Court File and Parties

2024 ONSC 5493 Court File No.: CR-23-109-00 Date: 2024 10 03 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING Brian McGuire, David D’Iorio and Madeline Lisus, for the Crown

-and-

ANAND NATH, SULIMAN RAZA AND NAQASH ABBASI Kendra Stanyon and Susan Pennypacker, for Nath Eliott Willschick for Raza Adam Newman, for Abbasi

Heard: August 8, 2024

Reasons for Sentence

D.E HARRIS J.

[1] On May 29, 2021, at about 7:16 p.m., a man entered the Chicken Land restaurant in Mississauga. He was greeted by Daniel Akl at the front counter with the customary: “Welcome to Chicken Land!” But the man was not a customer. He was masked with a hoodie pulled tight over his head. His face was not visible. His intent was pure malevolence.

[2] The Akl family own and work in the Chicken Land restaurant which is a take-out and delivery establishment. Daniel manned the front counter taking orders and payment. Behind him, separated from the front area by saloon type doors, his entire family was working preparing food: his brother, Naim Akl, his father Jihad Akl, his mother Rania Akl and his sister Sandra Akl, 13 years old. Sandra was doing her homework at the very back of the narrow 3-metre-wide restaurant. Mr. Rohullal Rawi, the delivery driver was also working behind the saloon doors, preparing to leave the restaurant with an order.

[3] The man who had walked in took out a 9 mm handgun from his hoodie and immediately shot Daniel in the right jaw. He then walked through the doors and in swift succession shot the entire Akl family. Rania was shot in the bicep of her right arm. Jihad was shot in the upper right chest. Mr. Rawi was grazed with a bullet that went from his right eye to his right ear. The man shot at Sandra, but luckily missed her. There was a large dent from a 9 mm bullet in a commercial refrigerator next to where she was sitting.

[4] Naim was the only person shot twice. One bullet entered the left side of his head near the ear and went through the brain towards the right side of the head. Death from this shot would have been virtually instantaneous. The other shot--the order of the two could not be ascertained--entered through the front of the mouth, went through the larynx and oesophagus and lodged in vertebrae cervical 2.

[5] Rania demonstrated how she saw the intruder kill her son Naim. He was standing and pointing down to the ground at a 45-degree angle. This was likely the second shot, after Naim had been felled by the first.

[6] Naim Akl was the target of this murderous rampage. As they were shot, all the victims fell to the floor. Five people were on the ground. There was an enormous amount of blood. The assailant ran out of the restaurant and sprinted to a nearby street. There, a car was waiting with its trunk open. The murderer got in the trunk, closed it, and the car sped away. Miraculously, four of the five people who were shot survived. Naim Akl, 25 years old, did not survive.

[7] The jury found the three men before the court, Naquash Abbasi, Suliman Raza and Anand Nath guilty of the first-degree murder of Naim Akl. The jury also found all three men guilty of attempt murder with a firearm for the shooting of the other Akl family members: Jihad (count 2), Rania (count 3), Daniel (count 4) and Sandra (count 5). The jury also found them guilty of attempting to murder the takeout driver Mr. Rawi (count 6). There were five attempt murder convictions in all.

[8] The first-degree murder convictions carry a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a minimum of 25 years under s. 745 (a) of the Criminal Code. It remains to formulate a sentence with relation to the five attempt murder with a firearm counts. The Crown asks for a sentence of life in prison, the maximum under s. 239(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code. The defence asks for various terms within the 17-to-25-year range.

The Background

[9] Mr. Nath was found by the jury to be the man who shot the Akls and Mr. Rawi in Chicken Land. Mr. Raza was the getaway driver with full buy in to the scheme to kill the victims. He was driving his father’s car and his DNA and that of Mr. Nath was found throughout it. His cell phone a few days before the murder had searched “sentences for getaway drivers.” Mr. Abbasi was the ringleader, the man behind the crimes.

