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 – Evidence – Admissibility – Charge to jury – Whether Crown could adduce evidence previously ruled inadmissible to rebut evidence of good character and to challenge accused’s credibility – Whether charge to jury on actus reus of the offence was legally correct?

Ansad Ansari was convicted by a jury of participating in or contributing to the activities of a terrorist group. He attended a winter campout organized by ringleaders of a terrorist group. The ringleaders intended to select terrorists from among those invited to the camp. There is no direct evidence that the participants were told the true purpose of the camp. The only evidence of Mr. Ansari’s participation in militaristic activities in the camp is his appearance in one video-tape of a group run and testimony he participated in one obstacle course. The ringleaders held ideological discussions and Mr. Ansari attended one discussion but the speaker did not discuss terrorism. Camp activities were videotaped. Mr. Ansari converted the videotape into digital format but testified that he did not view its contents. Mr. Ansari repaired one ringleader’s computer. After his arrest, police seized material from his bedroom that included material downloaded from public websites. Some material glorifies radical Islamic views and terrorism. Some material shows violent acts by Islamic terrorists. In a pre-trial motion, most of the seized material was excluded as too prejudicial. Some of the material was admitted during Mr. Ansari’s cross-examination after the trial judge held that he had claimed good character in his testimony-in-chief. The charge to the jury did not explicitly instruct the jury that the offence under s. 83.18 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, requires proof of conduct that creates a risk of harm beyond de minimis.