Legal Update: Hate Crimes, University and Professional Discipline
- Rochelle Direnfeld
- 2 days ago
- 10 min read
Week of January 12, 2026
Criminal Cases
Nazi Graffiti on Winnipeg Synagogue, a Mosque and Other Locations – Winnipeg
On January 8, 2026, Oliver Didtger Ederhof, 34, was arrested and charged with: 14 Counts of Mischief Under $5,000, by obstructing, interrupting or interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
Investigators from the Winnipeg Police Service’s Major Crimes Division – Hate Crimes Section determined that on January 2, 2026, in the early morning hours, a man attended the Crescentwood neighbourhood of Winnipeg and spray-painted hate-related graffiti and other graffiti on residential properties including garages, houses and vehicles. The Nazi Hakenkreuz was painted on four windowpanes and a wall of Shaarey Zedek Synagogue as well as the entrance of Munson Park and the Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq Community Centre and Masjid.
Police noted that community members provided diligent reporting and video surveillance which assisted police in quickly identifying the suspect.
Ederhof was initially released on an Undertaking.
On January 9, 2026, Ederhof was arrested again. At 11:30 pm that night, Winnipeg police responded to a break-in to a residence in the Crescentwood neighbourhood. Homeowners reported that they were awakened by their security alarm and observed a man standing in their home. They yelled at him and he fled. The man was located by police nearby and taken into custody. Initially, he provided police with a false name but was subsequently identified as Ederhof. He is now also charged with:
Break and Enter with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence,
Public Mischief, and
Fail to Comply with Undertaking
He was detained in custody.
I note that Ederhof has not yet been charged with Bias, Prejudice or Hate Motivated Mischief in relation to the hate-related graffiti on the synagogue and mosque, although Winnipeg police have advised that the investigation is ongoing.
Recently, I completed training for Manitoba prosecutors across the province and some law enforcement personnel on criminal law measures available to combat hate-motivated crimes against all vulnerable groups and on contemporary antisemitism.
Edmonton Hate Crime
On December 20, 2025, the RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), in partnership with the Edmonton Police Service, arrested and charged Esteban Pavez, 35, of Edmonton with: Uttering threats to the Jewish Community, contrary to section 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
Pavez remains in custody and is scheduled to appear at the Alberta Court of Justice in Edmonton via CCTV on January 29, 2026. The criminal investigation is ongoing.
Saskatoon Hate Crime – Additional Charges Laid
Last week, I wrote about the arrest of Brandon Taylor Moore, 45 of Saskatoon on charges of public incitement of hatred and unsafe storage of a firearm. Posts on Moore’s X account were replete with antisemitic conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. B’nai Brith Canada filed complaints with the Saskatoon Police Service and the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission regarding Moore’s conduct.
Additional charges have now been added, both of which, unlike the original charges, required the personal consent of the Attorney General. They are:
Wilful Promotion of Hatred; and
Wilful Promotion of Antisemitism (Holocaust condonation, denial, or downplaying)
The Saskatchewan Attorney General moved quickly to provide his consent to the new charges, for which he and the Saskatoon Police Service should be commended.
As always, we will continue to follow this case and report on any developments.
Non-Criminal Legal Decisions
Vancouver Island University Suspension Case
In Kishawi v. Vancouver Island University, a recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, the suspension of a student for two years by Vancouver Island University (VIU) was upheld by the court. It was alleged that, while engaged in “expressive conduct in support of Palestinian rights,” Sara Kishawi breached the Student Code of Conduct by:
Entering Building 255 and disrupting the learning and working environment, including causing damage to VIU property and affixing harassing signage;
Entering an employee-only area in Building 305 and causing damage to VIU property and affixing harassing signage;
Being part of a group of individuals who accessed the roof of Building 300 to hang a banner, thereby “endangering the safety of any individual” and “refusing reasonable requests of authorized employees” and
Being part of a group of three individuals who brought a ladder to access the roof of Building 300, climbing that ladder to an unsafe portion of the roof outside the patio railing and close to the edge of the roof, unfurling the banner and re-hanging it over the stairway to the breezeway, thereby “endangering the safety of any individual”.