[10] While there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence against Mr. Raza and Mr. Nath, there was only relatively meagre circumstantial evidence against Mr. Abbasi. However, Mikail Aras testified for the Crown, bringing all the strands together and placing Mr. Abbasi at the centre of the Chicken Land shooting. Mr. Aras had been a friend of the three accused. Immediately after the murder, he saw Mr. Nath emerge from the trunk of the getaway car. Just before the murder, he heard over a speaker phone Mr. Abbasi ask Mr. Nath and Mr. Raza if they were ready to go on their mission to kill the Akl family. Most importantly, he also heard accounts of the shooting from the three men two days after the fact. The jury verdicts demonstrated that the jury believed a significant amount of Mr. Aras’ key evidence.

[11] The three accused were in business together. The business was called TryAlinc and it operated out of a warehouse at 7720 Kimbel Street, Unit 6-9 in Mississauga. The business sold products to people who would then post them on Amazon to sell them. The head and owner of the business was Mr. Abbasi. Mr. Raza and Mr. Nath were also involved. There were several others as well, some of whom testified at this trial. Naim Akl was part of the business but there was a falling out between him and Mr. Abbasi two months before the shooting.

[12] There was a religious affinity amongst the TryAlinc members. Mr. Aras testified that he was born into the Islam faith but did not practice until he met Mr. Abbasi when he was 23 or 24 years old in 2018. There was some evidence in this trial of the religious practices amongst the men at the TryAlinc warehouse. Mr. Aras testified that he was present at the TryAlinc warehouse on the Friday before the murder when there were many people praying. I hasten to add that the issue in this trial was not religion per se but extremism and violence in the name of religion or ideology.

The Victim Impact Statements

[13] Daniel Akl read his victim impact statement and that of his father, Jihad Akl. These are excerpts from Daniel’s statement,

…Every morning, I must wake up and walk past an empty bedroom, knowing he is not going to be there. Growing up, Naim and I always had a love for playing video games. … One thing people knew about Naim is how good he was with kids. Anytime we had families come into Chickenland, Naim would talk with kids and make them smile. It pains me to think about the fact I will never get to see my brother start a family of his own, I will not get to stand by his side before he goes off to create new life for himself, and vice versa.

My dad has had Chickenland for over thirty years, with a supporting community who have watched my brother and I grow up. When they took Naim away from us, they also took away a part of the neighbourhood. We had plans to work together at Chickenland in the future, which can never happen now. With everything that’s happened, there is always a thought in my mind where I think the next person who walks into the restaurant, and I greet, is going to put a gun to my head. …I have seen my life flash before my eyes, that moment of being shot happened in less than five seconds, however the scenario replays in my head over and over.

A really upsetting aspect is that I did not get to have one last conversation with Naim. Instead, the last visible memory of him was when I was shot in the head laying in my own blood with his lifeless body laying there next to me. I will never get over what took place and I believe Naim is currently in a better place, while I am still here suffering until I see him again. Although, I put on a demeanor of a person who is dealing with what has happened, I truly am suffering. Unless someone has experienced this pain with me then it will never be truly understood, the incomprehensible pain I have been going through and will continue to go through until my time is up.

[14] Jihad said in his statement,

November 30, 1995, was one of the happiest days of my life, the day Naim was born, the son I named after my own father. I watched Naim grow up, and as a father, I was supposed to continue to watch him grow older, get married, have his own children, however, on May 29, 2021, those dreams were taken away from me. I can never experience any of those things with Naim.

When Naim was a child, I used to take him everywhere with me. When he got older, after school, he would come by the restaurant, and little by little he would help. Even after graduating, which led to Naim finding his dream job, working in a bank, he would come to the restaurant after his own day of work to help and would stay until we closed the restaurant, He was my right-hand man, I counted on him for so many things and sadly our time together was unnecessarily cut short.

I pass by the cemetery, where Naim is laid to rest, daily, on my way to work and back home. I always stop by to see him but its upsetting to have to be a father who has outlived his son and is now having to go and visit the cemetery.

There is not a day which goes by where I do not think of the events on May 29th. The memory of me holding Naim in my arms, trying to wake him up. I will never hear his voice call me dad, or see his name come up on my phone like it did when he used to call. I miss Naim very much, and him no longer being with us has left a void in my life. I hope no parent will go through the pain of losing a child, which I unfortunately had to experience.

