ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 07 28
COURT FILE No.: Newmarket 998 24 91109660
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
WAISUDDIN AKBARI
Before Justice E. Prutschi
Heard on July 15, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on July 28, 2025
Amy Barkin .......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Morgan Lipchitz and Ian Donnell .... counsel for the defendant Waisuddin AKBARI
Reasons for Sentence
PRUTSCHI J.:
[1] On March 4, 2024, Mr. Akbari engaged in a discussion with Cameron Ahmad, a salesperson at a local car dealership. During that conversation Mr. Akbari expressed dehumanizing and conspiratorial opinions about the State of Israel, Israelis, and Jewish people more generally.
[2] He spoke about his belief that Israel and the Jews exercised control over world events and directly benefited from interest payments on things like car loans. Mr. Akbari further discussed an Israeli plot to exterminate anyone who was not Jewish. He stated that Israel sought to enslave and poison the world and he equated Israelis and Jews to roaches who should be exterminated or a cancer that needed to be eliminated.
[3] He concluded the conversation by telling 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. Akbari further explained the reason for his impending media notoriety saying, “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.” The shocked salesperson asked if Mr. Akbari was serious to which he responded, “Yes, I’m serious. I’ll make sure those attacks are filmed and posted online so the world can see what I’ve done.”
[4] Mr. Akbari was found guilty after his trial of threatening to blow up synagogues and threatening to kill Jews.[^1]
Kienapple issue
[5] At the outset of sentencing Mr. Akbari requested that a conditional stay be entered on one of the two counts he was found guilty of, citing the principle enunciated in R. v. Kienapple.[^2] This legal rule ensures that a person is not convicted more than once for the same criminal act.
[6] Mr. Akbari was found guilty both of uttering a threat to damage synagogues contrary to section 264.1(1)(b) and of uttering threats to kill Jews contrary to section 264.1(1)(a). Both acts arose from the same conversation he had with Mr. Ahmad on March 4, 2024.
[7] Though the words were uttered in the same conversation and indeed within even the same sentence, the focus of the words were very different. The threat against synagogues obviously has a very direct impact on the Jewish community, but it is a distinct offence separate and apart from the threats made against Jewish people.
[8] Thus, while the imposition of two findings of guilt has little, if any, impact on the appropriate global sentence, it is still appropriate to register two findings of guilt which properly reflect the two distinct offences and the targets of each crime. I therefore decline to enter a conditional stay of either count.
Position of the parties
[9] The Crown seeks a four-to-six-month jail sentence followed by three years probation along with ancillary orders including DNA registration and an extended weapons prohibition.
[10] The defence seeks a conditional discharge but joins the Crown in recommending a three-year period of probation with ancillary orders.
Principles of Sentencing
[11] The aim of any criminal sentence is to protect the public while contributing to respect for the law in a manner that helps to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. This goal is at the core of the sentencing principles outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code.
[12] A sentencing judge attempts to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions which balance and address specific sentencing principles including denunciation, both general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation. A well-crafted sentence will promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgement of the harm they have caused to the community.
[13] The overarching goal of a fit sentence is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it.
[14] Sentencing is a highly individualized process. In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Akbari, it is valuable to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances at play in the unique circumstances of these offences and for this offender.
Aggravating Factors
[15] It is important to be clear about what Mr. Akbari is – and is not – being sentenced for. He is not being sentenced for taking any material steps to act on the threats he made. There is no evidence before me of the collection of weapons, explosives, maps, planning or coordination. Indeed, following his arrest, police conducted extensive checks and searches on Mr. Akbari to ensure the safety of the community was not still at risk. Mr. Akbari’s guilt is based on empty threats he communicated to a stranger, mistakenly assuming Mr. Ahmad would be sympathetic to Akbari’s own warped and hateful worldview. There was no effort to publicize his threats beyond the conversation he shared with Mr. Ahmad.
