R. v. Bertrand, 2026 ONSC 2947

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-5627

DATE: 20260520

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Seth Bertrand

Offender

COUNSEL:

Xenia Proestos and David Schermbrucker, for the Crown

Bobby Russon and Gabrielle Gibbs, for the Offender

HEARD: March 9, 2026

RESTRICTION on publication

This Ruling is subject to an order pursuant to s. 486.31 of the Criminal Code directing that any information that could identify witnesses, namely police officers known as “Undercover Officer Eric” or “UCO Eric” and “Undercover Officer Alex” or “UCO Alex”, not be disclosed in the course of the proceedings. Those witnesses were permitted to testify using pseudonyms.

Further, the court made an order pursuant to s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code directing that any information that could identify these witnesses shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

CARROCCIA J.:

[1] The offender, Seth Bertrand, was convicted following a trial, of knowingly participating in or contributing to, directly or indirectly the activities of a terrorist group, to wit: Attomwaffen Division, also known as AWD, National Socialist Order, or NSO for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity contrary to s. 83.18(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[2] The court received the submissions of counsel on the appropriate sentence to be imposed in the circumstances and reserved its decision. This is my decision on sentence.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[3] I begin by reviewing briefly the circumstances of the offence.

[4] Mr. Bertrand was 18 years old when on February 21, 2021, he filled out an application seeking to join the NSO. At trial, the court found that AWD had effectively disbanded and then rebranded itself as NSO and that they were the same organization. The court also found as a fact that Mr. Bertrand was aware, at the time he sought to join them, that they were terrorist organizations, see: R. v. Bertrand, 2025 ONSC 4591, at para. 73.

[5] When he applied to join NSO, Mr. Bertrand pledged his loyalty, offered to provide a skill or expertise to AWD/NSO, namely his skill as a mechanic and fighting skills and he pledged his loyalty.

[6] The court found that at that time, the offender was entrenched in the ideology of a “white ethno-state”. That is, he espoused ideology that was anti-Semitic, anti-Black and anti-LGBTQ. Those beliefs were consistent with the ideology of AWD/NSO namely that the white race is under attack and the only way to defend itself is through a race war (Bertrand at para. 55).

[7] The court found that Mr. Bertrand was aware that AWD/NSO were terrorist groups. In fact, the accused himself acknowledged that they were when he had a conversation with an undercover officer and boasted about committing offences targeting the LGBTQ community.

[8] Mr. Bertrand, at that time, and in his application indicated that he wanted to be part of a group that was “actually doing things to help save/protect the white race”. It was clear that he applied in order to enhance the ability of a terrorist organization to carry out terrorist activity that aligned with his own beliefs at the time. Accordingly, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offence was made out.

The Circumstances of the Offender

[9] The court received a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) which was prepared in this matter as well as a Psychological Assessment Report prepared by Dr. Mini Mamak, a psychologist.

[10] The court was also provided with letters of support from the offender’s family and friends, including his parents and grandparents.

[11] Mr. Bertrand is now 23 years old. He is single and has no dependants.

[12] The PSR reflects that Mr. Bertrand experienced instability in his youth. Verbal conflict was common in his home. His father left when he was five years old and he had limited contact with him for many years. His mother later re-married and that relationship was marred by domestic violence, which included violence directed at the offender. His mother experienced issues with substance abuse and as a result, his maternal grandmother assumed a caregiving role in his life. This provided some stability to the offender and his brother. He continues to live with his maternal grandmother, although the psychological assessment report indicates that the offender now resides with his father and his father’s fianceé.

[13] The offender was involved with the Children’s Aid Society when he was a child as a result of the relationship between his mother and her husband. Mr. Bertrand also has a half-brother and half-sister through that relationship.

[14] The offender was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder in grade school, however, he chose not to take medication because of its side effects. He was the victim of bullying in school and struggled with learning. He was suspended often due to angry outbursts. He was in high school during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not complete his high school education. He is two credits shy of receiving his diploma.

[15] He is currently employed in an auto mechanic shop and is described as a reliable and hardworking employee with a strong work ethic. He is going to apprentice under this employer to learn the trade and hopefully become certified. Prior to this employment, Mr. Bertrand was employed in a steel fabrication factory for approximately two years. He lost that employment as a result of this charge.

[16] According to the PSR, the offender does not suffer from any addiction to substances although he is a user of marijuana. He was open during the interview for the report, but he was described as “very matter of fact and flippant” while speaking about the current charge.

