Brandon Taylor Moore Sentenced for Public Incitement of Hatred Against Jews
As our readers know, ALCCA has been heavily involved in training police and prosecutors across the country on the full range of legal measures to combat antisemitism and other forms of hatred, as well as on how contemporary antisemitism is manifested. However, in the absence of such training, we continue to see too many instances of poor prosecutorial decision-making in cases involving antisemitic crimes. A recent case in Saskatoon is illustrative.
On December 18, 2025, the Saskatoon Police Service Hate Crime Unit arrested Brandon Taylor Moore, 45, following a lengthy investigation into antisemitic content posted on his X account, @LetsGoBrando45. Police had first received a complaint in 2024 regarding an individual disseminating antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust‑denial content online. The Hate Crime Unit identified Moore as the author of the posts, and a search warrant executed at his residence resulted in the seizure of digital evidence and a firearm.
The Charges and Allegations
Moore was initially charged with public incitement of hatred and unsafe storage of a firearm. One week later, additional charges were laid: wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism (Holocaust condonation, denial, or downplaying). As noted in our earlier updates – Criminal Law Update: Case Developments, Hate Crime Enforcement, and Police Training and Legal Update: Hate Crimes, University and Professional Discipline, ALCCA commended both the Saskatoon Police and the Saskatchewan Attorney General for acting swiftly to approve and lay these latter charges.
The allegations were that, between February 2024 and December 17, 2025, Moore communicated statements on his public X account that were accessible to, and disseminated to, a wide public audience. Jews were portrayed as satanic, criminal, deceitful, sexually deviant, cannibalistic, and as fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
He promulgated conspiracy theories depicting Jews as a malevolent force behind wars, governments, and world affairs. He denied and distorted the Holocaust, mocked its victims, and compared Auschwitz to an elite summer camp. He claimed that Jews were the true Nazis, responsible for atrocities worse than those of Hitler, including the transatlantic slave trade, both world wars, and the mass murder of white Christians in Europe. Most significantly, he repeatedly argued that Jews do not belong in the countries in which they live.
The Guilty Plea
On June 30, 2026, Moore pleaded guilty to public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace before Justice Sanjeev Anand of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court.
The agreed statement of facts filed with the Court described Moore’s conduct as follows (providing little to no detail regarding the hateful content of the posts):
Between February 2024 and December 17, 2025, Mr. Moore communicated statements prolifically on that account that were accessible to, and were disseminated to, a wide public audience.
Certain of those statements incited hatred against Jewish people. Jewish people are an identifiable group within the meaning of s. 318(4) of the Criminal Code, being a section of the public distinguished by religion and by ethnic origin.
Those statements included hateful invective directed at the Jewish People including public communications calling for their removal or exclusion, including a statement, as an example, that “the jews need to go.”
Those statements, cumulatively, would reasonably be understood by members of the public, and viewed objectively in their context, to incite hatred — that is, detestation or vilification — against Jewish people as an identifiable group.
The prosecution indicated its intention to enter stays of proceedings (that is, not to proceed) on the charges of wilful promotion of hatred, wilful promotion of antisemitism, and the firearms offence.
The Sentencing Hearing
On September 28, 2026, Moore appeared for sentencing. ALCCA provided a curated Joint Community Impact Statement, incorporating submissions from several Jewish organizations and a Holocaust survivor. These statements were read aloud in court.
ALCCA’s contribution emphasized the historical and contemporary harm of Moore’s rhetoric:
Brandon Taylor Moore’s posts were not merely offensive or insulting. They drew on familiar antisemitic tropes and dehumanizing narratives used for generations to marginalize, expel, and persecute Jewish people. The language he employed evokes centuries‑old religious antisemitism, including the exclusionary idea that Jewish people are spiritually condemned or exist outside the moral community. These are old and dangerous ideas, and their reappearance today is painful and frightening for many members of our community. History demonstrates that communications portraying Jews as condemned, dangerous, foreign, or deserving of removal create the conditions in which discrimination, intimidation, and violence become normalized. In the present climate, such rhetoric contributes to an environment in which Jewish Canadians feel less safe, less secure, and less able to participate freely in public life.
The prosecutor and Moore – who represented himself – presented a joint submission, which the Court accepted. The sentence imposed was an 18‑month conditional sentence of imprisonment (CSO), often described as house arrest, with the following terms:
First 6 months: full house arrest except with CSO‑supervisor permission
Next 6 months: house arrest nightly from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Final 6 months: no house arrest
150 hours of community service
Mandatory personal counselling and hate‑speech programming
Prohibition on alcohol and cannabis during the CSO
Prohibition on posting about Jewish people or ethnic origin on social media
Mandatory deletion of his X posts
Weapons prohibition under the Criminal Code
The Reasons for the Resolution
The Crown cited three primary reasons for accepting the joint submission:
1. Religious‑exemption defence: Moore intended to rely on the (since repealed) religious‑exemption defence for wilful promotion of hatred. In ALCCA’s view, this defence was unavailable to Moore. The vile content of the posts was incompatible with the statutory requirement that Moore was merely expressing in good faith an opinion on a religious subject. Moore’s intention to raise this defence should not have figured prominently, or at all, in the prosecution’s assessment of the case.