The court found that the student engaged in a pattern of wilful disregard for the standards of behaviour outlined in the Student Conduct Code and flouted the authority of the security manager. The court also found that the student engaged in “targeted harassment of a university employee” and that she “created a work environment that felt unsafe” for the university employees.
Finally, in response to submissions that challenged the decision to suspend the student based on freedom of expression guarantees, the court confirmed that controlling and regulating the conduct of students and related discipline does not attract Charter scrutiny and that the university has full autonomy to make policies about student conduct without the intervention of government.
This decision is reported at 2025 BCSC 2487 (CanLII).
UK Physicians Case
In the UK, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service imposed an interim suspension from practising medicine on a physician pending a full hearing on the merits because of her antisemitic social media posts.
This decision serves as an important precedent for similar complaints against professionals in Canada.
In February 2025, the General Medical Council (GMC), the independent regulator of physicians in the UK, received an anonymous complaint regarding the fitness to practise of Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan. The allegations were that she posted multiple statements on social media, primarily, X:
Promoting the trope of Jewish supremacy in the UK, particularly Jewish control of government and the media, and Jewish privilege;
Promoting Jewish “exceptionalism” in the media coverage of the recent attack on the Heaton Park synagogue;
Publishing imagery redolent of historical ‘blood libel’ claims against Jews;
Holding Jews, in general, responsible for the acts of the Israeli government and military;
Celebrating and glorifying terrorist attacks on civilians including those of October 7, 2023;
Mocking civilian victims of terrorist attacks;
Supporting the use of violence and supporting or justifying terrorist attacks against civilians;
Explicitly supporting proscribed organizations such as Hamas and Palestine Action, which is a criminal offence, and which has enabled many others to commit offences by sharing her content;
Doxxing colleagues in the National Health Service (NHS) for raising concerns about her;
Referring to an NHS hospital as a ‘Jewish supremacy cesspit’;
Denying, minimizing or holding Jews responsible for the Holocaust;
Denying the existence of or minimizing antisemitism by taking a literal interpretation of the word rather than the widely accepted modern-day definitions, for example by saying that Ashkenazi Jews cannot be victims of antisemitism;
Denying the right of the state of Israel to exist and calling for Jews to leave the area (‘decolonization’); and
Demonizing, or expressing and encouraging hatred towards, Jews in general, their history and their way of life.
After reviewing the posts, the Tribunal determined that there were concerns regarding Dr. Aladwan’s fitness to practise medicine, necessitating an interim order of suspension, in the public interest.
In particular, The Tribunal held that there was a high risk of repetition, given that she continued to post material online over a long period of time, despite the GMC’s advice that she should “…consider how she expresses her views on social media and otherwise, in particular how her comments, including Nazi/Holocaust comparisons, could be viewed as antisemitic or otherwise grossly offensive.”
The Tribunal noted that Dr. Aladwan denied any allegations of antisemitism or racism and that she described many of her communications as political speech and debate.
The Tribunal found that Dr. Aladwan may not have sufficient insight into the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact they may have on public confidence in her as a doctor, and in the profession, if later found to be proven.
The Tribunal also noted that there was no information to suggest that any patient complaints were raised or that any patients were harmed, but it was concerned that her conduct may impact on patient confidence in both her and the profession and that patients may be discouraged from seeking treatment from her.
UK High Court of Justice Upholds Revocation of Solicitor’s Licence
In Farrukh Najeeb Husain v. Solicitors Regulation Authority, the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division in London, England upheld on appeal, the disbarment of a solicitor as a result of his antisemitic social media posts. Again, this decision may be instructive in the Canadian context.
One of the grounds of appeal argued by the appellant was based on the Tribunal’s reliance on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in its decision. He also argued that his posts were not antisemitic, but were instead, protected political speech.