[17] He explained that he became troubled after his girlfriend left him for another woman which caused him to develop negative feelings about same sex relationships. A friend then introduced him to an online group where others held similar feelings of rejection and loneliness. He advised the probation officer that he “became preoccupied” with becoming a member of that group.

[18] The offender has the support of his family. Stephanie Bertrand, his mother, describes her son as naïve but indicates that she believes that he recognizes that what he did was wrong and has made efforts to take his life in a more positive direction.

[19] His father writes that Mr. Bertrand has been doing well and recognizes that his previous conduct reflects “a faulty way of thinking”. Jon Bertrand advises that his son has grown and is determined to become a contributing member of the community. However, he expressed concern about the amount of time his son spends online. While he is prohibited by bail conditions from accessing social media, he continues to play online video games and engages socially online.

[20] His family and friends describe that the offender has changed and matured in the years since he committed this offence. The offender reportedly intends to move out of the city to live with his mother once this matter has been completed.

[21] Mr. Bertrand was also assessed at the instance of the defence, by Dr. Mini Mamak, a psychologist with a specialty in Forensic Psychology and subspeciality in providing consultations when psychological or mental health issues are relevant in legal proceedings.

[22] During the interviews conducted to prepare the report, the offender accepted responsibility for his conduct and indicated that he believed he was indoctrinated into white supremacist beliefs at a time when he was experiencing the loss of a relationship and feeling disconnected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Bertrand advised Dr. Mamak that he now identifies with the LGBTQ community and identifies his sexual orientation as PAN.

[23] When Dr. Mamak raised the issue of attending treatment, Mr. Bertrand was initially reluctant because he indicated he no longer holds extremist views. However, he indicated that he would comply with treatment if it was recommended or mandated by the court. She identified his motivation to receive treatment as relatively low.

[24] According to Dr. Mamak, the offender advised that he has shifted away from extremist views and expresses inclusive attitudes towards diversity. However, she feels that he shows limited self-awareness and has an underdeveloped capacity to manage the influence of negative peers. He is described as resistant to change and struggles to recognize when change is necessary.

[25] Dr. Mamak noted that her diagnostic impressions of Mr. Bertrand included that he has antisocial personality traits and moderate cannabis use disorder. She opines that Mr. Bertrand’s personality structure, weak problem-solving skills and social circumstances suggest he may be influenced by external sources or group dynamics which makes the offender’s risk to re-engage with extremist groups and endorse extremist ideologies or engage in targeted or ideologically motivated violence as falling in the low-moderate range at present.

[26] Ultimately, Dr. Mamak expressed concern about Mr. Bertrand’s apparent social isolation and vulnerability to negative influences and recommended continued monitoring and targeted interventions to mitigate the risk. This includes individual therapy through ETA Ontario which offers specialized therapy for individuals at risk of extremist involvement. She also recommended some community involvement for Mr. Bertrand to foster a sense of belonging and purpose.

[27] During submissions, the court inquired as to whether the offender had undertaken any treatment or counselling or whether he is a suitable candidate for treatment through ETA Ontario. At the conclusion of submissions, with the consent of the Crown, the defence requested an opportunity to explore the availability of that therapy for Mr. Bertrand.

[28] The court has since been provided with a letter authored by David O’Brien the Director of Mental Health at Yorktown Family Services (YFS), which will be filed as an exhibit. Mr. O’Brien advises that YFS is a fully accredited community service agency offering various services including the ETA or Estimated Time of Arrival Program. ETA “uses evidence informed and based psychosocial interventions to support people away from heading towards violent extremist activity or actively engaged with violent extremism”.

[29] Mr. Bertrand agreed to enter the program and did so on April 7, 2026. He will participate is a psychosocial assessment following which he is expected to attend sessions weekly. He is described as engaged and fully participating. YFS requests that Mr. Bertrand be permitted to have access to the internet for therapy sessions.

[30] Mr. Bertrand has a criminal record. He was convicted on August 17, 2022, of Public Incitement of Hatred contrary to s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Fail to Comply, and three counts of Mischief Under $5000 and was sentenced to a five month Conditional Sentence Order followed by Probation for two years concurrent on each charge.

[31] Those offences all relate to the hate motivated crimes committed by Mr. Bertrand and directed at property damage at a home displaying the gay pride flag as well as at the WETrans building. I note however, that those convictions post-date the offence committed on this indictment and accordingly will not be considered as an aggravating factor.

The Position of the Crown

[32] Ms. Proestos, on behalf of the Crown, submits that the appropriate sentence in the circumstances is a penitentiary sentence of three years. Lengthy prison sentences are required for terrorism offences.