[15] Sandra read this statement,

One memory that has become particularly dear to me, although I do not recall it firsthand due to my young age at the time, is how Naim was deeply obsessed with me as a baby. He would constantly check on me to ensure I was breathing, and whenever I awoke, his sole desire was to play with me. This tender recollection, shared by those who witnessed it, has come to mean a great deal to me. It showed how much he had cared about me from the beginning of my life.

Another memory was when I was in first grade, I was a sensitive child, and my brother would always try to cheer me up. He would make jokes, play with me, and do anything he could to lift my spirits and distract me from my worries. Now when I am feeling blue, I feel I have no one to comfort me as he did. … Hearing these stories has profoundly touched me, as they reveal how deeply Naim cared for me and how close we were, even from my earliest days, despite our 12-year age difference. These cherished memories highlight the bond we shared and the love he had for me from the very beginning.

Naim embraced a life rich in family, education, career achievements, and a promise of a future, only for his departure from this world to occur abruptly in a way that mimicked the flick of a light switch. This event has deeply affected me, leaving me in a constant state of sorrow. The realization that I can never create new memories with my brother again, places a heavy weight on my heart.

[16] Lastly, Rania wrote in her statement,

I come before you with a heart broken by the loss of my son. He meant everything to me, and when he passed away a part of myself went with him. I think about him every second of every day and I miss him a lot. I miss his hugs, the way he would wrap his arms around me and squeeze tightly, never wanting to let go. Every day, I miss the times he would call his brother while they worked together or walk up to his sister to tell her, “Hello beautiful, you have nice eyes”. … Every morning, I used to pass my children’s rooms to wake them up or check on them. I still do that to this day, however, when I walk past Naim’s room, the door is open, the bed is empty, the water bottle still on the dresser, the way he left it, and his clothes remain hung. To this day, I cannot believe or accept I will not see Naim again.

In addition to the emotional pain, I have suffered a permanent injury to my right hand. Unfortunately, nothing else can be done to fix the injury, even after numerous surgeries, some of the simplest tasks have become difficult for me to complete. My hand is always numb, and I have no feeling in part of it.

Your Honour, what happened on May 29, 2021, plays in my head all the time and I live it every day I walk into the restaurant. The image of my boys lying on the ground with my husband, and my daughter screaming, will always be forefront in my mind. I will never forget until the day I die. Naim was generous, caring, loving, and above all, had a pure heart. The emptiness he left behind is indescribable. The sadness and heartache I go through is unimaginable and I would not wish these feelings upon anyone. I take solace in knowing Naim is in heaven.

[17] As is evident from these heart wrenching statements, the Akl family’s sense of profound loss is felt to the depth of their being.

[18] Mr. Rawi also gave a statement in which he provided information about the injury to his eye and the multiple surgeries he had to correct it. The consequences of the injury have been far reaching; he suffers from PTSD and is hesitant to connect with others.

Is This a Terrorism Offence?

[19] Mr. McGuire argued that, although it was not charged as such, the offenders committed a terrorism offence albeit one missing a key ingredient. Taking the lead from Pomerance J.’s (as she then was) judgment in R. v. Veltman, 2024 ONSC 1054 at para. 80, there are three elements to the terrorism offence:

1. The motive clause (subparagraph 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";
2. The intention clause (subparagraph 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"; and
3. The consequence clause (subparagraph 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.

[20] The first and third conditions are satisfied. I will concentrate on the first clause, the motive clause. It requires that the act be committed “in whole or in part” for a “political, religious or ideological” cause. The jury heard evidence on this trial pertinent to religious and ideological motivations. The accused are Muslims and there was evidence from several witnesses that they regularly prayed at the TryAlinc warehouse. But it was Mikail Aras who suggested that there was much more to it than that, that there was a sinister, extremist and violent aspect. On May 31, 2021, two days after the murder, he attended at the warehouse. This is when he heard all the offenders talk about the shooting in detail, including showing him the murder gun. At the beginning of this meeting, they each put their right hands out, palm down and took an oath of allegiance, or Bayat, to Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi. Mr. Aras later found out that Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi is an ISIS leader

[21] Naqash Abbasi told Mr. Aras in this meeting that Anand [Nath] was sent on a mission to slaughter Naim and all his family. It was the right thing to do for their religion and Islamic mission. Naqash said that Naim was a liability to their safety; he knew too much information. There had been a bad fall out too. Anand Nath said it was about money. Anand said Naim had invested in Naqash Abbasi’s company but wanted to pull out and leave the company. Bad feelings had been created.

