Court File and Parties
DATE: November 1, 2024 Information No.: 4911-998-24-91109660 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING v. WAISUDDIN AKBARI
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. PRUTSCHI On November 1, 2024, at NEWMARKET, Ontario
APPEARANCES: A. Barkin Counsel for the Crown T. Phan Counsel for Waisuddin Akbari
Reasons for Judgment
Prutschi J. : (Orally)
On March 4th, 2024, Waisuddin Akbari attended his BMW dealership for an oil change. To pass the time, he inquired about the possibility of upgrading to a new vehicle and was introduced to Cameron Ahmad who was a manager in customer retention at the Aurora dealership.
It is undisputed that Mr. Akbari expressed concerns to Mr. Ahmad about leasing or financing a new vehicle as he believed that any interest payments on the car would be funneled to the Israeli government then used to finance what he claimed to be an ongoing genocide against Palestinian civilians. The direction the conversation between Mr. Akbari and Mr. Ahmad took from there is very much in dispute.
It is alleged that the interaction ended with Mr. Akbari telling Mr. Ahmad that he would be planting bombs at synagogues across Toronto in an effort to kill as many Jews as possible. Mr. Ahmad reported this comment to police the next day and Mr. Akbari was charged with threatening to damage those synagogues and threatening death against the Jewish people.
The legal issues are not in dispute. The parties accept that if Mr. Akbari did indeed make the final statement attributed to him he would be guilty of both threatening charges. The law in relation to threatening charges was well summarized by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. McRae, 2013 SCC 68, [2013] 3 SCR 931.
The Crown does not need to prove that the intended target of the threat was aware of it, nor must the threat be directed against a specific person or property. A threat against an ascertained group is sufficient. The mens rea of the offence is made out if the accused intended the words he uttered either to intimidate or to be taken seriously. It is not necessary to prove that he intended to actually follow through or carry out on the stated threat.
The only genuine issue in this case is a factual one, did Mr. Akbari, in fact, say the things Mr. Ahmad said he did.
The trial consisted of only two witnesses, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Akbari. Their credibility and reliability is central to my determination of the factual question. However, a trial is not to devolve into a mere credibility contest where I simply choose between two competing versions of events. I must remain cognizant of the presumption of innocence and the Crown’s burden to prove their case to the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am, therefore, guided by the analytical framework set up by the Supreme Court of Canada in the well-known case of R. v. W.D. If I believe Mr. Akbari, I must acquit him. Even if I do not believe him, if his testimony leaves me in reasonable doubt, I must still acquit him. Even if I am not left in reasonable doubt by Mr. Akbari’s testimony, he must still be acquitted unless I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt by the portions of Mr. Ahmad’s evidence which I do accept.
In conducting this analysis, I must weigh individual testimony in the broader context of the whole of the evidence and I may accept some, none, or all of a given witness’ testimony.
I, therefore, turn now to a summary of the testimonies of both witnesses beginning with Mr. Ahmad.
The entirety of the interaction between Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Akbari lasted just over 20 minutes. Although it was captured on the dealership’s surveillance video, there is no audio track permitting me to hear what was said between the two. The video does, however, set the scene, and the two can be seen chatting at Mr. Ahmad’s desk which is situated within a half cubicle at the side of an open concept layout.
The dealership does not appear busy. Other staff or customers can occasionally be seen be milling about the showroom floor.
Mr. Ahmad is 26 years old, some 15 years younger than the 41-year-old Mr. Akbari. Mr. Ahmad was born in Canada and English is his only language. His mother is American while his father hailed originally from Pakistan. This may be of some relevance as Mr. Ahmad shared his ethnic background with Mr. Akbari who was born in Afghanistan but moved to Pakistan for several years as a young child.
Mr. Ahmad believed Mr. Akbari might have felt a certain kinship or comfort in their shared Muslim Pakistani ancestry and that this contributed to the subsequent tone of their discussions.
As soon as the two sat down at Mr. Ahmad’s desk, Mr. Akbari introduced the topic of the most recent war in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which began on October 7th, 2023, and was very much still raging when the two met on March 4th, 2024.
