COURT FILE NO.: YC-21-50000001-0000 DATE: 20230712 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – O.S.

L. Matthews, A. Pashuk, S. Leece, and C. Igwe, for the Crown M. Mattis and M. MacGregor, for O.S.

HEARD: 16 May 2022

S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

RULING ON DEFINITION OF TERRORISM

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Introduction

[1] O.S. is a youth who pleaded guilty to the offences of first degree murder under ss. 231(2) and (6.01) of the Criminal Code and attempted murder under s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Prior to the sentencing hearing, the Crown brought an application to have the offences, committed in the name of involuntary celibate (“incel”) ideology, as falling within the definition of terrorism as set out in s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code. After hearing submissions, I ruled that in the circumstances of this case, the offences fell within the definition of terrorism as set out by the Criminal Code. I indicated that written reasons would follow and I have produced them below.

Background Facts

[3] On 24 February 2020, O.S. went to the Crown Spa massage parlour in Toronto carrying a 17 inch sword concealed under his coat. When the applicant entered the reception area, he was greeted by a female employee, Ashley Arzaga, who was working behind the front desk. Without warning, O.S. drew his sword and repeatedly stabbed her in the neck. After Ms. Arzaga fell to the floor, O.S. continued to stab her. She sustained 42 stab wounds and died from her injuries at the scene.

[4] A second female employee, hereinafter referred to as J.C., entered the reception area after hearing sounds of the attack. O.S. chased J.C. and stabbed her in the chest telling her he was going to kill her and repeatedly calling her a “stupid whore”. Despite partially losing one of her fingers, J.C. managed to gain control of the sword and stabbed O.S. in the back. He fell to the ground whilst J.C. made her escape.

[5] Upon arrival, the police found O.S. lying on the ground outside the spa. They observed the sword, lying beside him, inscribed with the words “Thot Slayer”. They also discovered a plastic bag in O.S.’s coat pocket containing his driver’s licence, a knife sharpening stone, and a handwritten note bearing the words “Long Live the Incel Rebellion”.

[6] O.S. allegedly told attending paramedics that he came to kill everyone in the building and added that “I’m happy I got one”.

[7] When they executed a search warrant at O.S.’s home, police seized his laptop and found search fragments of terms including “crown spa”, “incel”, “incel rebellion”, “incel escort”, “incel insurgent”, “incels.co”, and “Toronto attack: What is the ‘Incel’ movement? – YouTube”.

[8] The police also obtained O.S.’s online Steam gaming account profile, which stated: “Proud Incel. Truth Preacher. Jihadi and currently on FBI watchlist. Seeker of Martyrdom. Hates feminists/atheists/Satanists and all kinds of other degenerates. Death to the (((Synagogue of Satan *))) who truly rules this world.” The Steam profile depicted Arabic text which translated into the English phrase “the killer”.

[9] During their examination of the laptop, police also found images of Alek Minassian and Elliott Rodger, two individuals who had killed multiple victims and subscribed to incel ideology. Those individuals claimed their misogynistic views to be the prime motivation for their acts of murder and violence.

[10] On 24 February 2020, O.S. was charged with one count of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder. Since O.S. was 17 years old at the time of the allegations, he is subject to the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[11] Count 1 alleges O.S. committed first degree murder under two of the classifications contained in s. 231 of the Code. The Crown alleges that the murder was not only planned and deliberate (s. 231(2)) but in addition, constituted an act of terrorist activity (s. 231(6.01)).

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The Crown Application

[12] As noted, the Crown applies to this court to find that the criminal acts committed by O.S. were acts of terrorism as defined by s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

[13] This question is relevant when sentencing O.S., and in the light of the combined application of ss. 231(6.01), 83.27 and 718.2(a)(v) of the Criminal Code.

[14] Section 231 of the Criminal Code sets out the classification scheme for first degree murder with s. 231(6.01) stating:

(6.01) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of a person, murder is first degree murder when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament if the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity.

[15] Section 83.27 of the Code reads as follows:

83.27 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person convicted of an indictable offence, other than an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed as a minimum punishment, where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, is liable to imprisonment for life.

[16] Finally, s. 718.2(a)(v) of the Code states:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence,

[17] The Crown seeks the terrorism designation to advance its position that O.S. should be sentenced as an adult rather than a youth. If that were the case, a finding that O.S.’s actions on 24 February 2020 may well have a significant impact on the length of sentence imposed on both the first degree murder under s. 231(6.01) and attempted murder to which s. 83.27(1) would apply.