[22] Also in the meeting, Naqash Abbasi said that Naim was a “munafiq”, a hypocrite that had betrayed the brotherhood. On why Naim was targeted, there was an issue between them. Part of it was Naim’s allegiance. Also, it was said that Naim knew too much. Naim could have been a liability as he could give information to the police. There was also a dispute about money that had been invested. The money dispute was with respect to around $20,000.

[23] There was some discussion in the meeting between the men about Naim’s religion. Mr. Raza had introduced him to Islam and helped him convert. Everyone was joking about Naim, saying rest in peace. They were happy. They said they would send letters to him and pray for him. Naqash Abbasi said that it was acceptance from God that Naim was killed, he was the target. He hugged Mr. Nath, patting him on the back, and said he did a good job. It was jihad he said, your way to heaven.

[24] Naqash said that he would send money to ISIS to fund a militant group in Pakistan and that it would be received by Mr. Raza’s brother. Mr. Aras testified that Mr. Abbasi had said it was $3000 to $4000 and he had already sent it.

[25] There was also extensive ISIS propaganda and videos on Mr. Raza’s phone when it was seized by the police. This could support the conclusion that Mr. Raza was a radical extremist. There was evidence on his phone leading to the conclusion that he explained to his fiancé days before the murder that it was permissible to slay women and children if they were unbelievers. A few days after the killing, Mr. Raza texted his fiancé that the GoFund money leftover from Naim’s funeral expenses “is gnna go to those waste druze fucks.” The reference to Druze is a reference to the Akl families’ faith. This, together with other evidence, suggests that there was some religious or ideological antagonism behind these crimes against the Akls.

[26] Mr. McGuire went to the jury arguing that the motive for the crime was that it was suspected that Naim Akl would go to the police and expose its ISIS and extremist affiliations, thus ending the business and leading to criminal charges against the participants. He argued that the personal falling out with Mr. Abbasi could not explain such a virulent attack. On sentence, this theme was reiterated.

[27] I do not agree that this motive is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As seen from the summary of the trial evidence above, there is also the element of ideological or religious conflict which Mr. Aras gave evidence was talked about by the three offenders on May 31. The inference is relatively clear that this conflict burst into outright violence on May 29. There could also have been an element of anger over business differences and money. There are too many alternate variations to fix the Crown’s theory of keeping Naim quiet as the sole proven motive.

[28] Nonetheless, based on the Aras’ evidence and the other pertinent evidence, there are in total only three possible motives for these crimes: i. To keep Naim from talking to the authorities about the radical elements of the TryAlinc group, ii. Virulent ideological differences and resentments, or, iii. Anger over money and business disagreements. I am not convinced, based on the body of evidence on this trial, that the murder could have been solely for this third reason, a business disagreement. I agree with Mr. McGuire that what took place was out of all proportion to a mere business difference.

[29] I conclude that the operative motive behind the murder was therefore either to keep Naim quiet or based on ideological disagreements, or a combination of the two. Premised on this, I find that the acts of which the offenders have been convicted were committed “in whole or in part ” for a “political, religious or ideological” cause. In part, the cause was religious or ideological. The motive clause of the terrorism offence is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[30] The “consequence clause” is obviously met as well as death and bodily harm was the result of the crimes of these men. The problem is the second condition, the intention clause. There was no intention to intimidate the public with regard to security as the legislation demands. The intention was not this broad. Not that the crimes would not have an intimidating effect on the public. This was an attack in a public place, a restaurant. A member of the public might well believe that if such a brazen, full-scale attack can happen in a restaurant, they are not safe anywhere outside their homes. That is an understandable apprehension which borders on hysteria. Violence tends to close off a society by instilling fear in the populus. However, that is different from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders intended to strike fear into the public by committing this crime. This intention element of the terrorism offence is not proven, as the Crown conceded.

[31] The Criminal Code provides in s. 718.2 (a)(v) that, “Evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence” is an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal has held, in essence, that this provision does not apply to the terrorism offence itself. To make terrorism an aggravating factor for sentencing on a terrorism offence would be redundant: R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, 136 O.R. (3d) 403 at paras. 101-103. This would be the same type of error as if a judge were to find in an impaired driving case that it was an aggravating factor that the accused was impaired: Ahmed, para. 103, citing R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras. 44 and 83.