Mr. Ahmad said that Mr. Akbari began speaking continuously about the war. Mr. Akbari seemed to feel comfortable expressing his opinion on this politically charged topic and Mr. Ahmad assumed this comfort was rooted in his own last name, which might have led Mr. Akbari to believe the two shared similar opinions on the subject. Mr. Ahmad conceded that “to a small extent I did,” noting that he personally was “on the side of the Palestinian state and the innocent civilians.”
When Mr. Akbari stated that a genocide was being perpetrated against the Palestinians, Mr. Ahmad agreed, but then things took a much more ominous turn. Mr. Akbari went on to say that the Israeli state and the Jewish people should also be subjected to a genocide in retaliation, and Mr. Ahmad felt the need to separate himself from those comments.
Mr. Ahmad quickly became uncomfortable with the direction the conversation was headed as Mr. Akbari went on to make extremist and antisemitic remarks against the Israeli government and the Jewish people.
Mr. Akbari believed the Israeli government controlled the entire world and that they were trying to exterminate anyone who was not Jewish. He stated that Israel sought to turn the world into slaves and to poison the world. He expressed a belief that Israel was not a real state or a country. He went on to equate Israelis and Jewish people to roaches or insects who should be exterminated and to a cancer that needed to be eliminated.
These comments shocked Mr. Ahmad. He became scared, not for himself, but for the possible danger posed by the beliefs Mr. Akbari was expressing. Mr. Ahmad did not know how to deal with this.
Throughout the conversation, Mr. Akbari appeared to Mr. Ahmad to be calm and collected. He did not raise his voice or speak quickly. He was consistently “well-spoken, clear and concise in what he was saying and believed in.” For some of the most offensive comments, Mr. Akbari leaned in over the desk a little closer to Mr. Ahmad who assumed Mr. Akbari was trying to ensure that these comments were not overheard by anyone else at the dealership.
Mr. Ahmad steered the conversation back to the topic of a car purchase, but Mr. Akbari's current vehicle was in a negative equity situation, meaning it would cost Mr. Akbari additional funds to extricate himself from the older car and upgrade to a new lease. Mr. Akbari was not interested in that arrangement. Mr. Ahmad agreed it was not a good time for Mr. Akbari to change vehicles.
They were wrapping up their conversation when Mr. Akbari made the statement which is at the heart of this trial. He told Mr. Ahmad, “Before I go, I want you to remember my name and remember my face because the next time you see it I'll be on the news.” Mr. Ahmad, confused, asked Mr. Akbari what he meant by this bizarre proclamation. Mr. Akbari responded, “I know when I'm going to die because I'm going to plant a bomb in every synagogue in Toronto and blow them up to kill as many Jews as possible.” Mr. Ahmad was shocked and asked, “Really?” To which Mr. Akbari responded, “Yes, I'm serious” and went on to explain that “I’ll make sure those attacks are filmed and posted online so the world can see what I've done.”
Mr. Ahmad tried to conceal any outward reaction to this. He shook Mr. Akbari’s hand and ended the conversation. He was asked in court whether Mr. Akbari might have been simply joking around and Mr. Ahmad responded, “Definitely not. Based on the seriousness in his tone. I didn't think for a second he was joking. Whether he was boasting or saying it for dramatic effect, I don't think so either.” Mr. Ahmad went on to say that the comments “weighed on me, I believed he was being serious.”
For these reasons he consulted with a colleague who was a former police officer, as well as with his older brother who is in the Canadian military. Both advised him that he should report what he heard to authorities.
The next day Mr. Ahmad told his dealership manager what had transpired. He tried calling CrimeStoppers but was left on hold and unable to reach them. He instead telephoned both the York Regional Police and the RCMP, with the York Regional Police eventually initiating the investigation that led to these charges.
Mr. Akbari testified in his own defence and provided a very different version of events. He was born in Afghanistan but moved to Pakistan when he was around six or seven years old. He stayed in Pakistan for seven to eight years before moving to Moscow in Russia, eventually arriving in Canada in November 2007, where he became a citizen and opened a shawarma restaurant.