2. Constitutional challenge to wilful promotion of antisemitism: This specific offence has not yet undergone constitutional scrutiny, and Moore intended to challenge it. In our view, the possible constitutional challenge to one of the charges Moore faced should not have figured prominently, or at all, in the prosecution’s assessment of the case.
3. Potential s. 11(b) delay concerns: The Crown expressed concern about a possible judicial stay for unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial. The prosecution is entitled to consider whether a case may be lost due to unreasonable delay if it proceeds to a contested trial. However, the Attorney General acted promptly in approving the hate‑propaganda charges, and the timelines involved here did not raise sufficient concerns to justify the agreed upon lenient disposition.
Notably, the prosecutor submitted to the Court that hate propaganda charges are rare in Saskatchewan and candidly acknowledged that this was his first hate propaganda prosecution.
Moore’s Submissions
Moore’s submissions revealed an individual wholly unrepentant. He claimed his posts were motivated by concern for children in Gaza, even though the overwhelming majority of his content consisted of explicit Jew‑hatred – portraying Jews as satanic, criminal, deceitful, sexually deviant, cannibalistic, and anti‑democratic. His posts also promoted longstanding conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. His assertion that he “never wished harm on any person” was starkly contradicted by the harmful, dangerous, and dehumanizing nature of his communications. Even if he had been motivated by concern for children in Gaza, although belied by the content of his posts, such motivation would not mitigate his culpability – as he would be holding all Jews collectively responsible and demonizing all Jews for the events in the Middle East.
Analysis
This agreed-upon sentence was unconscionably lenient, given Moore’s lack of meaningful remorse, and the virulently antisemitic posts that formed the basis of his criminal conduct. It appears that the prosecution was so intent on avoiding a trial on the merits, for reasons that were unconvincing and, at times, irrelevant that it agreed to a disposition that brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
Hate propaganda cases are uniquely consequential: they shape the social environment in which targeted communities must live, work, and participate in public life. When the justice system elects to narrow or abandon charges that were properly laid, fully supported by evidence, and approved by the Attorney General, it risks signalling that the harms of hate speech are negotiable or peripheral.
The prosecution’s decision to resolve this matter through a conditional sentence – while staying the more serious hate‑propaganda charges – creates the appearance that administrative convenience, delay concerns, and anticipated litigation complexity were given greater weight than the community’s legitimate expectation that such offences be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This perception matters. Public confidence in the administration of justice depends not only on fair process but on the visible willingness of prosecutors to pursue accountability where the evidence supports it.
In this case, Moore’s extensive, dehumanizing, and explicitly antisemitic communications warranted a robust prosecutorial response. The decision to truncate the prosecution, despite the gravity and persistence of the conduct, risks undermining trust among Jewish Canadians and other vulnerable communities who rely on the justice system to respond decisively to hate‑motivated wrongdoing. Vigorous prosecution is not merely punitive – it affirms the equal dignity of targeted groups and reinforces the principle that hate‑propaganda laws exist to protect the public, not to be bargained away for procedural convenience.
It is hardly surprising that the accused quickly took to social media to mock the inconsequential sentence he received.
Conclusion
This case underscores the necessity for dedicated Hate Crime Prosecution Units across the country that are experienced and trained in hate propaganda offences, bias, prejudice, and hate-motivated offences and the entirety of legal remedies available to combat hate crime. Robust prosecutorial directives that prohibit the withdrawal or stay of Attorney General consent offences except in exceptional circumstances must also be employed.
ALCCA remains committed to advocating for consistent, principled enforcement of Canada’s hate propaganda provisions and to ensuring that the justice system’s response to antisemitism reflects both the seriousness of the harm and the expectations of the communities most affected.
-30-
About the Authors
Rochelle Direnfeld is ALCCA’s Senior Criminal Counsel. She was called to the Ontario bar in 1990 and has served in the Ontario Public Service for over 32 years as an assistant crown attorney, deputy crown attorney, crown counsel, and finally as Deputy Director for Toronto Crown Attorneys in the Criminal Law Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Rochelle retired from public service at the end of 2023. During her career, she prosecuted a wide variety of Criminal Code cases in the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Rochelle is also the Chair of the Canadian Criminal Law Working Group, a national initiative bringing together leading criminal lawyers to strengthen the legal response to antisemitic hate crimes and support victims across Canada.
She has also been selected to join the Toronto Police Service Board’s Jewish Community Advisory Table, an initiative aimed at strengthening dialogue and collaboration between the Jewish community and the Toronto Police Service on issues of community safety and policing.
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.