[33] The Crown recognizes that Mr. Bertrand was young when he committed this offence and that he has come to disavow his earlier beliefs but suggests that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are key guiding principles that call for a sentence in this range. In relation to terrorism offences, the young age of the offenders makes them more impressionable and attractive to such organizations. Accordingly, the leniency given to youthful offenders plays less of a role in relation to terrorism offences.

[34] The Crown asks the court to consider that terrorism offences are qualitatively different than other serious crimes in that prevention is the overarching objective of the legislation because of the serious consequences when terrorist acts are committed.

[35] The Crown referred to a number of cases where individuals were sentenced to penitentiary sentences far in excess of what is being sought in this case, and where the conduct that formed the substance matter of the charges was similar and the offenders were also youthful, and often first offenders.

[36] Although there is a potential for rehabilitation in this case, and the Crown is not suggesting that Mr. Bertrand is the worst offender, the Crown still has concerns about his risk to re-offend given his vulnerabilities.

[37] The Crown submits that it is an aggravating circumstance that the offender in this case sought out AWD/NSO a group that was the most extreme and the most committed to violence, so his moral responsibility is high.

[38] It is the position of the Crown that the evidence disclosed that the offender went beyond just applying to join this group. He tried operating his own extremist group, tried to obtain copies of literature such as Mein Kampf and Seige and had made a commitment to extremism. By contrast, up until the date that sentencing submissions were made, he had done little to rehabilitate himself.

[39] As for whether the offender’s strict bail conditions should be considered as a mitigating factor, the Crown takes the position that the onus is on the offender to provide the court with the information necessary to make that determination. If the court is satisfied that the house arrest bail amounted to a form of punishment, then that can be taken as mitigation, but once that condition was changed to a curfew, it did not have the same impact.

[40] The Crown submits that the position taken by the defence is not supported by the caselaw and is completely out of the range of appropriate sentences for this type of offence and a penitentiary sentence is warranted.

The Position of the Defence

[41] The defence is seeking a non-custodial sentence, that is a suspended sentence followed by Probation for a period of three years with strict conditions.

[42] The defence submits that they recognize the seriousness of the offence, but that factor alone should not determine the sentence. The court must balance the relevant factors to impose a sentence that is proportional and reflects not only the gravity of the offence but the nature of the conduct of the offender, and his circumstances.

[43] The defence submits that a long period of probation would provide regular supervision and increase the likelihood that rehabilitation will be successful. It is suggested that the conduct that represents the offence committed by Mr. Bertrand is significantly less serious than in other cases where individuals actively participated in terrorist activities or propagated those ideas in an effort to recruit others.

[44] In this case the offender applied to join a terrorist organization, was only briefly involved in that activity and thereafter disengaged himself. He was not arrested until over a year later.

[45] In taking the position that a non-custodial disposition is appropriate, the defence is also asking the court to consider giving Mr. Bertrand enhanced credit for the time spent on stringent bail conditions pursuant to the authority in R. v. Downes, 2006 3957 (ONCA). Following his arrest on May 4, 2022, Mr. Bertrand was in jail for five days and then released on a bail order that included house arrest with exceptions for employment or school, while in the presence of a surety, to meet with counsel or for medical emergencies.

[46] While he was on that bail order, he resolved his outstanding charges which resulted in the imposition of a Conditional Sentence Order, and after he finished serving that sentence, the house arrest condition on the release order was changed to a curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Accordingly, it is not disputed that Mr. Bertrand was bound by house arrest conditions of bail for a period of eight months and 27 days, and has been bound by a curfew for two years eight months and four days (as of the date the court heard submissions).

[47] In addition to those conditions, the bail order prohibited Mr. Bertrand from possessing a cell phone, possessing or using a computer or device with access to the internet or using social media or text platforms.

[48] The defence submits that those bail conditions were highly restrictive and had a significant impact of the offender’s liberty, daily functioning and ability to maintain normal employment and social relationships. After the offender lost his employment, he was effectively unable to obtain further employment since most employment opportunities are advertised and applied for online. Furthermore, it is difficult to maintain social interactions without being able to text or communicate online.

[49] The defence filed the affidavit of Mr. Bertrand in support of this position. He attests to the fact that while it is difficult to separate the impact of the bail restrictions from the stigma of the publicity related to the offence he was charged with, since his arrest he has lost friendships, experienced depression, and had a very difficult time securing and maintaining employment.

[50] The defence submits that when considering the totality of the circumstances, the sentence suggested would be proportionate to the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The Governing Legal Principles

i) General sentencing principles

[51] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code and are binding on this court. The court must consider that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that denounce and deter unlawful conduct and assist in the rehabilitation of offenders (s. 718).