Definition of Terrorism

[18] The statutory definition of terrorism can be found in s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code. Section 83.01(a) sets out specific offences implemented by international conventions. Section 83.01(b) deals with a more general set of offences and states that terrorism is:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

[19] Both parties agree that there are three components to the definition:

The motive clause - s. 83.01(1)(b)(i)(a) where the act must be committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”
The ulterior intention clause - s. 83.01(1)(b)(i)(B) - where the act is committed “in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security”
The consequence clause - s. 83.01(1)(b)(ii) - where the act causes, harm, endangers life, causes a risk to health, property damage which results in death, bodily harm or endangers life or interferes with a disruption of an essential service.

THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Common Ground

[20] Neither side disputes that the consequence clause is satisfied in this case: one victim died and the other was seriously injured. It is the remaining clauses that form the point of controversy in this argument.

The Crown

[21] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Matthews submits that the first two criteria - the ulterior motive and intention clauses - are met in the circumstances of this case. She argues that O.S. committed the murder and attempted murder because of he was following the ideology espoused by the incel community to “send a message” to all women as a form of intimidation.

The Defence

[22] As counsel for O.S., Mr. Mattis argues that whilst the incel community are a group comprised of misogynists who harbour a violent hatred of women, this ideology falls short of what is required to constitute terrorism as defined by the Criminal Code. Moreover, whilst he concedes that O.S.’s actions amount to first degree murder and attempted murder, there is no evidence which demonstrates that he intended to intimidate the public or a segment of the public with regard to their safety.

THE MOTIVE CLAUSE

What Does “Ideological” Mean?

[23] One of the points of dispute between the parties is the meaning of the term “ideological” contained in s. 83(b)(i)(a) of the Code.

[24] In Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), , [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 21, the Court explained the most appropriate way in which to analyse statutory wording:

Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation (see, e.g., Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation (1997); Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994) (hereinafter "Construction of Statutes"); Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)), Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

[25] There is also the ejusdem generis principle which, as explained in Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts, 2018 ONCA 313, 140 O.R. (3d) 241 at para. 52, means that “where a class of things is modified by general wording that expands the class, the general wording is usually restricted to things of the same type as the listed items”. In R. v. Ali, 2018 ONSC 2838, at para. 86, MacDonnell J. emphasised the need to interpret words contained in a statute “in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”

[26] The term “ideology” is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy:” or “the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual”.

[27] The term “ideological” is broader than “religious” or “political”. “Ideological” is defined as “occupied with or motivated by an idea or ideas, esp. of a visionary kind; speculative, idealistic”, or “of, relating to, or based on ideology; relating to or concerned with ideas”. In turn, “ideology” is defined as “a systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics, economics, or society and forming the basis of action or policy; a set of beliefs governing conduct”, or “a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.”

[28] It is noteworthy that Parliament did not choose to describe the terms “religious”, “political” or “ideological”. I agree with the Crown that favours an approach in which the ordinary meaning of the words is to be adopted.

[29] Mr. Mattis, on behalf of O.S., argues that the term “ideological” must, as per the ejusdem generis rule, be interpreted as beliefs based on and supported by systems, hierarchy, and organisation in the same way that “political” and “religious” connote activities of organised groups supported by a system of specific beliefs.

[30] I do not agree. There is nothing in the wording of the legislation that confers this meaning on “ideological”. As both parties acknowledge, the term “ideological” encompasses a broader concept than “political” and “religious” which describe a more specific class of beliefs. There is no doubt that “political” and “religious” can be seen as subsets of “ideological”. However, I find that this broader term was intended to capture other less specific forms of beliefs and ideas, and includes those that society might not recognise today, but may in the future.

[31] Moreover, Parliament has seen fit to create separate sections relating to terrorist groups. Section 83.2 makes it an offence for anyone to commit an indictable offence “for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group”. Section 83.21 criminalises the instruction of any person to carry out activity for the benefit of, or in association with, a terrorist group. There are other sections dealing with leaving Canada to (i) participate in a terrorist group (s. 83.181), or commit offences for a terrorist group (s. 83.201). There would be no reason to create the distinction if the definition of terrorism required organisational or group structure.

[32] Even though Mr. Mattis relies on MacDonnell J.’s comments in Ali at paras. 69-71 to support his claim that the definition of terrorism must have a systemic or organisational characteristics as one of its core features, it should be remembered that in that case, the judge was interpreting the parameters of s. 83.2 of the Code. In other passages, for example at para. 57, MacDonnell J. agrees “that a that a solo actor can be a terrorist ‘group’ for the purposes of Part 11.1 of the Code”. Indeed, at para. 19, he explicitly states that Ali’s solo attack - accepted by the Crown to be unconnected to any group in relation to the attack - constituted “terrorist activity within the meaning of Part 11.1 of the Criminal Code”.

