Latest news with #OntarioCourtofJustice
National Post
6 hours ago
- Politics
- National Post
Man planning to bomb Toronto synagogues 'to kill as many Jews as possible' gets house arrest as punishment
A man who said he planned on bombing every synagogue in Toronto to 'to kill as many Jews as possible' was sentenced to house arrest Monday after a sentencing hearing that heard of the terror and fear his vivid threats caused. Article content Waisuddin Akbari, 41, was ordered to stay at home for 60 days, followed by three years of probation, after voicing clear, hate-filled threats last year. Article content Article content The 'light sentence' shows the urgent need to reform Canada's hate crime laws, said Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, a director with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. Article content 'At a time of rampant antisemitism in Canada and elsewhere, it sends an alarming message that threats to slaughter Jews and bomb synagogues may be met with leniency. That is extremely disappointing and profoundly unsettling for our community,' Kirzner-Roberts said after Akbari's sentencing. Article content The court heard community impact statements from five Jewish community groups that outlined a deep sense of fear and despair as news of the threats spread. Article content 'The result of the unprecedented rise in antisemitism has left a palpable dread hanging over the community. This atmosphere of despair is only amplified by the actions of Mr. Akbari,' Richard Robertson, a director with B'nai Brith Canada told court at the sentencing hearing. Article content 'Jewish Canadians did not and do not feel safe in their own communities. The constant threat of attack has left members of the community in perpetual fear for their wellbeing and has led to members of the community questioning their future as Canadians.' Article content Article content Edward Prutsch, judge at the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket, north of Toronto, defended his decision in his reasons for sentencing. Article content Article content 'It is important to be clear about what Mr. Akbari is — and is not — being sentenced for. He is not being sentenced for taking any material steps to act on the threats he made. There is no evidence before me of the collection of weapons, explosives, maps, planning or coordination. Article content 'Indeed, following his arrest, police conducted extensive checks and searches on Mr. Akbari to ensure the safety of the community was not still at risk. Mr. Akbari's guilt is based on empty threats he communicated to a stranger, mistakenly assuming (he) would be sympathetic to Akbari's own warped and hateful worldview. There was no effort to publicize his threats beyond the conversation,' Prutschi wrote. Article content 'That is not to say that the threats were harmless. Mr. Akbari's threats were clearly motivated by bias, prejudice and hate towards Israelis and Jews. … Hate-based threats are not just words, they are the gasoline upon which even more serious offences burn. Where hate is normalized, harm follows.'
Edmonton Journal
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Man planning to bomb Toronto synagogues 'to kill as many Jews as possible' gets house arrest as punishment
A man who said he planned on bombing every synagogue in Toronto to 'to kill as many Jews as possible' was sentenced to house arrest Monday after a sentencing hearing that heard of the terror and fear his vivid threats caused. Article content Waisuddin Akbari, 41, was ordered to stay at home for 60 days, followed by three years of probation, after voicing clear, hate-filled threats last year. Article content Article content Article content The 'light sentence' shows the urgent need to reform Canada's hate crime laws, said Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, a director with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. Article content 'At a time of rampant antisemitism in Canada and elsewhere, it sends an alarming message that threats to slaughter Jews and bomb synagogues may be met with leniency. That is extremely disappointing and profoundly unsettling for our community,' Kirzner-Roberts said after Akbari's sentencing. Article content The court heard community impact statements from five Jewish community groups that outlined a deep sense of fear and despair as news of the threats spread. Article content 'The result of the unprecedented rise in antisemitism has left a palpable dread hanging over the community. This atmosphere of despair is only amplified by the actions of Mr. Akbari,' Richard Robertson, a director with B'nai Brith Canada told court at the sentencing hearing. Article content Article content 'Jewish Canadians did not and do not feel safe in their own communities. The constant threat of attack has left members of the community in perpetual fear for their wellbeing and has led to members of the community questioning their future as Canadians.' Article content Article content Edward Prutsch, judge at the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket, north of Toronto, defended his decision in his reasons for sentencing. Article content 'It is important to be clear about what Mr. Akbari is — and is not — being sentenced for. He is not being sentenced for taking any material steps to act on the threats he made. There is no evidence before me of the collection of weapons, explosives, maps, planning or coordination. Article content 'Indeed, following his arrest, police conducted extensive checks and searches on Mr. Akbari to ensure the safety of the community was not still at risk. Mr. Akbari's guilt is based on empty threats he communicated to a stranger, mistakenly assuming (he) would be sympathetic to Akbari's own warped and hateful worldview. There was no effort to publicize his threats beyond the conversation,' Prutschi wrote.