Mr. Akbari testified in English without the benefit of an interpreter. English is his fourth language, and while he was proficient in it, he does speak with a strong accent and sometimes struggled with grammatical formulations.
Although Mr. Akbari belongs to the Ismaili sect of Islam, he says he is not religiously observant in any way. On March 4th, 2024, Mr. Akbari was attending the BMW dealership to have an oil change. To kill some time, while waiting for the service, he decided to make inquiries about a potential new car. This is how he ended up being introduced to Mr. Ahmad.
Mr. Akbari could not recall if the two of them had any discussion about Mr. Ahmad’s Pakistani heritage, but when the conversation turned to lease and finance options, he acknowledged that he told Mr. Ahmad he would not be doing that because he believed the interest on those payments went to the Israeli government in support of their war which was killing innocent people.
Mr. Akbari testified that Mr. Ahmad agreed with him saying, “Yes, you're right, my brother.” Mr. Akbari claims that Mr. Ahmad went further and said that it was not only Canadian finance money that flowed to Israel but rather all global finance was controlled by the Israeli government. This apparently shocked Mr. Akbari who was unaware that Israel’s control was spread so widely.
Mr. Akbari claimed he only raised the Israel concern with Mr. Ahmad in the first place as a way to convince Mr. Ahmad to stop pressuring him into buying a new car. In Mr. Akbari’s mind, presenting this information about Israel was somehow a logical way to put an end to any lease or finance discussions. The conversation still returned to the potential for a new vehicle purchase.
Although Mr. Akbari said that Mr. Ahmad was friendly and professional throughout their interaction, he also felt the Mr. Ahmad was pushing him to upgrade his car. Mr. Akbari could not afford this as he had lost enormous sums of money, totaling some $500,000 in the last four years, due to a gambling addiction. Mr. Akbari told Mr. Ahmad about his gambling debts as another attempt to terminate any talk about buying a new car. He made a joke about wanting to blow up a casino for all the damage that gambling had unleashed on his life.
He denied making any further comments about the Israeli government, Israeli people, or the Jewish people. Indeed, he claimed he did not even know what Judaism was. He testified that although he knew Jews existed, he knew nothing about the religion and knew nothing about its connection to the state of Israel.
He claimed he could not even pronounce words like “roaches” or “insects” and, therefore, would never have used them in his conversation with Mr. Ahmad. Similarly, he claimed to be unaware of the word “synagogue” and had no idea that this referred to a House of Jewish prayer. He categorically denied making any statements about bombing synagogues or killing Jews.
Since he was arrested and charged on March 5th of 2024, he says he has taken it upon himself to research the issues that arose in this case and that he now knows much more about the Jewish religion and the state of Israel. With this new knowledge, he now has no complaints with Israel or Jews and simply wants to see all innocent human beings spared the harms of war.
Returning to the analytical framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the W.D. case, I turn now to my assessment of each witness’ credibility.
Mr. Akbari’s testimony, in my view, was brief, disjointed and vague. I found him to be frequently inconsistent and evasive, refusing to provide a direct answer to straightforward questions or confusing his answers over the course of his testimony.
Mr. Akbari acknowledged that he was the first to bring up concerns over Israel’s purported control of global interest payments, which he believed the Israeli government was using to finance their killing of innocent civilians. He claimed he raised this issue as a way to convince Mr. Ahmad to stop pushing him to purchase a new car. This is an utterly bizarre claim as there would be far easier ways to deflect the advances of a pushy salesman rather than engaging in a discussion about a controversial political conspiracy.
The nonsensical nature of his claim was further underscored by Mr. Akbari himself who, by his own admission, had, only moments before this, sought out a salesperson to discuss the purchase of a new car. Having just asked to speak with a sales associate, I cannot accept that his opening salvo in that conversation was really just a ruse designed to extricate himself from that pushy salesman. The very notion of Mr. Ahmad being pushy is inconsistent with Mr. Akbari’s description of Mr. Ahmad’s friendliness and professionalism.