[52] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, (s. 718.1). Section 718.2 mandates a court to consider, when imposing an appropriate sentence, that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Section 718.2(a)(v) specifically requires the court to consider evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence as an aggravating circumstance.

[53] Section 718.2(d) directs that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances and s. 718.2(e) requires a court to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances.

ii) Sentencing for Terrorism offences

[54] An offence under s. 83.18 of the Code carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. There is no minimum penalty. A Conditional Sentence is not available by virtue of s. 742.1(d) of the Code. If the court imposes a sentence of more than two years imprisonment, then the court shall order that parole be delayed until one-half of the sentence is served in accordance with s. 743.6(1.2) of the Code.

[55] In R. v. Hersi, 2019 ONCA 94, leave to appeal dismissed 2022 16725 (SCC) the appellant appealed his convictions and sentence in relation to convictions for offences under s. 83.18 of the Code. The appellant was arrested at Pearson Airport while waiting to board a flight to Cairo, Egypt. Once there, he intended to travel to Somalia and join Al-Shabaab to support their Jihadist goals. The appellant was sentenced to five years on each count consecutive.

[56] In dismissing the appeal, Doherty J. stated at para. 54:

There is no doubt that the sentence imposed was severe. It had to be. 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. When people determined to wreak havoc in our community are caught and convicted, the courts must impose sentences that reflect the community’s moral outrage and the very real danger posed by those individuals to the community. That is what the trial judge did. The sentence imposed was fit.

[57] In R. v. MacDonald, 2025 ONSC 4716, the accused was sentenced to a total of ten years imprisonment for convictions for three offences related to participating in the activities of a terrorist group, facilitating a terrorist activity by participating in the production of propaganda and communicating statements that willfully promoted hatred. The accused in that case participated in the creation of propaganda and recruitment videos for AWD. He posted graphic designs that glorified White supremacist Nazi leaders. He did not engage in terrorist actions but assisted through his actions in recruiting others to the cause.

[58] In R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69, at para. 115, the Court emphasized that the general principles of sentencing apply to terrorism offences. The Court states:

At the outset, I wish to underscore that the temptation to fashion rigid sentencing principles applicable to terrorism offences as a distinct class of offences should be avoided, subject to the provisions in the Criminal Code that specifically pertain to those offences. The general principles of sentencing, including the totality principle, apply to terrorism offences.

[59] In Khawaja, there was compelling evidence of dangerousness, and a lack of information on the accused’s probability of re-offending. In that case a life sentence was determined to be appropriate.

[60] In R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, the accused was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for terrorism-related offences. The accused had been involved with a terrorist group for about six months. Over that period of time, the accused solicited money with the intention that it be sent to foreign terrorists to purchase weapons. He conspired with others and also attempted to recruit individuals into violent Jihadist causes. That sentence was upheld on appeal.

iii) Credit for restrictive bail conditions

[61] The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed in Downes that mitigation of sentence due to stringent pre-trial bail conditions ought to be given if those conditions were punitive and “akin to custody” (at para. 29). House arrest conditions can amount to a form of punishment.

[62] The Court explained in R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, that although we often speak of “credit” for stringent bail conditions, what should be assessed is whether strict bail conditions should be taken into account as a relevant mitigating circumstance. In evaluating the mitigation to be given, the relevant inquiry is whether bail conditions were punitive enough to be akin to punishment see: para. 114.

[63] In R. v. Place, 2020 ONCA 546, the court said at para. 20:

The determination of enhanced credit is not the product of a formula but is within the discretion of the trial judge. In para. 37 of Downes, the Court set out a non-exhaustive list of criteria to be considered in determining this issue, including: the amount of time spent on pre-sentence bail conditions; the stringency of the conditions; the impact on the offender’s liberty; and the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. The onus is on the offender to establish the facts supporting the impact of the conditions on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Aggravating Factors

[64] The following are aggravating factors in this case:

i) that the offender was aware that AWD/NSO was a domestic terrorist organization and he espoused their ideology of white supremacy;

ii) that the offender’s actions were part of a course of conduct that showed his commitment to this ideology and his desire to “do something”;

iii) that he sought out the AWD/NSO;

iv) that the offender appears to lack insight into his offending conduct; and

v) that these offences were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, ethnic origin, colour, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Mitigating Factors

[65] The following factors are mitigating:

i) that the offender was young when this offence was committed, just having turned 18 years old and he was vulnerable;

ii) that the offender had no prior criminal record at the time;

iii) that the offender has renounced his earlier beliefs and has accepted responsibility for his conduct;

iv) that after the offender was not accepted as a member of AWD/NSO it appears that he did not take any further steps to join any other like-minded groups;

v) that the offender is suitable for and has begun counselling directed at individuals that are vulnerable to violent extremist activities;

vi) that the offender has the support of his family; and

vii) the offender was bound by strict conditions of bail and has not violated the terms of his bail order.