[33] I conclude that the term “ideological” captures an individual’s beliefs about life, society, culture, people, or institutions which strongly influences them to live and act in a certain manner or hold certain views. For these reasons, I reject Mr. Mattis’ arguments that a finding of some sort of hierarchical, systemic or organisational structure is necessary in determining whether a particular set of beliefs fall within the meaning of “ideological”.

Is the Incel Culture an Ideology?

[34] This court has had the benefit of expert evidence relating to the culture, method, and beliefs of the incel community. The expert, T.E., a proposed Crown witness, was previously qualified as a specialist witness in the incel culture: R. v. O.S., 2022 ONSC 4217. T.E.’s testimony and report clearly bear out the fact that incel culture is an ideology and falls within the criteria set out in s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code. One of the key principles running through incel code of belief is their misogynistic attitude towards women which celebrates violence towards females.

[35] T.E. advised the court that:

Incels are males who define themselves by their inability to form sexual relationships based on their beliefs that they possess certain genetic qualities, female characteristics, and societal structures.
They believe that genetic factors have impacted them physically to make them born unattractive to women.
Incels believe in hypergamy - a belief that women are more sexually selective and seek out the most attractive men and reject less attractive men. One of their key beliefs is that societal change led to an acceleration in hypergamy when women began to gain sexual and financial independence, leading to a diminishing of a woman’s reliance on a husband for physical and financial security, and allowing them to choose more attractive males. Incels believe that hypergamy means that 20 % of men monopolised 80 % of the female population for sex.
Incels follow a “pill” philosophy where they believe that the “blackpill” doctrine results in less attractive males never being able to attract a sexual partner through normal societal methods. According to the “blackpill” belief system, a man’s attractiveness is determined at birth and controls their success in any sexual relationship. As women are only attracted to men with particular features, no amount of personality, financial, or physical fitness gains will lead to sexual success. Since they are denied what they feel is their entitlement, incels feel oppressed by a “female dominated society”, leading to their view that their hatred of women is justified.
Incels had a particular hatred for sex workers whom they believe to be exploiting men’s ability to access sex and receive remuneration for that male failing. According to incel belief, sex workers or “escortels” as they are known in the incel community, are exploiting a social structure that elevates women over men in importance. Their shared discussions about sex with “escortels” has led to an overriding belief that incels will be charged at higher rates and those incels who are of a cultural minority believe that they are treated more poorly or even refused on the basis of their race or minority status.
Incels hold a widespread belief that they are targeted as being portrayed in a negative fashion and that women who hold power in a “gynocentric” society - one where women are empowered and men are subjugated - leads to their oppression.
Incels believe that violence is inevitable due to the denial of sex to them by women. Not every incel advocates for violence, but such behaviour is accepted as legitimate, particularly when they perceive women to refuse to engage in sexual relationships with them. It is also clear that violent attacks are celebrated within the incel community with a particular respect for those murderers who have killed more women than men.

[36] T.E. also described the use of social media and the internet by incel groups such as incels.co, Facebook, Discord, and Twitter that resulted in the construction of online communities where incels can express their beliefs, hatred of women, and disaffection with society.

[37] T.E. also identified a number of prominent incels who committed criminal acts that were harmful to women and the public in general such as Alek Minassian and Elliot Rodger.

[38] T.E. explained that E.R., the initials of Elliot Rodger, an incel who killed 6 people and injured several others before shooting himself - was used as a phrase - “Go ER” - to encourage violence and attacks, as well as providing advice to online users discussing suicide.

[39] T.E. also explained that THOT - was an acronym for that “That Ho Over There” and that Thot Slayer was commonly used in the incel community to describe an individual who would abuse or kill “thots” - women thought to be promiscuous. The term “incel rebellions” was an encouragement for incels to violently rise up against society and punish those engaged in sexual relationships.

[40] Mr. Mattis complains that T.E.’s evidence is comprised of unsubstantiated broad statements not supported by the evidence. He argues that much of T.E.’s evidence is based on assumption rather than fact. He adds that T.E.’s report does not demonstrate the kind of organisational structure required by the wording in s. 83.01 of the Code. I have already explained why I do not agree that “ideological” in s. 83.01 needs a hierarchical or organisational character.

[41] I cannot agree with the description advanced by Mr Mattis. As referenced in para. 39 of the O.S. judgment, I found that T.E.’s evidence derived “from their lengthy experience in academic research and immersion into the subject matter of incel ideology”. The relevant parts of T.E.’s opinion was supported by their own experiences in examining incel community forums and websites.

