Marcy Henschel

The accused pleaded guilty to gross indecency relating to events from 1978 to 1987 and sexual assault relating to an offence that occurred from 2006 to 2009.

The offences involved the sexual abuse of two child complainants over extended periods.

The court imposed a sentence of 34 months imprisonment based on a joint submission, along with ancillary orders including lifetime sex offender registration, lifetime prohibition from contact with persons under 16, and lifetime firearms prohibition.

The accused, Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser, were convicted by a jury of multiple terrorism offences, including conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group and participating in the activities of a terrorist group.

The offences involved a plot to derail a VIA passenger train and discussions of a sniper plot to assassinate prominent individuals.

At sentencing, Jaser argued for a reduced sentence based on alleged entrapment, drug addiction, and insincere religious beliefs, relying on expert psychological evidence.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the expert evidence inadmissible and contrary to the jury's verdicts.

For Esseghaier, who was self-represented, amicus curiae raised issues of fitness and mental illness.

The court found Esseghaier fit to be sentenced and concluded that any present mental illness was not causally linked to the offences committed in 2012.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for terrorism offences designed to cause indiscriminate killing, the court sentenced both accused to life imprisonment for the murder conspiracy, with concurrent determinate sentences for the other offences, and ordered a 10-year period of parole ineligibility.

During the sentencing hearing for two accused convicted of terrorism offences, amicus and the Crown sought a psychiatric assessment of one of the accused to determine his fitness.

The court held that there is no jurisdiction under the Criminal Code to order a fitness assessment after a verdict has been rendered.

However, the court found reasonable grounds to order a further psychiatric assessment under s. 21 of the Ontario Mental Health Act, noting flaws in a previous psychiatric report that had improperly modified the legal test for fitness.

In advance of a high‑profile terrorism prosecution, the court determined several issues concerning jury selection.

The Crown and defence jointly sought rulings regarding the appointment of additional jurors under s. 631(2.2) of the Criminal Code, the scope of challenge for cause based on pre‑trial publicity and racial or religious prejudice, and the procedure for determining those challenges.

The court held that the anticipated length and complexity of the trial justified appointing two additional jurors to minimize the risk of mistrial.

It permitted challenge for cause using six structured questions addressing exposure to publicity and potential bias relating to visible minority status and religion.

The court also ordered the exclusion of all jurors during the challenge process under s. 640(2.1) and directed that challenges be decided by static triers pursuant to s. 640(2.2) to preserve juror impartiality.

Pre‑trial evidentiary motion concerning proposed redactions to intercepted wiretap conversations in a terrorism prosecution.

Defence counsel sought editing of eight passages on the basis that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value under the common law exclusionary discretion.

The court applied the probative‑value versus prejudice balancing analysis and concluded that certain passages referencing derogatory comments about Jews, references to Osama bin Laden, and discussions of adultery punishments should be edited because they were minimally probative and risked inflammatory jury prejudice.

However, proposed edits relating to references to bombs and bomb‑making were refused because they were relevant to the alleged conspiracies and the relationship between participants.

The motion was therefore granted in part and dismissed in part.

In a terrorism prosecution involving allegations of conspiracy to derail a passenger train, the Crown moved for the appointment of amicus curiae because one accused insisted on representing himself while rejecting the legitimacy of Canadian law.

The court reviewed the law governing amicus appointments following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ontario v. C.L.A. of Ontario, emphasizing that amicus must not function as defence counsel or undermine the accused’s right to self‑representation.

Given the seriousness and complexity of the terrorism charges, the anticipated evidentiary issues (including wiretap admissibility and editing), and the likelihood that the self‑represented accused would refuse to participate meaningfully in proceedings governed by Canadian law, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment.

Amicus was appointed with a limited role to assist the court on complex legal and evidentiary issues while respecting the accused’s autonomy.