebutted the presumption that he was in care and control of the motor vehicle.   

R. v. P. J

P.J was charged with impaired driving after he was stopped by the police in the entertainment district of Toronto.  After a one-day trial P.J was found not guilty of all charges because the samples of his breath had not been taken as soon as practicable.

R. v. S.H

S.H was charged with impaired driving after his vehicle was found stuck in a ditch by a tow-truck driver.  At trial, an application was made to exclude his breath test results due to violations of his right to counsel of choice.  After two days off trial, the Crown attorney withdrew the charges because of the problems of the officers’ evidence.

R. v. KH

K.H was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle.  He was found in the driver’s seat of his vehicle with a bottle of liquor on the passenger seat.  He failed a roadside screening test and was charged.  After a three-day trial he was found not guilty after he rebutted the presumption that he was in care and control of the motor vehicle.

R. v. A.Q

A.Q.  was charged with over 80.  Liquor compliance officers followed a suspected impaired driver from a local bar. They contacted the police when the vehicle came to a stop at A.Q’s apartment building.  The police located A.Q in the parking lot of his building in possession of the keys to the motor vehicle.  He was charged with impaired driving and over 80.  After a two-day trial A.Q. was found not guilty because the Judge believed he was not the driver of the motor vehicle.

R. v. E.Z.

E.Z.  was charged with over 80.  E.Z. was stopped at 2:00 a.m. for speeding.  A subsequent investigation led to her being charged.  E.Z. was found not guilty at trial after her breathalyzer results were excluded from evidence based on violations of her s.10(b) Charter rights. 

R. v. G.A

G.A was charged with failing to stop for police, dangerous driving, and obstructing a police officer.  A police officer testified that G.A was driving a motor vehicle which initially stopped but subsequently took flight.  After a one-day trial G.A was found not guilty.

R. v. S.S.

S.S. was driving home during the early morning hours when a police officer decided to stop his vehicle.  During the vehicle stop the officer quickly formed grounds to suspect that S.S. had consumed alcohol.  After some further investigation S.S. was arrested for Operating a Motor Vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of Blood.  Mr. Aly brought an application to exclude the results of S.S.’s breath test results based on a violation of S.S.’s right to counsel of choice.  The application was successful and the charge against S.S. was dismissed. 

Assaults, Assaulting Police Officer

R. v. N.S.

N.S. was charged with assaulting his roommate.  His roommate claimed that he struck him with a pool stick and choked him.  He was a permanent resident and he would have been deported.  After a one-day trial, the trial judge found N.S. not guilty.

R. v. M.D

M.D was charged with assaulting his wife.  The trial judge found him not guilty after a one-day trial.

R. v. Y.F

Y.F was charged with assaulting her former partner outside a Toronto courthouse.  The incident was captured on camera.  The trial judge found Y.F not guilty after a one-day trial.

R. v. D.C

D.C was charged with threatening death and assault.  The complainant was his wife.  After a two-day trial, D.C was found not guilty by the trial judge.

R. v. T.C

T.C was charged with domestic assault in relation to his ex-wife.  After a two-day trial T.C was found bit guilty by the trial judge.

R. v. T.G.

T.G. was charged with assaulting a Peel police officer after he allegedly kicked an officer in the leg.  Four police officers testified that T.G. did in fact kick the officer.  T.G. was acquitted of assault police officer.  After four days of trial, and aggressive cross-examinations of the four police officers, the trial judge ruled that she was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that T.G. kicked the officer.  The trial judge noted that there were significant inconsistencies in the officers’ evidence, and that T.G. and other defence witnesses were credible.

R. v. A.B.

A.B. was charged with dangerous driving, threatening death, and assault.  There were two complainants who alleged that he drove after them in a rage and made a threat, including giving them the “gun finger”.  A.B. was acquitted at trial.  Mr. Aly cross-examined the main witness extensively and exposed extreme inconsistencies and illogical aspects of his evidence.  After the lunch break, the Crown withdrew the charges stating “I cannot ask your Honour to convict on this kind of evidence”.    