[42] On the basis of T.E.’s evidence, I conclude that the incel culture falls within the description of “ideological” in s. 83.01 of the Code.

Was O.S. Motivated by Incel Ideology?

[43] When seeking to answer this question, the motivation behind O.S.’s actions is revealed in his police statement and the report ordered pursuant to s. 34 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (“the s.34 report”).

[44] When questioned by police, O.S. told them that he believed that “you don’t choose to become an incel, you are just born one” and explained incels apolitical status as “you could have some left wing views as an incel but most of them are right wing, most of us are right wing”[emphasis added]. Later on, he made clear that on his Steam profile - the website used to purchase games - he was “going to do something crazy like this”. O.S.’s Steam profile described him as a “Proud Incel” who hates feminists.

[45] When asked about comments made to the institutions’ social worker that if released he “would hurt more people again”, O.S. explained that these words signified that if he kept following his “beliefs, it could be a possibility that this could possibly happen again”. When pressed, O.S. commented that “where it becomes a problem though depends on what the belief is, how you act out on it”. When it was suggested to him that that his incel beliefs were wrong, O.S. replied that “that’s just the way society is nowadays, that’s especially in the year 2020, it’s normal that my beliefs are wrong today”.

[46] When asked about the Alek Minassian van attack in Toronto two years earlier, O.S. said that Minassian was an “inspiration” and that if he could do “something like that in Toronto” then it was possible for O.S. to do something similar. Similarly, when Elliott Roger was discussed, O.S. agreed that he felt a kinship towards him.

[47] O.S.’s alignment with incel ideology can also be found in the weapon used to effect the attack and murder on 24 February 2020. The sword that he used was inscribed with the words THOT, an acronym for “That Ho Over There”, a term used by the incel movement to denigrate women. In his s. 34 interview, O.S. explained that he wrote, “THOT SLAYER” on the sword, “probably a few days before ... at the time I thought it was another word for saying ‘ho’”. He added that some incels “didn’t like prostitutes that’s why I did it like that”. When asked to clarify his view of sex workers, he indicated that he “didn’t really like them ... or hate them ... some incels say prostitutes are taking advantage of their bodies and gaining money as a result of it; some say ‘who cares if you have to pay for sex’; me at the time, I was kind of both [emphasis added] ... now I support (sex workers) ... I don’t know if it makes me sound like a dirty person”.

[48] Any doubts about O.S.’s motives can be dispelled from the s. 34 report. When he was asked whether he had anger towards females, he responded by saying:

Not against any specific person; I was thinking about this incel ideology — those kind of ideas going on in my head; I guess that's why I chose that spot; they are mad at the world because they don't get any pussy; they can't get a girlfriend; sexual relationships; it was so stupid for me to target that one place as there they offer you pussy for me to target that one place as there they offer you pussy — even if there you have to pay for it; if there you have to pay for it; I didn't think about this at the time: I was so fuckin stupid; also I was a virgin; why did I choose so fuckin stupid; also I was a virgin; why did I choose harm on those?"

[49] He added that at the time, he "did this because of the stupid incel; I was already ER, [referring to Elliot Rodger's behaviour] and they made it worse; sometimes as a joke, sometimes serious; and I actually went ER".

[50] As evidenced by the s. 34 report, in the period leading up to the incident, O.S. had become more focused on the incel community, Elliot Rodger, and Alek Minassian, and had begun communicating almost exclusively over social media. There can be no doubt that O.S. was both inspired by and identified with incel ideology when planning the attacks and carrying them out.

[51] On the day of the attacks, O.S. took a note with him that said “long live the incel rebellion”. He admitted that he wanted “everyone to find” this document because he wanted the world to know that people like “us” exist. According to O.S., “incel rebellion” was a “fight back against the world” because of unfairness. T.E. explained that the term incel rebellion refers to Alek Minassian’s van attack in Toronto and incel motivated violence.

[52] Finally, after the incident, O.S. told the author of the s. 34 report that he no longer believed in the incel rebellion, that his views had changed and that he had been brainwashed online. These comments show that, at the time of the offences, O.S. was clearly infused with the incel ideology. It is telling that the authors of the s. 34 report concluded that the offences occurred “in the service of ideology and increasing identification with the incel community, with a desire to repeat their extreme behaviours as an expression of his hostility and anger about his perceived situation and the world”.

[53] From the foregoing, it is clear that O.S. committed the offences whilst motivated by incel ideology.

Did O.S. Have the Required Ulterior Intention?