[16] That is not to say that the threats were harmless. Mr. Akbari’s threats were clearly motivated by bias, prejudice and hate towards Israelis and Jews. This is a serious statutorily aggravating factor pursuant to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code which covers both national origin and religion. The hate-motivated bias at the core of Mr. Akbari’s comments is the most serious aggravating factor in this case. Hate-based threats are not just words, they are the gasoline upon which even more serious offences burn. Where hate is normalized, harm follows.
[17] Statistics presented by the York Regional Police (YRP) and Toronto Police Service (TPS) were filed as exhibits at the sentencing hearing and paint a shocking portrait of a Jewish community under siege. In York Region, 71% of all religiously motivated hate crimes target Jews.[^3] In Toronto, 40% of all reported hate crimes (religiously motivated or not) target Jews. Hate crimes in general exploded in Toronto with an 80% increase being noted in 2023 “that commenced immediately following the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel.”[^4] These disturbing statistics are even more astonishing when one notes that Jews comprise roughly 1% of Canada’s total population yet far outstrip any other identifiable group as the target of hate crimes.[^5]
[18] Against this backdrop, it becomes obvious why Mr. Akbari’s actions triggered anxiety and concern not only in Mr. Ahmad who reported them to police, but across the Jewish community more broadly. Mr. Akbari’s threats contributed to a profound and pervasive sense of fear and despair amongst Canadian Jewry, tragically but eloquently described in the five Community Impact Statements filed in this case.
[19] The authors of these statements provided passionate and courageous commentary that greatly assisted in situating Mr. Akbari’s threats within the context of a profound and palpable sense of fear that Canada’s Jews currently live under. Though attacks against the Jewish state and the Jewish people are not new in Canada, the problem has exploded exponentially since the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas and the subsequent war that continues to this day.
[20] Richard Robertson, writing on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, described “a palpable dread hanging over the community…Jewish Canadians did not and do not feel safe in their own communities…Mr. Akbari’s threats to destroy synagogues were a shot through the metaphorical heart of the Jewish community.” He concluded by saying that “Mr. Akbari’s actions have further traumatized a cohort of society that is still grappling with and seeking to heal from the suffering of its past. Threats of destruction targeting the Jewish community in Canada re-open and deepen visceral wounds of our collective trauma.”
[21] Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, described Mr. Akbari’s threats as “not just an act of hate against Jewish people – it is an attack on Canada’s values, laws, and way of life.”
[22] Rabbi Jennifer Gorman spoke for the Toronto Board of Rabbis. She described congregants who now travel to Saturday services carrying phones for their own safety despite the Orthodox Jewish prohibition against such technology’s use on the Sabbath. When they arrive to their synagogues, members and guests are now greeted by locked doors and security checkpoints.
[23] James Stocker, writing for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, noted that threats of violence against the Jewish community “may lead to real violence by normalizing hate speech and emboldening individuals who may take such threats seriously, leading to real-world attacks.”
[24] In a starkly blunt statement, Michael Teper, of the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation, reviewed a long list of recent hate crimes targeting the Jewish community. In a depressing and deflating comment, he noted that:
In this context, some Jews are giving up on life in Canada. As evidenced by media stories such as this, they are leaving the country. Many Jews are afraid to drop off their children at the local daycare. Our institutions are constantly on the watch for graffiti and vandalism and break-ins. Our religious and community institutions are forced to divert their financial resources away from programming, maintaining and building our infrastructure, and direct these funds instead towards hiring security guards and police officers. Based on bitter historical experience, we feel that Canada is on a very dark trajectory that will not end well.
[25] It is clear from reading these statements that it is impossible to overstate the sense of fear, anger, and frustration Mr. Akbari’s words have instilled in the broader Jewish community. While each statement is worthy of a reading in its entirety, several common themes emerge.
