Ariya Sheivari

The accused was convicted of three terrorism-related offences: participating in the activities of the Atom Waffen Division (AWD) terrorist group by producing propaganda and recruitment videos; knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity through the production and publication of such materials; and communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jewish people and other identifiable groups.

The court imposed a total sentence of ten years imprisonment (reduced to nine years and nine months after pre-sentence custody credit), with the accused eligible for parole under the usual criteria rather than being required to serve half the sentence.

The court found that the Kienapple principle did not apply to the multiple convictions and considered the offender's youth, remorse, renunciation of extremist beliefs, participation in rehabilitation programming, and strict bail compliance as mitigating factors.

The Crown sought to qualify Matthew Kriner as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding the impact of the accused's postings in the ideologically motivated violent extremism milieu and the significance of images created for far-right terrorist groups.

A voir dire was held during the sentencing hearing.

The court found that the proposed expert evidence met all four Mohan threshold requirements and that the probative value of the evidence exceeded any prejudicial effect.

The expert was qualified to testify.

The accused, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, was charged with terrorism offences for participating in or contributing to the production of three recruitment videos for the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), a white supremacist terrorist group.

The court found that MacDonald participated in the production and online posting of these videos and other images promoting AWD’s violent neo-Nazi ideology, with the intent to recruit others and facilitate terrorist activity.

The court accepted expert evidence that AWD was a terrorist group in 2018-2019, and found that MacDonald’s actions met the requirements for participation, facilitation, and wilful promotion of hatred under the Criminal Code.

MacDonald was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, J.D., was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of M.E.H. The victim was lured to a park by A.H. at J.D.'s behest, as revenge for a social media insult against J.D.'s deceased friend.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The court found the shooting to be an execution-style murder, thus planned and deliberate.

While one Crown witness's testimony (Z.L.) was largely rejected, the combined effect of another witness's testimony (A.H.), J.D.'s statement to police, cell phone data, video evidence, and intercepted communications led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. was responsible.

J.D. was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused sought a review of a prior bail denial under section 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances.

The court considered a "beefed-up" release plan including GPS monitoring and culturally appropriate counselling.

Despite reservations about the accused's credibility and lack of full disclosure to the proposed counsellor, the court found that the new plan, combined with the surety's commitment and the accused's time in custody, barely satisfied the secondary grounds for release.

The application for bail review was granted.

The Crown applied for a review of a release order under section 521 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was facing multiple sets of charges, including sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice made errors of law by failing to apply the reverse onus under section 524(4) and by issuing inconsistent release and detention orders for the same accused.

The reviewing judge vacated the release order and ordered the accused detained on the secondary grounds, finding a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences if released.

The Crown sought a voluntariness voir dire during the cross-examination of the accused, E.A., on his exculpatory video-recorded statement to police, intending to use it for impeachment on alleged inconsistencies and "variances in tone and emphasis." The defence argued this was untimely and prejudiced E.A.'s right to a fair trial and full answer and defence, as it changed the "case to meet" after E.A. elected to testify.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling that no use could be made of the statement, preferring the line of authority emphasizing trial fairness and the "case to meet" principle over the Crown's argument that the statement was only marginally relevant until the accused testified.