[32] For this reason, the aggravating factor of terrorism probably does not apply to the terrorism offence itself but only to other offences, such as the murder and attempt murder offences here. It is to be noted that the language used in s. 718.2 is “evidence” as opposed to “offences.” A full crime need not be proven.

[33] There is precedent for treating as an aggravating factor elements of a crime as opposed to the full definition of a crime itself. For example, where the Crown fails to prove a murder is planned and deliberate, a judge can nonetheless treat elements of planning as aggravating: R. v. Armstrong, (1995), 218 C.C.C. (3d) 1, [1995] O.J. No. 535 (C.A.) at paras. 16-23; R. v. Monney, 2017 ONSC 1007, [2017] O.J. No. 845 at 109-116 per Clark J, at paras. 96-101; R. v. Berry, 2017 ONCA 17 at para. 91.

[34] I conclude in these circumstances that although the full terrorism offence was not proven, aspects that naturally fall within the motive clause of the terrorism offence may stand as aggravating factors. Here, the crimes were instigated, at least in part, by a religious or ideological motivation.

[35] In R. v. Hersi, 2019 ONCA 94, Justice Doherty said at para. 54,

Terrorists, like the appellant, pose an existential threat to the Canadian community and to the Canadian way of life. They are not criminals in the normal sense. They are worse. Terrorists stand prepared to engage in virtually any form of murder or mayhem if it furthers their ideology.

[36] Because it is not proven that the intention clause of intimidating the public was present, this statement must be qualified as applied to this sentencing. The fact remains however that this murder was based on ideological grounds, at least in part. Murder based on ideological or religious beliefs has been a recurrent theme across human history. Violent intolerance for others, poisons the local and global community. Murder prompted by ideology, as I am convinced happened here, even if it falls short of our full terrorism offence, requires a powerful deterrent sentence that expresses the outrage of the community.

The Evil of Gun Crime

[37] Sadly, this case is a particularly poignant and powerful example of the evil of guns. Without the gun, the murder of Naim Akl and the attempted murder of the other members of the Akl family and Mr. Rawi, could not have occurred. The gun gave Mr. Nath a God like power that nothing else could. It is frightening prospect, as borne out by so many other cases in our country and in North America: R. v. Chizanga, 2024 ONCA 545 at paras. 132-137; R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCA 563, [2009] O.J. No. 2908 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 29-33, affirming [2007] O.J. No. 5659 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Gayle, [1996] O.J. No. 3020 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at para. 28; R. v. Williams, 2018 ONSC 5409, 151 W.C.B. (2d) 126 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 33-40; R. v. Ferrigon, [2007] O.J. No. 1883 (Ont. S.C.) at paras. 25-29. Gun crime is a disease that must be eradicated.

[38] The damage wrought by bullets is self-evident in this case. After Mr. Nath entered Chicken Land, he fired seven shots within a mere 18 seconds, in this short time span, striking five people, including killing Naim Akl execution style with two bullets. He fired at 13-year-old Sandra sitting in the back of the restaurant doing her homework. According to Mr. Aras, he was told that Mr. Nath shot at this young girl for no more serious reason than that she was screaming as she watched her brother be murdered and the rest of her family shot. It was only good fortune that everyone in the restaurant was not killed, all six of them.

[39] Jihad Akl was shot in the chest and the bullet was removed via his stomach. Rania Akl has lost much of the prowess of her right hand as a result of being shot in the arm. Daniel Akl was shot in the right jaw and was lucky to survive. Mr. Rawi almost lost an eye.

[40] In a video not seen by the jury, Mr. Raza is shown in March, 2021, shooting a gun outside the TryAlinc warehouse. There are a number of other firearms pictured in Mr. Raza’s phone extraction. The extraction from Mr. Raza’s cell phone also shows that on May 26, 2021, three days before the Chicken Land attack, he searched for a “glock 43x” or “glock 43”. A Glock is a brand of firearm that fires 9 mm ammunition, the type of ammunition found on the floor in the aftermath of the attack on the Chicken Land restaurant. In a text, Mr. Raza asks V, an unidentified man, “Both the g43x and the g43 are for 7500?” The answer is yes. It is only reasonable to conclude based on this evidence that it was Mr. Raza who obtained the murder weapon for Mr. Nath to use in the Chicken Land shooting.