[26] First, the words Mr. Akbari used in his threats were taken both literally and seriously by members of the Jewish community. Many Canadian Jews live in a state of perpetual heightened anxiety, whether they are attending synagogues, dropping their children off at Jewish day schools, or merely going about their daily work and leisure activities. The statistics surrounding anti-Jewish hate crimes, particularly since the start of the October 7 war in Israel, demonstrate unequivocally that Jews in Canada have every reason to react to Mr. Akbari’s comments in this way.
[27] Second, a threat against Jewish communal infrastructure is taken no less seriously than a threat against Jews themselves. Threats to synagogues are threats to what should be safe community sanctuaries. Synagogues, for the very reasons reflected in Mr. Akbari’s threat towards those institutions, have necessarily become fortified security zones protected by cameras, bag searches and guards. In direct contravention of their mission to be open and welcoming spaces, Canadian synagogues exist behind locked doors, under constant video surveillance, with paid security staff conducting searches of all who seek to enter.
[28] Many Canadians would be shocked to learn that attendance at prayer services, schools, community centres or events require such extraordinary security measures right in the heart of Canada’s purportedly safe democracy. Clearly the sense of safety and comfort most Canadians take for granted does not exist in the same measure for practicing members of Canada’s small but vibrant Jewish community.
[29] Another thread running through the Community Impact Statements is how Mr. Akbari’s comments go beyond a strike to the hearts of Jews, but indeed strike at the core of the promise of Canada’s national project. Many of the authors noted that, by contributing to fear and hatred against Jews, Mr. Akbari undermined social cohesion and integration within the broader community. Mr. Akbari’s threats were directed at Jews and their institutions, but those words served to weaken the foundations of freedom, security, and pluralism for all Canadians.
[30] This thread is reflected in some of the judicial commentary in other hate-crime cases such as when Justice Ramsay described the “surge in anti-Jewish acts” as a crime for which “every Canadian is a victim. Poison has been injected into our public discourse and that poison pollutes the environment in which all Canadians exchange their views.”[^6]
[31] While it is important to situate Mr. Akbari’s conduct within its appropriate context, it is also important for a sentencing court not to allow itself to be overwhelmed by such troubling statistics and valid community concerns. Mr. Akbari is not to be punished for the totality of the landslide of hatred directed towards the Jewish community. He is however responsible for exacerbating the problem, and his actions contributed to the further traumatization of an already deeply traumatized community.
Mitigating Factors
[32] Mr. Akbari is 41 years old and was born in Afghanistan to an Ismaili Muslim family. Ismailis are a minority sect within the much larger branches of the Muslim faith. Mr. Akbari’s father died from an illness when Mr. Akbari was only four years old. By the time he was six, Mr. Akbari left his mother and fled the war and turmoil of Afghanistan with his grandparents, making their way to Pakistan. As a young man he moved to Moscow before settling in Canada at the end of 2007 and eventually acquiring his Canadian citizenship.
[33] Mr. Akbari is married with two teenaged children. He opened a shawarma shop in York Region, working long hours at the restaurant to support his family. During the trial he described losing large sums of money to a gambling addiction that he says is now under control, though he expressed an openness to attending counselling to assist him in managing this problem.
[34] Mr. Akbari has a strong network of familial and community support behind him. Though he described himself as non-religious during the trial, he has been embraced by the Ismaili community who have offered him support since his finding of guilt and the notoriety that surrounded his trial. Letters filed on Mr. Akbari’s behalf make it clear that the community does not condone the hate-filled threats Mr. Akbari has been found guilty of, though they offer personal support to Mr. Akbari on his path to rehabilitation.
[35] Numerous family members also offered letters of support. The shock upon learning of Mr. Akbari’s threats was universal. He had never before been heard to make antisemitic comments nor did he ever even engage in political discussions about Israel. Mr. Akbari’s reputation prior to these offences was one of a hard-working immigrant Canadian who supported various charitable community causes with donations of food from his restaurant.