The posts in question compared the state of Israel to Nazi Germany, held Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel, and advanced many antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories.
In upholding the revocation of Husain’s licence, the court held that most of the IHRA working definition’s examples of antisemitism are useful and serve to illustrate some of the ways in which hatred or hostility towards Jews has historically been expressed. The court did caution (with particular emphasis on examples 7¹ and 8²) that the examples in the IHRA working definition were regarded as “contemporary examples” in 2016 and were not intended to set the parameters of legitimate political debate for all time.
When utilizing the IHRA examples, courts must be aware that whether a particular criticism of Israel’s conduct falls within the bounds of legitimate political debate will depend on the facts – and the facts will change. Depending on the language used and the context, the speech may be antisemitic. Language and context should be the court’s focus.
The court noted that, when considering comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel, such statements are likely to be incendiary and hurtful, but on their own, are not likely to take them out of the realm of protected speech.
However, Nazi language or imagery, used as a taunt which deliberately references and weaponizes the most painful events in Jewish history, can reasonably be regarded as antisemitic.
The court concluded that the best way to assess whether a statement or conduct is antisemitic is to ask whether it would be regarded as such to an observer with a reasonable understanding of the main historical and cultural manifestations of antisemitism, and in this respect reference to the IHRA working definition and examples (as well as other cases that have interpreted it) may assist.
Commentary: Although I do not agree with all aspects of this decision, it reinforces some important messages that have often been lost in the Canadian context. First and most importantly, the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples are helpful in providing non-binding guidance to participants in the justice system.
Secondly, contrary to those who reject IHRA, the definition explicitly states that the examples could (not must), taking into account the entire context, be illustrations of contemporary antisemitism.
Context is everything and the conduct must be reviewed as a whole, not in isolation. This is precisely how we, at ALCCA, deliver our training to police and prosecutors in utilizing the IHRA working definition in their work.
I would add, however, that the court may require the assistance of an expert on contemporary antisemitism, such as was utilized in the recent Ontario case of R. v. Razaali Bahadur, to understand how antisemitism may be manifested.
The court stated that comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel are likely to be incendiary and hurtful, but on their own, are not likely to take them out of the realm of protected speech. This assertion might be regarded as deeply troubling because our community has witnessed, all too often, the use of Nazi imagery to demonize Israel, often in the context of allegations of genocide. The court was, in effect, stating that such allegations, on their own, are unlikely to amount to unlawful speech, however odious.
But the court’s qualification that such comparisons “on their own” are unlikely to amount to unlawful speech should not be ignored or dismissed lightly. Speech that labels all Jews, all Zionists or all Israelis, without distinction, as genocidal, racist or evil is undoubtedly antisemitic, and undeserving of legal protection. Speech that holds Canadian Jews collectively responsible for the events in the Middle East is undoubtedly antisemitic, and equally undeserving of legal protection.
As the court acknowledged, Nazi language or imagery, when used as a taunt which deliberately references and weaponizes the most painful events in Jewish history, can reasonably be regarded as antisemitic.
Ultimately, the court upheld the solicitor’s disbarment based on his antisemitic social media posts, an important reminder that such speech is antithetical to the role and responsibilities of a solicitor.
--
Endnotes
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
About the Author
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 a 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, Rochelle 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 focused a large part of her career on youth criminal justice, developing policy as well as training and lecturing crowns, the defence bar, the judiciary, and the police. Since 2018, Rochelle has been committed to battling hate-motivated offences and has sat on the Attorney General’s Hate Crime Working Group, providing legal advice to crown counsel and police on hate crimes. In the aftermath of October 7, Rochelle returned to work with the Hate Crime Working Group at Crown Law Office - Criminal until November 2024. Rochelle also serves as vice-chair of the Board of Directors of BOOST Child and Youth Advocacy Centre, a wrap-around agency serving children and youth who have been victims of abuse, as well as their families.