[41] Mr. Nath, a young man with no real education, and no fixed address, armed with a gun, possessed a life and death power. That is utterly absurd. Mr. Aras testified that he was told that Mr. Nath ran to the waiting getaway car holding up six fingers to show how many people he had shot. He was proud of the deplorable, evil acts he had just committed. Mr. Aras was also told that next to Mr. Raza’s getaway car, a man was walking his dog. He saw Mr. Nath. Mr. Nath was going to kill him but did not.

[42] The jury heard from Darko Bozanovic, the man walking his dog. Of course, he did not know at the time how very close he had come to being killed with a handgun. Mr. Nath decided to spare him. We do not know why. Maybe it was the luck of the draw. We do know that he had the power to kill him, as futile and senseless as that would have been. There was a wealth of other evidence connecting Mr. Nath to the shooting and the car. But Mr. Nath’s fleeting thought that he would kill Mr. Bozanovic shows the arbitrariness of gun violence and the power of a feckless man with a gun. In that flash of a second, he deemed that Mr. Bozanovic could live right after he determined that the Akls and Mr. Ruwi should all die. That a person like Mr. Nath was in a position to make these decisions about who should live and who should die is unfathomable.

[43] It is only fitting that the horrendous consequences of the premeditated shooting directly contributed to the downfall of these men. Naim Akl’s blood soakcd into Mr. Nath’s pants when he shot and killed him. Naim’s DNA in blood was found by the police transferred onto packing material in the trunk of the getaway car where Mr. Nath hid after the murder he committed. In a perfect coda, the very evil of this crime helped directly seal the fate of these offenders.

Aggravating Factors with Relation to the Offence

[44] On the evidence in this case, the jury verdict that the murder of Naim Akl was planned and deliberate necessarily carries with it an accompanying finding that the five attempt murder counts were also planned and deliberate. Mr. Aras was told after the shooting that everyone in the restaurant was supposed to be shot. That was the plan going in.

[45] A planned and deliberate offence is, because of the calculation and thought involved, of significantly higher moral blameworthiness. This plan was intricate and involved. The gun was purchased specially for the purpose of killing the Akls. The area around Chicken Land was cased out beforehand. Mr. Nath arrived in the area of the restaurant on foot rather than in a car which could have been spotted or caught on surveillance. His identity and appearance was masked. The getaway car was parked a close distance away to conceal it and put some distance between it and the scene. It was decided that Mr. Nath would be spirited from the scene in the trunk of the car so that he could not be seen in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The car was concealed in the TryAlinc warehouse as soon as it arrived back from the shooting.

[46] This was a cold, carefully thought-out scheme, the nature and consequences of which had been considered and weighed. Furthermore, it was a group plan between three men, a distinct aggravating factor. As with murder, a planned and deliberate attempted murder renders the crime of significant higher gravity and moral blameworthiness than it would otherwise be.

[47] One of the most harrowing aspects of these crimes was the seemingly motiveless attempt to kill the bystanders, the Akl family and presumably anyone else who happened to be in the restaurant. The jury was charged with respect to accomplices Raza and Abbasi that because they were not at the scene of the shooting, they could only be culpable for the attempt murders if the plan was to kill everyone in the restaurant. The attempt murder findings of guilt demonstrate that the jury found this to be true. If a customer had been in the restaurant, they would likely have been shot too. That explains the shooting of Mr. Rawi. Why? There was a twisted motive of some kind to kill Naim Akl. But what was the motive to kill the five other people, the remaining members of the Akl family and Mr. Rawi? There is no coherent or rational answer.

[48] On Mr. Raza’s cell phone, there was reference amongst the radical propaganda that it is permissible under an extremist belief or religion to kill women and children if they are indistinguishable from the kuffar [infidels or non-believers]. The ISIS leader is quoted elsewhere as saying that it is permissible to engage in violence against non-believers. The evidence from Mr. Aras was that Mr. Abbasi ordered that everyone was to be killed.