[54] Section 83.01(b)(i)(B) of the Code requires the act or omission be done with the intention of intimidating the public or a segment of the public with regard to its security.

[55] The word intimidation is not explicitly defined in Part II.1 of the Code. The Crown relies on the definition of the term in s. 423 of the Code which criminalises the intimidation of another person, and s. 423.1 which prohibits any intimidation of a justice participant. Section 423.1(1) defines the intimidation of a justice participant as “engag[ing] in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear”.

[56] The Oxford English Dictionary defines intimidation as “[t]he action of intimidating or making afraid; the fact or condition of being intimidated; now, esp. the use of threats or violence to force or to restrain from some action, or to interfere with the free exercise of political or social rights.” The common theme of dictionary definitions is to frighten, menace, scare, threaten, and alarm someone.

[57] A plain reading of the section appears to address actions that are designed to stir feelings of fear in the public or segment of the public in relation to their well-being or safety.

[58] Here, I find that O.S.’s actions were designed to intimidate the public as a whole, and in particular women. I come to this conclusion based on the manner of the attack, the weapon used, and the target of the offence.

[59] O.S. set out to kill two women who worked at a massage parlour. He took with him a weapon engraved with the menacing words “THOT SLAYER”. When asked about the term, O.S. said that he took “thot” to mean a “girl” or “slut or something like that”. He carried a note stating “Long Live the Incel Rebellion” which echoed the murderous van attack of Alek Minassian in 2018.

[60] When interviewed by the police, O.S. explained that he carried the note to the scene of the crime because he wanted it to be found and for the world to know “that people like us exist and it’s not really fair”. O.S. also added that he believed that incels deserved a country of their own and that he needed to hurt women to make his point because “nobody would take us seriously”.

[61] This evidence leads to the clear conclusion that O.S. was motivated by the incel ideology and wished to send a message to society that incels were prepared to kill and commit violence on the public in furtherance of their ideological beliefs and desire to make their presence and “rebellion” known and feared. I would add that it is arguable that O.S.’s actions were a direct form of intimidation to women sending a message that incels are all “THOT SLAYERS”.

The Consequence Clause

[62] As I have noted, Mr. Mattis does not dispute that O.S. committed the acts with an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm by the use of violence. Nor could he, as O.S. freely admitted his intention when arrested, and pleaded guilty to the offence of first degree murder.

CONCLUSION

[63] For these reasons, I find that O.S.’s actions constituted acts of terrorism as defined by section 83.01 of the criminal code.

[64] Although I understand Mr. Mattis’ argument that finding acts committed in the name of incel ideology would considerably widen the scope of “terrorism” in the Criminal Code, I do not share his concerns that this would open floodgates to a much wider number of offences being charged under s. 83.01.

[65] As I have set out in the preceding paragraphs, to qualify as terrorism, an offence must meet certain criteria. Notwithstanding my finding that in this case, the Crown has demonstrated that O.S.’s actions have satisfied the requirements of s. 83.01, that does not necessarily mean that all incel cases will be crimes of terrorism.

[66] A useful example can be found in R. v. Minassian, 2021 ONSC 1258, where Molloy J. found the offender guilty of 10 counts of first degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder. Minassian self-identified as an incel and in his statements to the police, he expressed an admiration for Elliott Rodger and another incel murderer, Chris Harper-Mercer, claiming to have had conversations with both prior to their deaths. He also told the police that he was on a “mission” and before the attack posted a message online saying that “the beta uprising was starting” and encouraging others to commit violence.

[67] Mr. Mattis, in support of his position, points out that Mr. Minassian was not declared a terrorist under the Criminal Code. However, there are important differences between his case and that of O.S.

[68] First, the Crown did not choose to proceed under s. 83.01 of the Code. Secondly, the presiding judge, Molloy J. found that Minassian’s criminal acts were committed for the purpose of achieving fame and notoriety. Had an argument been made that his acts constituted terrorism, they would not have met the s. 83.01 requirement that the acts had to be committed for the purpose of intimidating the public or a segment of it with regard to their safety.

[69] The criteria set out in section 83.01 of the Code are stringent and set a high threshold for a finding of terrorism. All of the criteria must be met. This high bar means that not every act of harm carried out for a religious, political, or ideological purpose will be deemed to be terrorism within the Criminal Code. Parliament has clearly set out sufficient safeguards in s. 83.01 to prevent acts that are not terrorist offences from being charged or prosecuted under that section.

[70] Accordingly, I grant the Crown’s application and find that in the circumstances of this case, there can be no doubt that the definition of terrorism has been met.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 12 July 2023