[36] The charges and media coverage of the subsequent trial have had a tremendous negative impact on Mr. Akbari and his family. He spent four days in custody after being arrested before obtaining bail, as police conducted extensive searches into his background. The franchisor of his restaurant pulled the franchise upon learning of Mr. Akbari’s finding of guilt. This has left Mr. Akbari financially dependent on dwindling savings and help from community members and friends.
[37] In meeting with the probation officer who prepared the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr. Akbari expressed shame at his behaviour and has placed himself on a waiting list for supportive services offered by the Canadian Mental Health Association.
[38] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Akbari read a lengthy prepared statement to the court. Though he continues to deny that he made the threats he was found guilty of, he displayed important insight into the harm those threats have caused and expressed his opposition to antisemitism or violence in any form.
[39] Mr. Akbari spoke very directly to members of the Jewish community asserting their right to feel safe and secure, particularly in their places of worship. He has taken it upon himself to become better educated about the Jewish faith – something he had almost no knowledge of at the time of the offences.
[40] Mr. Akbari has taken preliminary steps to engage positively with the Jewish community, reaching out, with the assistance of his counsel, to a Rabbi in the hopes that he might have opportunities in the future to learn more about Judaism. He expressed a desire to work together with the Jewish community to combat antisemitism.
[41] The attention his case has drawn has had a devastating impact on him and his family. In a terrible twist of irony, Mr. Akbari’s comment during the threats that he would “be on the news” has come true in a way he certainly did not anticipate. He no longer feels safe to leave his home and described how he and his family have been the target of bullying and online harassment. This situation too mirrors the lack of safety felt by the Jewish community caused, in part, by Mr. Akbari’s own actions.
Analysis and Application to Mr. Akbari
[42] I will begin by addressing the availability of a conditional discharge. In order to impose such a sentence, I must be satisfied of two things: first, that the discharge is in Mr. Akbari’s best interests, and second, that the imposition of a discharge is not contrary to the public interest. Mr. Akbari’s request for a discharge fails both prongs of this test.
[43] Mr. Akbari already has a criminal record, albeit for a dated unrelated offence – his 2013 conviction for impaired driving. He is a Canadian citizen with no obvious collateral consequence flowing to him should he acquire a new conviction on his record.
[44] More importantly, while a discharge is not legally precluded even in the face of a serious offence, it would clearly be contrary to the public interest to grant such a sentence in the face of the highly aggravating hate-motivated circumstances present here. There is a strong public interest in denouncing and deterring this kind of odious conduct. A discharge would manifestly fail to address those sentencing principles.
[45] Only two months ago, in this very same jurisdiction, Justice Townsend commented in detail on the threats specifically to Jewish institutions and the increase in hate crimes more generally. This arose in the sentencing of Kenneth Gobin who spat at Jews while glorifying Hitler. Mr. Gobin had a lengthy prior criminal record, and his offences were markedly more serious, earning him a substantial 12-month jail sentence. Nevertheless, Justice Townsend’s rationale in emphasizing denunciation and deterrence is worth repeating at length:
[33] Frequently we hear news stories about members of the Jewish community, and the community as a whole, suffering victimization at the hands of hate-filled offenders. Threats made to bomb schools, tombstones and places of worship vandalized, posters and material are strewn about in the street. This has to stop. The hateful targeting of Jewish people, and the targeting of any of the multicultural communities that make up Canada has to stop.
[34] One way to get this to stop is for the court to impose sentences which accurately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Members of the public need to know that if you commit a hate motivated offence – whether toward the Jewish community, the Black community, women, or the LGBTQ+ community to name a few – you will be sentenced accordingly. Sentences imposed must reflect the reality that hate motivated offences are on the rise. Communities must not be forced to be revictimized over and over again by the actions of hate-filled offenders.
[35] In the case before me, a significant jail sentence is the only way for the principles of general deterrence and denunciation to be met. A significant jail sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the significant impact that this offence has had on the individual complainants and the larger Jewish community.