[49] The postulated motive against Naim Akl that there was an apprehension that he was going to turn the group into the police cannot be credibly extended to his family. There was no evidence or reasonable surmise that Naim might have told his family and then they all had to be shot too because of the same possibility. That is not plausible. The only motive having any weight to it is that Mr. Abbasi had such hatred for Naim that it spilled over to his family. He wanted Naim to die and his family too.

[50] Whether it be this motive or simply the infliction of purely gratuitous violence, this is a strong aggravating factor on sentence for the attempt murder counts. It bespeaks an inhumanity and dangerousness that is chilling.

[51] Lastly, our law in evaluating the gravity of an offence for sentencing purposes, looks both to the intention behind the acts committed and the consequences that were brought about. As has been pointed out many times, the intention for attempted murder is the same as for murder: an intention to kill. An attempt murderer bears the same moral blameworthiness as a full-fledged murderer: R. v. Forcillo, 2018 ONCA 402, 141 O.R. (3d) 752 at paras. 129-130. The difference is in the consequence to the victims, a consequence that by definition does not fortunately entail death.

[52] Here, the Akl families’ injuries and the injury to Mr. Rawi were very significant. Furthermore, the law takes cognizance of the profound psychological damage to the victims which will unfortunately be with them for their entire lives. How could it not be? A sudden, murderous attack; seeing your family members bleeding profusely on the floor; your much beloved brother and son dying in his father’s arms. That is an unimaginable, shocking, lifelong trauma.

The Offenders

Mr. Abbasi

[53] Mr. Aras’ evidence and all the other circumstances leave no doubt that Mr. Abbasi was the directing mind behind these crimes. Without him, these crimes would not have been committed. He detested Naim Akl. Naim had been working with TryAlinc after leaving his job at the Bank of Montreal for about a year before he left about two months before he was murdered. He then started working in the Chicken Land restaurant.

[54] There was a recording of a very angry argument between Mr. Abbasi and Naim from April 1, 2021 played for the jury in which, amongst other unpleasantries, Mr. Abbasi called Naim a “fucking idiot loser.”

[55] On April 18, 2021, there was a chat in which Mr. Abbasi wrote to Mr. Raza and several others. Naim had just been removed from the chat group by Mr. Abbasi after he left TryAlinc. Mr. Abbasi said to the others in the chat that Allah had exposed Naim’s “treachery.” He thanked the others for being loyal to the brotherhood in Islam. The lesson was that Allah was watching and they could not hide from him.

[56] Mr. Abbasi is 34 years old. He went to Sheridan College and worked in transportation and logistics for five years. He has done a good deal of charity work and worked in his mosque. He has counselled youth, including Mr. Aras. That is how they met. Mr. Aras was living at Peel Youth Village (PYT) and they met most likely in 2018. They would go together quite frequently to different mosques and pray, learning different religious information. Mr. Abassi was a mentor figure to Mr. Aras. It is difficult to square this part of his life with his horrendous crimes.

[57] This is not Mr. Aras’s first involvement in a firearm crime. He has a very serious gun crime on his criminal record. At about 1:00 a.m. on February 9, 2012, Mr. Abbasi fired 8 to 10 shots into a home. Bullets passed through furniture, a television, and interior walls. The seven family members were asleep on the top floor and were unharmed. The motive was that a woman who resided at the home had broken off a relationship with a friend of Mr. Abbasi’s. That male friend had been charged with threatening the woman’s new boyfriend. The motive for the offence was to frighten the woman who was going to be a witness at trial.

[58] After a trial, Mr. Abbasi was convicted of mischief endangering life, intimidation of a justice system participant, use of a firearm to commit an indictable offence and possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm and received a total sentence of eight years less credit for one year of pre-trial custody: R. v. Abbasi, 2014 ONCJ 686, aff’d R. v. Abbasi, 2016 ONCA 219 (Ont. C.A.).

Mr. Raza

[59] Mr. Raza was 25 and is now 29 years old. He was born in Kuwait. He was the getaway driver. He was raised in Mississauga and went to George Brown College. Counsel advised that he comes from a good family. He has a good work history, having worked at places such as Subway and Burger King. He has no previous criminal record.

Mr. Nath

[60] Mr. Nath was a young man, 20 years old, at the time he murdered Naim Akl. He is now 23 and has no record. Because of conflict with his family, he had been living on his own from age 17. It was at that age that he was hit by a car and has ongoing effects from post-concussion syndrome. Counsel advised that he cannot express complex thoughts.

[61] Mr. Nath was the man who killed Naim and attempted to kill the other occupants of Chicken Land that night. He was the immediate instrument of the evil perpetrated that night. But he was very young and likely impressionable, open to bad influences. He was vulnerable. He is at the bottom of the hierarchy responsible for these crimes.

The Appropriate Sentence

[62] What happened at Chicken Land on May 29, 2021 was an atrocity. The community must express its moral outrage. One young man killed, four wounded. A young girl shot at with the intention of killing her. The intention was that Naim would be the primary target and all six people in the restaurant would be shot and killed. The murder sentence and the attempt murder sentences are separate wrongs. At the same time, the murder of Naim Akl is an inextricable part of the context and cannot be ignored. The attempt murder was part and parcel of the murder.

[63] It is unnecessary to grade these offences as being the most serious attempt murders in the case law. But collectively, they undoubtably contend for that categorization. The Akl family were working industriously in their restaurant preparing food as they have for over 30 years. There is nothing as nurturing as making food for other people to eat. A mainstay of the community, the Akls were respected and loved by all. The Akl family often worked and still work in the restaurant 12 hours or more a day. Their hours are 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. They worked together. They lived together too. They are a very tight knit Lebanese Druze family.

[64] We saw all four of the Akl survivors testify (and Mr. Rawi too.) They are the salt of the earth. To a person, each testified with extraordinary dignity and integrity. There was no axe to grind. They told what they saw and heard with no embellishment of any kind. Instead, they seemed completely absorbed by the terrible, irretrievable loss the family has suffered.

[65] Their four victim impact statements, as well as Mr. Rawi’s, are quoted above. The profound sense of loss for their son and brother Naim is staggering. It is painful to hear. It is tragic. Remarkably, there is a complete lack of any shown anger against the men who cruelly and callously took their son’s life and shot them as well. There are no recriminations whatsoever. That is highly unusual. The contrast between the Akl family and the offenders who so brazenly and violently intruded into their lives with the intention to kill them all, armed with a deadly weapon, is stark. The astonishing cowardice of these offenders stands in high relief against the Akl family.

[66] The justice system, although deeply impressed by the almost saintly dignity of the Akl family, cannot and does not have the same equanimity and grace towards the events of May 29, 2021. These were unspeakable crimes, an attempt to wipe out an entire family for no reason. This was to be a mass slaughter of six people with a high-powered handgun as well as any other occupants who might have been in the restaurant. The need to denunciate the attempt murder of five people is overwhelming and predominates this sentencing. The individual details of the offenders are swept into the background. Rehabilitation is always an important consideration, particularly for a young person like Mr. Nath, but on these shocking facts, it does not weigh significantly in the balance. It can only be addressed in the future.

[67] In light of the grave seriousness of the five attempt murder counts, there is only one possible sentence: That is, life in prison. Only the maximum comes anywhere close to adequately denunciating the heinous acts these men committed on May 29, 2021.

[68] In conclusion, for Mr. Abbasi, the sentence for the first-degree murder of Naim Akl will be life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 25 years. For the attempt murder convictions there will be a life sentence on each of the five counts, concurrent to the other attempt murder counts and concurrent to the first-degree murder sentence.

[69] For Mr. Raza, the sentence for the first-degree murder conviction of Naim Akl will be life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 25 years. For the attempt murder convictions there will be a life sentence for each of the five counts, concurrent to the other attempt murder counts and concurrent to the first-degree murder sentence.

[70] For Mr. Nath, the sentence for the first-degree murder of Naim Akl will be life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 25 years. For the attempt murder convictions there will be a life sentence for each of the five counts, concurrent to the other attempt murder counts and concurrent to the first-degree murder sentence.

[71] Ancillary orders will be issued for each offender: DNA databank, and s. 109 weapons prohibitions for life. There will also be a non-communication order.

D.E HARRIS J. Released: October 7, 2024