The Appropriate Sentence

[66] Terrorism offences are serious offences that violate the values that we hold sacred as members of Canadian society. By their nature, terrorist activities are calculated to instill fear.

[67] Seth Bertrand, in many ways was an ideal candidate for indoctrination into an ideologically motivated violent extremist group (IMVE). He had a childhood that lacked structure, he was bullied and socially isolated and angry. He was looking to belong and connect with others. He was vulnerable. Those personal circumstances, however, do not absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

[68] In imposing sentence on someone convicted of an offence of this nature, denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public takes priority over the other factors that the court must consider in imposing sentence. However, the general principles of sentencing must still be considered.

[69] Mr. Bertrand applied to join a terrorist group which at the time aligned with his own beliefs. After completing the application and not being accepted into AWD/NSO, he took no steps to seek them out again. He spoke about having started his own group, but there was no evidence at trial that he took any steps to do so. He had no leadership role. While he espoused white supremacist views online, he did not appear well-versed in their theories. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[70] At the time that he committed this offence, Mr. Bertrand was young and was struggling. He had no criminal record. This offence was committed over five years ago and he appears to be making an effort to move his life in a positive direction.

[71] According to Dr. Mamak, he may have underlying cognitive limitations and may struggle with complex or abstract concepts despite appearing higher functioning. He is also easily influenced.

[72] Taking all of these factors into account, a jail sentence is required. In my view, the sentence suggested by the defence would not reflect the seriousness of the offence and would not be consistent with the need to denounce this type of conduct.

[73] I have considered whether a penitentiary sentence, as submitted by the Crown, would be appropriate given the nature of the conduct in this case. Mr. Bertrand was involved in this conduct for a limited time and in a limited role. A penitentiary sentence might be more harmful to him and to society in general by exposing an individual who is vulnerable to negative influences to a great many negative influences.

[74] I find that the prospect of rehabilitation is good if the offender completes treatment. A jail sentence followed by the maximum period of probation would ensure that Mr. Bertrand is subject to supervision for a lengthier period of time in order to facilitate his rehabilitation. If a penitentiary sentence is imposed, then the court cannot impose a probation order. As the Court said in Khawaja, at para. 124, terrorism offences catch a very wide variety of conduct, and the weight to be given to rehabilitation in a case is best left to the “reasoned discretion” of the trial judge on a case-by-case basis.

[75] In my view, a jail sentence of 12 months would be appropriate, however in accordance with the principle in Downes I have considered the time spent on strict conditions of bail as a mitigating circumstance. The offender was bound by very strict conditions of bail including house arrest for approximately nine months. He is still bound by conditions which prohibit him from accessing the internet or using a cell phone or computer.

[76] I accept that those strict bail conditions have impacted his daily functioning and his ability to maintain or seek out employment and have been a form of punishment. I have not taken into account the time when Mr. Bertrand was bound by a curfew, after the bail conditions were changed because I do not find that condition to be punitive.

[77] For those reasons, having found that some mitigation is due, I will impose a jail sentence of nine months in addition to the five days he spent in custody following his arrest for which he will be credited with eight days of pre-sentence custody, to be followed by Probation for a period of three years on the following terms and conditions.

• Report in person to a probation officer immediately after your release from custody and after that at all times and places as directed by the probation officer;

• Co-operate with your probation officer. Sign any release necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor your compliance and provide proof of compliance upon request to your probation officer;

• Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code, for example a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person;

• Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer;

• Attend and complete the ETA or Estimated Time of Arrival program through the Yorktown Family Services to the satisfaction of the probation officer;

• Do not own, possess or carry any objects, literature or documents with the logo of a listed terrorist entity;

• Do not access, view, attempt to access or view any violent extremist materials, literature or documents electronic or otherwise, or any listed terrorist entity materials, literature, or documents, electronic or otherwise; and

• You shall maintain only one account per platform on the internet and through social media. You shall provide access to those accounts if requested to do so by your probation officer.

[78] There will be an order that Mr. Bertrand provide a sample of his DNA. This is a primary designated offence. The victim fine surcharge will be waived.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Maria V. Carroccia

Justice

Released: May 20, 2026