R. v. O.M.

O.M. was charged with assault, theft, and assault with a weapon.  The complainant alleged that after an argument O.M. attacked her, threatened her, and threw several objects at her.  O.M. was acquitted at trial.  The complainant was cross-examined aggressively by Mr. Aly and she admitted that she had lied to the police, and several inconsistencies in her evidence were exposed. Prior to the afternoon break, the trial judge told the Crown that the case should be withdrawn.  When court resumed, the Crown withdrew all the charges against the O.M.

R. v. D.B.

D.B. was charged with two counts of assault, assault with a weapon, and threatening death.  The charges stemmed from an alleged fight at a Scarborough bar.

D.B. was acquitted at trial. The trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt after the cross-examination of the complainant, and D.B.’s testimony.  

Failing to Comply with Court Orders

R. v. D.H.

D.H. was walking in the Morningside and Lawrence area of Scarborough when he was stopped and arrested by two police officers for breaching his curfew.  The police officers knew of D.H., and that he was bound by a 7 p.m. curfew, because they had illegally stopped and searched him 3 days previously.

Mr. Aly brought an application pursuant to s.24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay the proceedings against D.H. because the grounds for his arrest were obtained through a blatantly illegal stop and search.

The trial judge agreed with the defence and dismissed the charges against D.H.  The trial judge stated:

 For the police to deliberately breach well known rights of an individual in the name of police investigation in my view brings into question how society will look at these breaches and permit the Court to condone systemic behaviour of this nature.

This youth had the right to leave the scene. He was not a suspect and no crime had even been found to have been committed. The actions of the police were deliberate and resulted in breaches of three of his rights under the Charter. The accused had no obligation to identify himself and did so only when the police asserted their authority over him, detaining him until he cooperated.

R. v. S.N.

S.N. was charged with failing to appear for court. At trial Mr. Aly obtained a directed verdict of acquittal after he successfully argued that the Crown had charged the incorrect section of the Criminal Code and the Crown could not prove the charge. 

R. v. R.F.

R.F. was charged with breaching his bail after he was arrested outside of a residence which he was prohibited from being at.  At trial R.F. was acquitted after Mr. Aly led evidence from the scene of the crime that cast doubt about whether the address where R.F. was arrested at was in fact the same address he was prohibited from attending.

R. v. N.B.

N.B. was charged with breaching his house arrest bail.  At trial he was acquitted.  Mr. Aly called evidence that cast a doubt in the trial judge’s mind on whether the N.B. intentionally breached his bail. 

R. v. K.A.

K.A. was charged with breaching his house arrest bail.  The complainant was his former girlfriend; she alleged that she observed him outside his home alone without his surety.  In cross-examination the complainant was forced into admitting that she could not identify the other people who were around K.A., and therefore she could not say that he was not with his surety.  K.A. was acquitted by the trial judge because he was left with a reasonable doubt regarding whether K.A. was not in the presence of his surety.


R. v. F.E.E. 

F.E.E. was convicted of sexual assault in Brantford Ontario.  He retained Mr. Aly to represent him on his appeal.  

One of the fundamental principles of criminal law is that an accused must be present for all aspects of his trial.  Failure to ensure that an accused person is present for all of his trial is an error in law.  However, in most cases where an accused appeals based on the fact that he was excluded from trial the appeal is dismissed because while these errors are unfortunate, they cause no damage to the appearance that justice was done.

In F.E.E. counsel appealed on this basis but argued that the case was unique because the accused was excluded from two aspects of his trial; once during his own cross-examination and during the pre-charge conference.  The defence argued that the appearance that justice was done was fatally damaged by the multiple exclusions of the accused which caused him to have no participation in two critical moments in his trial. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the defence.  They found that the exclusion of the accused was not a simple procedural irregularity which caused no damage to the appearance of fairness.  The Court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial.