Hate Crime & Legal Update: Criminal Law Developments in Canada, Australia and Boulder, Colorado
Updated: 15 minutes ago
We are seeing significant increases in charges laid in Canada for crimes targeting the Jewish and Israeli communities and in convictions against the perpetrators. There is much progress still to be made to ensure robust and consistent enforcement of the criminal law.
In March 2025, ALCCA, CIJA, and the Canadian Jewish Law Association created the Criminal Law Working Group, a cadre of experienced criminal lawyers dedicated to addressing antisemitic hate crimes across the country by providing legal expertise and support for victims to ensure hate-motivated offences are properly addressed under the law. The Group is led by Rochelle Direnfeld, ALCCA’s Senior Criminal Counsel. She and ALCCA’s Chair, Mark Sandler, provide detailed weekly analyses of relevant criminal law cases, which are published on ALCCA’s website.
This special report highlights a number of recent criminal law developments in Canada and internationally. Readers can use the clickable table of contents below to jump directly to the sections of this update that interest them most.
Table of Contents
Part I: Canada
Terrorism Peace Bond Proceedings Against a Young Person in Fort McMurray
Sentencing in Shootings at Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto (BAYT) and Shaarei Shomayim Synagogues
Sentencing in the Shooting at Yeshiva Gedola in Côte-des-Neiges, Montreal
R. v. Dequan Fuller Sentencing – Important Toronto Hate Crime Precedent
Part I – Canada
Hate Propaganda Charges Laid in Winnipeg
On October 30, 2026, the Winnipeg Police Service, in consultation with Manitoba Prosecutions, charged Michael Ryan Wallbank, 42, with the following:
Wilful Promotion of Hatred x 4; and
Wilful Promotion of Hatred – Hate Symbols
The latter offence – which focuses exclusively on the use of Nazi or terror-related hate symbols – was recently proclaimed in force as part of Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act). Both offences require the consent of the Attorney General.
The allegations are: On September 8, 2026, the Winnipeg Police Service received multiple complaints from community members regarding hate-motivated signs and a hate-motivated symbol (Nazi Hakenkreuz) displayed in the window of a residence in the Polo Park area.
The Major Crimes Unit initiated a hate crime investigation into the incident and identified Wallbank as the suspect. On the evening of October 30, 2026, investigators, with the assistance of the Tactical Support Team, executed a search warrant at the accused’s residence and took him into custody. Wallbank was detained in custody.
We are grateful to the Winnipeg Police Service and Manitoba Prosecutions for their quick response, as well as to the Attorney General for an expeditious consent to prosecution. Manitoba Prosecutions’ Guideline on Hate-Motivated Crime states that “Hate motivated crimes are serious offences and there is a strong public interest in their prosecution” and “in seeing that the Manitoba Prosecution Service assesses and handles these matters effectively.”
In December 2025, ALCCA provided training on all forms of hate crimes to Manitoba prosecutors, Winnipeg Police Service and dedicated RCMP Hate Crime officers. That training has been approved and adopted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
It remains critically important that officers and prosecutors across the country are trained on the full range of legal measures available to combat hate, including the new provisions of Bill C-9 and on how contemporary antisemitism is manifested.
Arrest at Bathurst and Sheppard
On Sunday, November 8, 2026, at approximately 12:10 p.m., Toronto Police arrested Diana Bosco, 40, of Toronto, and charged her with:
Fail to Comply with Undertaking
It is alleged that Bosco was demonstrating at the corner of Bathurst and Sheppard, when she was recognized by a police officer from a previous demonstration. Bosco remains subject to conditions of release relating to a charge of obstructing a peace officer laid at the 2026 Walk with Israel. Those conditions require her to “not be within 500 m of the intersection of Bathurst St. and Sheppard Ave. West, Toronto”.
Bosco was taken into custody and held overnight for a bail hearing. She was subsequently released on her own recognizance in the amount of $1,000 the next day with the earlier condition that she not be within 500 m of Bathurst and Sheppard and:
not engage in protest-related activity on private property EXCEPT with the express permission of the property owner or leaseholder;
not to engage in any protest-related activity intended to prevent entry onto or exit from private property; and
not to engage in any protest-related activity which obstructs public roadways or pedestrian accesses/thoroughfares/sidewalks.
Soon afterwards, Sundays4Palestine posted online that it will no longer be protesting weekly at Bathurst and Sheppard but will move its efforts to another as yet undisclosed destination. However, while Sundays4Palestine has announced it will no longer protest at Bathurst and Sheppard, GTA4Palestine has indicated that it intends to continue demonstrating at the intersection.
Terrorism Peace Bond Proceedings Against a Young Person in Fort McMurray
On October 26, 2026, Alberta RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) arrested a 17-year-old Alberta young person for a terrorism-related offence and has commenced proceedings against them by way of a terrorism peace bond, pursuant to section 810.011 of the Criminal Code – Fear of terrorism offence.
A terrorism peace bond is a court order intended to prevent a terrorism offence. A person, usually a police officer, who has reasonable grounds to fear that someone may commit such an offence can, with the Attorney General’s consent, ask a provincial court judge to require that person to appear in court. If the evidence satisfies the judge that the fear is based on reasonable grounds, the judge may require the person to enter into a recognizance – a legally enforceable commitment to keep the peace and be of good behaviour – for up to 12 months. The judge may also require sureties: people who pledge money or other security to support that commitment. The court may impose reasonable conditions, including:
to participate in a treatment program;
to wear an electronic monitoring device;
to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
to not possess firearms or any other weapon;
to remain within a specified geographical area; and
to surrender their passport.
In February 2026, the Alberta RCMP began an investigation into the online correspondence between an online user and users affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS, a designated terrorist entity in Canada and internationally. As a result of the investigation, the young person was arrested.
Pursuant to section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as being dealt with under the YCJA.
The young person was released with conditions and was scheduled to appear at the Fort McMurray Provincial Court in early November. The terrorism peace bond process, a preventative measure, does not foreclose the laying of terrorism charges where appropriate.
R. v. J.B.: Sentencing in Shootings at Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto (BAYT) and Shaarei Shomayim Synagogues
On November 10, 2026, Justice Michael Townsend, of the Ontario Court of Justice delivered a significant sentencing decision recognizing the profound and far-reaching impact on the Jewish community of shootings at two Toronto-area synagogues.
On March 6 and 7, 2026, J.B., a young person, participated in coordinated shootings at Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto (BAYT) in Vaughan and Shaarei Shomayim in Toronto, approximately 17 minutes apart. In total, 22 rounds were fired. Although no one was physically injured, the attacks were particularly disturbing because they were directed at places of worship and occurred when maintenance workers were present at the BAYT and a youth group had recently left the synagogue.
The judgment is important not only for its recognition of the harm suffered by the two congregations, but also for its express acknowledgment that the offences affected the Jewish community across Canada.
The Court recognized that a synagogue is much more than a building; it is a centre of religious observance, education, communal gathering and support. It is where people celebrate important life events, teach their children, find comfort and maintain their connection to Jewish life. The attacks therefore struck at the heart of communal identity and security. As Justice Townsend observed: “For many people in the community the synagogue is no longer a place of safety. J.B. has taken that from them.”
This finding captures the central harm caused by the offences: the destruction of the sense of safety that should accompany attendance at a place of worship.
The impact extended into the ordinary practice of Jewish life. Congregants and clergy were left considering where they could hide, whether windows and walls offered protection, and how they could contact police in an emergency. Security measures – including locked doors, searches of bags, surveillance and armed guards – became increasingly necessary. Even attendance at services and children's programs could no longer be approached in the same way.
The consequences were not confined to those who witnessed the shootings or belonged to the targeted congregations. The attacks created fear and insecurity among Jewish people who understood that their own synagogues and institutions could also be targeted. Justice Townsend expressly acknowledged that all Jewish Canadians were affected by the offences and that their impact should be understood on that broader basis. This is an important recognition of the collective nature of attacks directed at Jewish institutions. The victims were not simply the congregants, clergy and employees of two synagogues; the offences were experienced as an attack on the wider Jewish Community.
The Court also recognized the financial and institutional consequences. The congregations faced the costs of repairs and enhanced security, including reinforced windows and doors, cameras and other protective measures. More broadly, all Jewish institutions must now devote resources to security that would otherwise support religious, educational and community activities.
ALCCA coordinated a Joint Community Impact Statement (CIS) for the Court’s consideration which included statements from itself, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Simon Wiesenthal Centre Canada, B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation, and the Toronto Board of Rabbis. His Honour included several quotations from the Joint CIS in his judgment.
The Court considered the offences against the backdrop of increasing antisemitism and violence directed at Jewish communities and referred to Statistics Canada figures for 2025 (provided by ALCCA) recording 4,708 police-reported hate crimes, including 1,115 motivated by religion. Of those religiously motivated offences, 788 targeted the Jewish community, representing 71 percent of all religiously-motivated hate crimes. His Honour expressly took judicial notice of the increase in antisemitic violence across Canada since October 7, 2023, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging this reality:
I too am prepared to take judicial notice of the increasing levels of antisemitic violence inflicted on Jewish communities across Canada in recent years. These instances of violence, threats, vandalism and mischief have increased exponentially since October 7th, 2023, and have had profound impact on the feelings of safety and security of Jewish communities in York Region, across Ontario, and across the country. Judgments released by myself, and by my brother and sister jurists locally and across Ontario are reflective of this increase in hate-fueled violence toward many communities in which we preside. See: R. v. MacDonald, [2026] O.J. No. 2597 (CJ), R. v. Aspenlieder, [2026] O.J. No. 201 (SCJ), R. v. Akbari, [2025] O.J. No. 3350 (CJ) at paragraph 17, and R. v. VanHartsKamp, [2025] O.J. No. 2838 (CJ), R. v. Gobin, supra, and R. v. Kroeplin, [2021] O.J. No. 188 to name but a few. This is the second case in as many years I have heard in which violence and hatred toward Jewish people was the focus. I read the news, I listen to the radio, I watch TV, and I sit locally in this jurisdiction. Instances of violence toward Jewish communities is on the rise, the levels of violence are increasing, and that reality needs to be judicially acknowledged formally. It needs to be acknowledged so that it can be stopped.
The Court did not view the shootings as isolated incidents whose consequences could be measured solely by the physical damage caused. It understood them within the broader climate of antisemitism and the resulting fear experienced by Jewish Canadians.
The prosecution did not seek a formal finding under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code that the offences were motivated by bias, prejudice or hate in light of the evidence that J.B. was primarily motivated by money and by the opportunity to make contacts for future “jobs”. There was no evidence that he was personally motivated by hatred for Jews.
Nevertheless, the Court accepted and gave meaningful consideration to the substantial impact of the offences on the Jewish community.
This distinction is important: A court can recognize and assess the actual and collective harm caused to a community without necessarily making a formal finding that the offender was personally motivated by bias, prejudice or hate under s. 718.2(a)(i). The impact of an offence and the offender's motivation are related, but distinct, considerations.
J.B. was 17 years old at the time of the offences, four days shy of his eighteenth birthday. In imposing the maximum sentence permissible for these offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), the Court noted:
In order to effect the principles of sentencing within the YCJA through the imposition of a just sanction, one which is meaningful to the offender, supports rehabilitation and reintegration, one which recognizes the seriousness of the offence and has the protection of the public in mind, the only appropriate sentence for J.B. and his actions is the maximum allowable sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The sentence imposed was two years of custody followed by one year of community supervision.¹ Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition for two years and a DNA order.
R. v. J.B. is an important decision for its clear recognition of the distinctive and far-reaching harm caused by attacks on Jewish places of worship and provides strong support for the proposition that sentencing courts should recognize the collective impact of offences directed at a community and its institutions. That recognition is available even where the prosecution does not seek, or cannot establish, a formal aggravating finding under s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. This is especially apt in today’s climate of “gun for hire” shootings of Jewish institutions. The distinction between proving an offender's motivation and recognizing the harm caused should remain clear, but neither should the absence of the former prevent meaningful consideration of the latter.
Justice Townsend's concluding words addressing the Canadian Jewish Community directly are particularly impactful:
We see you. We see the impact that the rise in violence and hate has had on your and other communities like yours all across Canada.
Sentencing in the Shooting at Yeshiva Gedola in Côte-des-Neiges, Montreal
On Monday, November 9, 2026, Justice Pierre Labelle, of the Court of Quebec, delivered his sentencing judgment in R. v. Abdirazak Mahdi Ahmed. The accused had entered a guilty plea to one count of discharging a firearm on September 9, 2026.
On Nov. 12, 2023, Mahdi Ahmed and an accomplice pulled up to the Yeshiva Gedola school on Deacon St. in Côte-des-Neiges, around 5 a.m. in a stolen vehicle. Mahdi Ahmed used a 9 mm firearm to fire shots toward one of the school’s doors before the pair drove away.
Justice Labelle sentenced Mahdi Ahmed to 66 months in custody. Considering pre-sentence custody, he will serve an additional 21 months followed by three years of probation.
The Court considered both victim and community impact evidence, tendered by CIJA, in imposing the sentence, noting:
It was a place consecrated to the education, the security and protection of children. The attack was perceived by the community, including the parents and the students and their families, as an attack on the Jewish community…
Acts of hate, attacks on schools or places of worship have a concrete and lasting effect on the whole of the Jewish community.
While there was no evidence of bias, prejudice or hate motivation on the part of Mahdi Ahmed personally, (as this was presumably another act of “gun for hire” directed at the Canadian Jewish Community), the Court nevertheless considered the broader impact of the shooting on the Canadian Jewish Community.
R. v. Dequan Fuller Sentencing – Important Toronto Hate Crime Precedent
Overview
On June 30, 2026, Dequan Waybrant Fuller was convicted of an assault that took place on September 1, 2024. The victim’s vehicle, displaying an Israeli flag in its rear passenger window, was stopped at Bathurst Street and College Street in Toronto. Fuller and an accomplice approached and tried to remove the flag. When the victim got out and told them to leave, Fuller punched him in the face.
On November 4, 2026, Justice Philip Downes of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Fuller. The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence; the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation. The Court imposed a 10-month conditional sentence – six months of house arrest followed by four months of an 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew – and 12 months of probation.
The decision is significant for its unequivocal finding that the assault was hate-motivated and its recognition of the broader harm antisemitic conduct causes the Jewish community.
Hate motivation under s. 718.2(a)(i)
Section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code requires a sentencing court to treat as an aggravating factor, evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on, among other grounds, national or ethnic origin or religion. Justice Downes found this aggravating circumstance proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that Fuller and the victim were strangers, with no prior history or exchange. Fuller’s initial conduct was directed not at the victim but at the Israeli flag displayed on his vehicle. The attempt to remove the flag occurred seconds before the assault. The Court found the two acts inextricably connected: the flag was not incidental, but the catalyst for the confrontation.
Describing the Israeli flag as an archetypal symbol of national origin, the judge concluded that the assault was manifestly tied to the attack on that symbol. The finding did not depend on explicit slurs or an admission of hateful intent; the surrounding circumstances and the offender’s conduct established the motivation.
The Court rejected the characterization of the incident as an ordinary confrontation between people with opposing political views. Vigorous political disagreement is a protected Canadian value, but it does not excuse violence against someone because of their association with a nation or their identity.
The decision recognizes that, in the circumstances of this case, an attack on a national symbol was also a hate-motivated attack on the person displaying it.
Recognition of community impact
The judgment’s most important contribution may be its express recognition of the broader impact of antisemitic offences.
ALCCA coordinated the preparation of a joint community impact statement on behalf of itself and multiple organizations, including B’nai Brith Canada, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation and Simon Wiesenthal Centre Canada. The judge reflected, in his reasons, that:
“The community impact statements, eloquently and fairly, bring to life the lived experience of Jewish people in Toronto, especially over the last three years.”
The judge added that, in his judicial experience, attacks on people and places motivated by antisemitism and contempt for displays of support for, or alignment with, the State of Israel were increasing in Toronto and Ontario. The joint community impact statement enclosed and referred to Statistics Canada and Toronto Police Service hate-crime statistics. The defence unsuccessfully sought to have this evidence excluded. The Court found that these statistics provided unequivocal support for his conclusion.
The Court explicitly found that hate-motivated offences harm more than the immediate victim. An assault may be physically directed at one person yet communicate intimidation and hostility to others who share the identity or association that prompted it. Here, the Court recognized the impact on Jewish people, particularly those who publicly identify with Israel or express support for the State of Israel.
The decision also illustrates the proper role of community impact statements. The offender’s motivation was established beyond a reasonable doubt from the circumstances of the offence. The joint community impact statement and supporting material then helped the Court understand the wider consequences of that conduct and assess the appropriate sentence.
Importantly, the decision should not be read as holding that criticism of Israel or opposition to Israeli government policy is inherently antisemitic. Indeed, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism makes it very clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Instead, the Court’s reasoning concerns hostility expressed through violence towards a person because of their association with Israel.
Denunciation and the offender’s circumstances
The Court held that the offence required clear denunciation. The judge acknowledged Fuller’s significant personal challenges, including childhood trauma, prenatal substance exposure, FASD and ADHD, and related difficulties with impulsivity, decision-making and interpersonal relationships. He accepted that FASD presented lifelong challenges with self-regulation and ameliorated Fuller’s moral culpability to some degree.
Nevertheless, the judge described the assault as “antithetical to the fundamental freedoms that should be enjoyed by everyone in Canada.” A suspended sentence and probation, he concluded, would not adequately denounce the conduct. Rehabilitation and restraint must be balanced against the need for denunciation in such cases. Denunciation also serves to affirm the freedoms and values undermined by the offence.
The Court considered the offender’s record and personal circumstances. Fuller, then 32, had a 2014 conviction for assault causing bodily harm, for which he received an 18-month conditional sentence, and a previous breach of a conditional sentence. The pre-sentence report also identified positive factors: a supportive adoptive family, positive peer relationships, meaningful interests, compliance with previous probation supervision and a willingness to engage in treatment and programming.
The Court imposed a 10-month conditional sentence. It is rare (and subject to potential appellate intervention) for a sentencing judge to exceed the upper range of the sentence proposed by the prosecution. However, in imposing the conditional sentence, the Court also characterized the disposition as a lenient one and indicated that six to eight months' imprisonment also would have been appropriate.
Sentence and rehabilitative conditions
The 10-month conditional sentence included six months of house arrest, followed by four months subject to a curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., along with reporting and territorial restrictions. Fuller was required to participate in assessments, counselling and rehabilitative programs, including mental-health programming and education concerning antisemitism. He was also prohibited from contacting the victim and two other individuals.
The conditional sentence is to be followed by a further 12-month period of probation with continuing conditions. The express requirement for education concerning antisemitism is noteworthy: rehabilitation was directed not only at Fuller’s general behavioural and mental health needs, but also at the prejudice or hostility connected to the offence.
Significance for future cases
In summary, the Fuller decision offers several useful points for future sentencing proceedings involving antisemitic conduct: A hate-motivation finding under s. 718.2(a)(i) may be established by the circumstances and conduct surrounding an offence; explicit slurs or an admission is not essential.
An attack on an Israeli flag may, in its particular context, support a finding that an assault was motivated by hostility based on national origin.
Community impact statements, supported by reliable contextual material, can help a sentencing court understand the broader effects of hate-motivated offences beyond the immediate victim and reinforce the prevalence of such offences.
Denunciation is central where violence undermines fundamental freedoms, including the ability to express national identity and political views without fear of attack.
Rehabilitative conditions can address the specific bias, prejudice or hatred associated with an offence, rather than focusing exclusively on general behavioural needs.
This case represents only one of a series of cases in which ALCCA, in collaboration with other organizations, has produced a joint community impact statement to assist courts in sentencing offenders. These joint community impact statements have been filed or are soon to be filed in a total of 17 cases. We anticipate that the need for these statements will increase exponentially as we see a significant rise in criminal offences targeting Jews and Israelis.
Joint community impact statements are not only innovative and efficient in approach, but they also speak to the capacity for Jewish organizations and our allies to work collaboratively.
Part II: Australia
ALCCA has been consulted by Australia’s Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism on best practices in training police on hate-motivated crimes and on potential criminal legislative reform in Australia. ALCCA’s training modules have been provided to that office to assist in their development of appropriate training and education for police, prosecutors and judges. This has been identified as a priority by Australia’s Special Envoy.
As well, ALCCA recommended that Australia adopt the use of community impact statements in cases of crimes targeting vulnerable communities, including the Australian Jewish community.
Unlike Canada, Australia (whether at the federal, state or territorial levels) currently has no statutory provisions for the introduction of community impact evidence on sentencing.
However, Canadian courts recognized the relevance of community impact statements to sentencing hearings, based on general principles, even prior to their statutory recognition in the Criminal Code.
Based, in part, on our Canadian precedents, we are hopeful that Australia’s Special Envoy will be successful in promoting the introduction of community impact statements in that jurisdiction. This too has been identified as a priority by the Special Envoy in her recently released Priorities and Updated Plan to Combat Antisemitism. The Special Envoy recognized that “community impact statements have proven to be an effective tool in the United Kingdom and Canada.”
As an aside, the special envoy's report should be required reading for everyone in Canada engaged in combatting antisemitism. It provides useful definitions of antisemitism and Zionism, drawing in part on the IHRA Working Definition, identifies four “sources, drivers and facilitators” of antisemitism (Islamic extremism, far-left or issue-motivated antisemitism, far-right antisemitism and modern, progressive antisemitism.) It also outlines the Special Envoy’s priorities in 10 critical areas. Many of these priorities resonate with what we should regard as priorities here in Canada.
Part III: Boulder, Colorado Plea Agreement
We all recall the June 2025 murderous attack in Boulder, Colorado that represented one of a number of worldwide attacks on Jewish community members, including those in Washington, D.C., Manchester, England and Bondi, Australia. In a plea agreement entered into on October 29, 2026, Mohamed Sabry Soliman agreed to plead guilty to 12 violations of the U.S. Code including:
a hate crime resulting in death (one count),
hate crimes involving attempted or actual bodily injury and an attempt to kill (eight counts) and
various explosives offences (three counts).
The parties will jointly recommend a sentence of life imprisonment plus 50 years' imprisonment. Sentencing will take place in early January 2027. Soliman remains in custody.
The facts that formed the basis for the guilty pleas are horrific.
On June 1, 2025, the Boulder chapter of Run for Their Lives, a group that organized walks to raise awareness for hostages then being held in Gaza, held their weekly walk in Boulder. During their walk, they silently held banners, American and Israeli flags, and posters depicting individuals of various nationalities who continued to be held hostage. Mohamed Sabry Soliman lit two Molotov cocktails and threw them at the participants.
These explosives caused permanent and life-threatening injuries to several victims and the death of one woman, who sustained burns to almost half of her body. At least seven others had significant burns to their bodies, including the deceased victim’s husband and an 88-year-old vulnerable victim.
Soliman threw the Molotov cocktails while yelling “Free Palestine.” While doing so, he caught his own clothing on fire. He removed his shirt and a weed sprayer on his back filled with gasoline and then grabbed two more unlit Molotov cocktails from a black tote bin he brought with him. The bin contained at least 14 Molotov cocktails, each filled with gasoline.
Soliman continued to rant against Zionists. Boulder police arrived promptly and arrested him before he could inflict more injuries.
Soliman’s white t-shirt was recovered at the scene. It had the number 1187 written in red Sharpie marker on the front.
Among the items seized from Soliman’s nearby vehicle was a handwritten manifesto in which he defined Zionists as “our enemies until (sic) Jerusalem is liberated and they are expelled from our land.” It described 1187 as the year “Muslims returned and liberated Jerusalem, after 88 years of oppression and persecution.”
Soliman told police that he had planned the attack for a year. In the year leading to the event, he used his iPhone to conduct internet searches related to his hateful ideology and to plan the attack, including searches relating to Zionism and to search for “Zionist communities in Colorado.” He expressed no remorse, explaining that he would do it again if he could and stating, “I burned them all. I killed them all. This was my dream.” Earlier that year, he had been turned down for a concealed handgun permit because a background check revealed he was a “non-immigrant overstay alien.” He was living in Colorado Springs, Colorado with his family, having moved to the United States from Kuwait.
Soliman admitted that he acted wilfully when he attempted to kill and caused bodily injury to seven victims and caused the death of another victim. He also admitted that he acted because of the actual or perceived Israeli national origins and the actual or perceived Jewish religion of the victims, an element of a number of the offences charged.
This is yet another example of a crime – albeit at the most extreme end of the spectrum – involving an attack against “Zionists” (defined by the perpetrator as “anyone supporting the existence of Israel on our land”) that, in reality, represents an attack based on national origin and religion. In this respect, it is no different than the assault in the Fuller decision in Toronto described earlier.
-30-
Endnotes
1. All custodial youth sentences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act are comprised of a custodial portion - usually 2/3 of the sentence, followed by a portion served in the community – usually 1/3 of the sentence).
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 is also a member of 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. He is also the only non-policing member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s Special Purpose Committee on Hate Crimes, serving as its legal expert.