Mr. Akbari was asked where he obtained his information about the global Israeli financial conspiracy and he said that he, “heard it maybe a day or two before” the March 4th meeting. He could not be more specific than that and denied reading newspapers or watching TV news sources. And yet later, in his cross-examination, when he was again questioned about the source of his knowledge about the conflict, he revealed that CP24 was a fixture on the television at his restaurant and he said, “I heard that maybe on TV somewhere.”
At other times he suggested that the Israel Palestine conflict was a “hot” issue being discussed by everybody but when he was asked whether he, himself, discussed it with anybody he denied ever having conversations on the topic neither with friends, family members or customers of his restaurant. I am unable to accept the Mr. Akbari’s first and only discussion about this so- called hot issue was with the salesman at his BMW dealership who was a complete stranger to him until they met that very morning.
Mr. Akbari’s testimony as to his knowledge of Judaism was also very problematic and shifted over the course of his testimony. While I am prepared to accept that his knowledge about the practice of Judaism was very limited, he claimed during his examination in-chief to not even have heard the words Judaism or synagogue. He knew that Israel was a country that existed in some form but claimed not to know what Jews were or that there was a Jewish religion at all.
He claimed that since he was arrested and charged he has done research into Judaism and only now understands that Jews are a religion who pray in synagogues and have a connection to the state of Israel. He then downplayed any animosity towards Jews or Israel at all saying that, in light of his research, he believes Jews to be good, hard- working people.
However, he seemed to provide different information on this point giving inconsistent answers throughout his cross-examination. Early in his cross-exam Mr. Akbari stated several times that he had never heard about Jews, Judaism or synagogues before March 4th. However, after the lunch break the Crown returned to this topic and said, “You said you didn't know about Jewish people before March 4th.” This time Mr. Akbari hedged saying, “I didn't know deeply, heard Israel, Jews something, but don't know what's Judaism.”
The Crown tried to clarify, suggesting that Mr. Akbari had, indeed, heard about Jews before March 4th. Mr. Akbari said no. The Crown continued asking, “So what did you mean?” To which Mr. Akbari responded, “I know there is a country that exists, Israel, but I don't know what's their religion or faith.” The Crown persisted saying, “But I was asking about the Jewish religion.” To which Mr. Akbari answered, “I heard something Jewish, but I don't about religion.” [sic] The Crown clarified asking, “So you know there was a Jewish religion but didn't know anything about it?” And Mr. Akbari answered “Yeah.”
These vagaries and inconsistencies leave me very sceptical of Mr. Akbari’s claim that he could not have referenced the bombing of synagogues and the killing of Jews in his alleged threat since he was purportedly entirely ignorant of these terms.
Mr. Akbari’s testimony stands in sharp contrast to the direct, straightforward and detailed manner of Mr. Ahmad’s evidence.
Mr. Ahmad was never seriously challenged or shaken in cross-examination. While he acknowledged that Mr. Akbari spoke English with a strong accent, he never had any difficulty understanding him and noted that Mr. Akbari’s comments were delivered in a clear and serious tone throughout. Mr. Ahmad recalled no conversation at all with Mr. Akbari about gambling debts or casinos. He was confident that had Mr. Akbari brought something like that up it would have stuck out in his mind. Moreover, Mr. Ahmad categorically denied that he ever expanded upon Mr. Akbari’s conspiratorial views by suggesting that Israel or Jews controlled not only Canadian finance but global finance.
Mr. Ahmad was recalled by the Crown after Mr. Akbari’s testimony so that allegations made by Mr. Akbari that were never put to Mr. Ahmad could be properly presented to the witness. When asked during his recalled testimony how he could be so sure that he never mentioned Israeli or Jewish control over world finance Mr. Ahmad responded, “That's not something I believe to be fully accurate. I've never had that opinion before and I don't remember sharing it with the defendant. I would not have said that because I don't believe it to be true.”