Global News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Global News
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Story continues below advertisement Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. Story continues below advertisement 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Story continues below advertisement Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. Story continues below advertisement 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.'
Winnipeg Free Press
4 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Law experts, observers raise questions as Ontario adds virtual courtroom restrictions
Ontario's lower courts are introducing restrictions on who can attend proceedings virtually after what they describe as an escalation of interruptions, a move that law experts and observers say raises questions about transparency. The Ontario Court of Justice released a new policy last week that would stop observers from accessing court proceedings online unless they receive authorization from the judge or justice of peace overseeing the case. Those interested in attending court cases are encouraged to show up in person, the policy says. It does not apply to proceedings at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lower court attributes the move to a rise in deliberate disruptions of court proceedings referred to as 'Zoom bombings,' which is when participants disturb a virtual call with inappropriate content or messages. 'These disruptions are an impermissible attack on the integrity of the justice system and the administration of justice,' an interim policy notice said, adding that they often cause delays and can have negative effects for participants, court staff and jurists. Boris Bytensky, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says changes to the observer policy were needed because of the 'despicable acts of disruption' caused by certain attendees in virtual courts. 'This is the only way to ensure that proceedings that are conducted by Zoom and bring the significant benefits to the system and to the parties that virtual proceedings offer are free from any unacceptable interference,' Bytensky said in an emailed statement. But some experts warn that the policy could be a step back when it comes to openness. Virtual court hearings on Zoom were first adopted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic so court processes could continue amid government-mandated physical distancing rules. The continued use of videoconferencing technology in courtrooms since then has created a level of access people now expect, complicating the decision to change the policy, said Teresa Scassa, law professor at the University of Ottawa. 'At this point, the meaning of open courts or what is an open court has changed, and now you're taking away something that's there,' she said in an interview. While the new policy says physical attendance is still on the table, that is not an option for everyone, Scassa said. People with disabilities, those who don't drive and anyone who lives far away from courts do not always have the option to attend in person, she said. 'I have some sympathy for the challenges the courts are dealing with. But I do have some questions about whether the route that they've chosen is really the route that best respects the open court principles,' said Scassa. A small number of court proceedings only take place virtually. To observe these cases, the court says people need to request permission by emailing the court's communications officer — the same contact that media use to request access to virtual proceedings. Scassa said she has questions about how judges will decide who should and shouldn't get access: 'Does everybody get permission? Who gets denied permission? Is there some hierarchy?' The Ontario Court of Justice did not respond to a request for more information about the authorization process before deadline. Avid court observer Jenny Pelland said the court's new policy isn't surprising, as they've witnessed Zoom bombings many times over the past few years, especially in high-profile cases. 'I've seen some where it's been very graphic,' Pelland said in an interview, adding that the disruptions often display violent or pornographic content. Since the observer policy was announced, Pelland said courts have already been applying the rules differently, with some posting notices in the Zoom waiting room that public access is banned and others allowing access but requiring attendees to provide their full legal name or have their camera turned off. Such differences are not novel, with Pelland saying they've noticed limitations on access even in cases when they reached out to a judge or court clerk for permission in advance. 'For some courts in Ottawa, it's been almost impossible to log in for the past few months,' Pelland said. 'Some judges don't allow observers at all and it's not something new.' Alyssa King, associate professor of law at Queen's University, said understaffing is already a concern in Ontario courts, and adding more administrative burden for judges will cause inconsistencies in the way policies are applied across the province. 'It's not because anybody is acting in bad faith or trying to prevent the public from accessing the court,' she said. 'But they are people with a big workload and sometimes very high stress decisions that they need to make quickly … so any time you add to what they have to do administratively, that's tough.' A different process is still followed to allow access to virtual courts for victims and complainants. The court says they should get in touch with their local Crown attorney's office or victim witness assistance program. Jasminder Sekhon, director of community engagement, EDI and policy at Victim Services Toronto, said the court should consider updating its policies on that process to make sure it is more accessible and survivor-informed. 'Not just the victims should be able to apply, but also people should be able to apply on their behalf,' Sekhon said, adding that people who support survivors should also be considered to receive virtual access. For Linda McCurdy, a criminal defence lawyer based in Windsor, Ont., adding an extra step to prevent disruptions is a good way to preserve the integrity of the courts. 'I barely notice people in the court, but you really notice people on Zoom when they're doing stuff,' said McCurdy, adding that people tend to forget about formalities when calling in from their own homes. 'If you want to come and watch the proceedings, come to the court, come sit in the court. That's the way it's always been.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
