Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law — Sentencing — Applicant sentenced to 14 years in custody for terrorism, with credit of seven years for time spent in pre-sentence custody — Court of Appeal increased Applicant’s sentence to 20 years, with same credit of seven years for pre-sentence custody — Whether the Court of Appeal accorded sufficient deference to the decision of the sentencing judge? — Whether the Court of Appeal treated Applicant’s offence as akin to conspiracy to commit murder? — Whether the Court of Appeal articulated an inappropriate range of sentence? — What sentencing principles apply to terrorism? — Were those principles applied correctly by the sentencing judge in this case?


On May 4, 2009, Mr. Khalid, a member of the so-called “Toronto 18”, entered a guilty plea before Durno J. of the Superior Court of Justice to one count of terrorism. On September 3, 2009, Durno J. sentenced Mr. Khalid to 14 years’ imprisonment, with credit of seven years for time spent in pre-sentence custody. The sentencing judge declined to make an order under s. 743.6(1.2) of the Criminal Code requiring that Mr. Khalid serve one half of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and increased Mr. Khalid’s effective sentence to 20 years, again with credit of seven years for time spent in pre-sentence custody. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not have adequate regard to the sentencing considerations that were demanded by the unique nature of terrorism-related crimes and that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the enormity of Mr. Khalid’s crime and the significant part he played in it. Furthermore, the sentencing judge placed too great an emphasis on rehabilitation in arriving at what he considered to be a fit sentence. While Mr. Khalid’s youth and lack of criminal record were relevant sentencing considerations, such persons were attractive recruits for sophisticated terrorists and therefore those factors had to be viewed differently in terrorism cases. The absence of a mental illness was irrelevant as it did not diminish Mr. Khalid’s level of moral culpability or say anything about his risk of re-offending.