Unlike Mr. Akbari, Mr. Ahmad never tried to downplay his own political views on the conflict. He acknowledged that he felt sympathy for Palestinian civilians and supported a Palestinian state, and that he shared Mr. Akbari’s opinion that Israel was responsible for some form of genocide. It therefore strains credulity to believe that Mr. Ahmad, who was sympathetic to at least some of Mr. Akbari’s less radical views, would manufacture a detailed allegation involving synagogue bomb threats and the murder of Jews to set up a customer who was a complete stranger to him.
There can similarly be no rational basis to conclude that Mr. Ahmad somehow innocently misunderstood or misconstrued Mr. Akbari’s comments. An off-colour joke by a gambling addict about bombing a casino cannot reasonably be misheard as a detailed threat to place bombs at every synagogue in Toronto for the express purpose of killing as many Jews as possible while filming and posting the entire affair to show the world what had been accomplished.
Though it was suggested to Mr. Ahmad in cross- examination that he may have misheard Mr. Akbari or been confused by his accent, Mr. Ahmad remained consistent saying “No, that's not accurate. When he said to me it was clear, and I heard him clearly regardless of his English level or accent. What he said and what I heard was very clear.”
Although it is obvious that English is not his first language, Mr. Akbari has lived in Canada for nearly two decades operating a successful public- facing business in his shawarma restaurant. I had no difficulty understanding him and he appeared to comprehend all the questions posed to him. At one point the Crown asked him directly if he felt he could be assisted by an interpreter, he declined. I do not believe that his language skills are the source of some sort of innocent misunderstanding between himself and Mr. Ahmad.
It was further suggested to Mr. Ahmad that he might have inadvertently extrapolated from Mr. Akbari’s racist comments, making an assumption that the bombs Mr. Akbari spoke of were in relation to Jews rather than casinos. Mr. Ahmad clearly and cogently denied this saying, “No, because he said specifically to plant bombs in synagogues and kill as many Jews as possible.”
I find Mr. Akbari made deliberate efforts to downplay the nature of his comments. He was vague, evasive and inconsistent in his responses. I neither believe his testimony, nor am I left in reasonable doubt by it.
In contrast, Mr. Ahmad was direct, clear and articulate in his evidence. He knows what he heard, and he was deeply disturbed by it. As a young man he felt confused and shocked by what he had been told. After conferring with a trusted colleague and his older brother, he took the only reasonable and responsible step in the circumstances and reported the matter to police.
In conclusion, on March 4th, 2024, Mr. Akbari happened upon a young salesperson with a Muslim sounding last name and a shared Middle Eastern background. For these reasons, Mr. Akbari assumed Mr. Ahmad shared his own distorted and warped views about Israel and the Jewish people. Mr. Akbari, therefore, felt comfortable launching down an antisemitic rabbit hole in which he casually tossed out dangerous tropes claiming that Israel and the Jews controlled global financial markets as they sought to enslave and poison the world.
While being false, despicable and odious, these comments are not the basis of the criminal charges Mr. Akbari faces. Had he limited his conversation to such overt antisemitism and conspiracy theories he likely would not be here today. Instead, Mr. Akbari felt emboldened by Mr. Ahmad’s modest agreement and subsequent silence, concluding his conversation with a clear and overt threat.
These threats targeted Toronto synagogues and any Jews who might be inside them. The threats were delivered in a serious tone, and it does not matter whether Mr. Akbari intended to act on them or not. They clearly meet the legal definition of an unlawful threat to damage personal property and harm an ascertained group.
For these reasons, I find Mr. Akbari guilty of both counts on the information.
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2)) Evidence Act
I, Tracey Beatty, certify* that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Akbari in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 50 Eagle St. West, Newmarket, Ontario, on November 1, 2024, taken from Recording No. 4911_202_20241101_083539 _6_PRUTSCE.dcr which has been certified by A. Dolgansky in Form 1.
Tracey Beatty, ACT ID #7742765329 March 20, 2025
Copy Ordered: March 20, 2025 Original Completed: December 9, 2024 Ordering Party Notified: March 20, 2025
(*This certification does not apply to these Reasons for Judgment which may have been judicially edited.)