[36] Canadians deserve to feel safe. Safe from violence, safe from harm, and safe from hate. Words can be a weapon, and sometimes words like the ones used by Mr. Gobin can inflict serious lasting injury.[^7]
[Emphasis added]
[46] The threat to bomb Toronto synagogues killing “as many Jews as possible” places this offence near the extreme end of the spectrum for such offences. Denunciation and deterrence must be the primary sentencing principles prioritized in such a case which suggests that a jail sentence may be the only appropriate penalty in the circumstances.
[47] Mr. Akbari’s threats were spoken to a single stranger previously unknown to him. As a result of the publicity associated with his case, he has suffered significant personal consequences flowing from his own criminal actions. This includes the loss of his business and the four days he spent in jail awaiting bail.[^8] During that time, police satisfied themselves that Mr. Akbari had taken no steps to actualize his threats.
[48] He has been subject to bail conditions for nearly 1.5 years and has remained compliant with those terms. He has developed some insight into the far-reaching consequences of his words on the broader Jewish community, though he continues to deny making the specific threats he was found guilty of. His lengthy prepared comments at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing suggest that he has come to recognize the extraordinary harm he caused and is already on the path towards rehabilitation.
CONCLUSION
[49] Balancing all these aggravating and mitigating factors, and taking into account all the principles of sentencing, I find that probation alone is insufficient to reflect the gravity of Mr. Akbari’s conduct. While a custodial sentence is required, the safety of the community is not endangered if Mr. Akbari were permitted to serve his sentence under strict conditions in the community. This will send the appropriate message both to him, and to others, that hateful threats against Jews and their institutions will be met by significant sanction. At the same time, it will leave open a path to reconciliation and rehabilitation without the crushing disruption of further jail time.
[50] I therefore conclude that the appropriate sentence is one of 60 days in custody to be served conditionally in the community. This will be in addition to the four days Mr. Akbari already spent in jail awaiting bail which will be credited as six days in accordance with the requirements of pre-sentence custody. The entirety of the 60-day Conditional Sentence Order will be subject to house arrest conditions with limited exceptions which will be crafted with the input of counsel. The conditional sentence order will be followed by the maximum probationary term permitted by law – three years.
[51] Both the conditional sentence and the probation orders will incorporate the following terms, among any others to be determined after the submissions of counsel:
- Report as directed;
- Participate in counselling for gambling addiction and antisemitism education as directed by his conditional sentence supervisor or probation officer and sign the releases necessary to permit monitoring of progress with that counselling;
- Not be in possession of any weapons or incendiary devices; and
- Not attend or be within 200 metres of any synagogue, place of Jewish worship, Jewish community centre, Jewish school or daycare, or any gathering organized by or for the Jewish community, except for the purposes of counselling as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor or probation officer.
[52] Uttering threats is a secondary designated DNA offence. There will be an order compelling Mr. Akbari to provide a sample of his DNA. There will also be a section 110 weapons prohibition for a period of 10 years.
Released: July 28, 2025
Signed: Justice E. Prutschi
Footnotes
[^1]: R. v. Akbari, 2024 ONCJ 709.
[^2]: R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 SCR 729.
[^3]: The YRP 2024 Annual Statistics Report can be downloaded at Statistical Reports - York Regional Police, see p. 16.
[^4]: The TPS 2024 Annual Hate Crime Statistical Report can be accessed through the TPS online portal at Hate Crimes | Toronto Police Service Public Safety Data Portal, see p. 1.
[^5]: The Daily — Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2023.
[^6]: R. v. Leslie Bory, unreported decision of J.A. Ramsay, Ontario SCJ, March 10, 2025 at p. 55.
[^7]: R. v. Gobin, 2025 ONCJ 266 at paras 33-36.
[^8]: In accordance with the rules regarding Summers credit, these four days will be credited as six days concurrently on both counts.