Case Comment R

Draft: Not for citationThe Terrorism Offences and the Charter: A Comment on R. v. Khawaja Kent Roach* Introduction The recent decision by Justice Rutherford of the Ontario Superior Court in R. v. 1Khawaja produced a mixed verdict on the constitutionality of key provisions in the 2Anti-Terrorism Act enacted by Parliament at the end of the 2001. Justice Rutherford’s decision made headlines by holding that the political and religious motive requirement in the definition of terrorist activities constituted an unjustified violation of freedom of expression, religion and association and should be struck down and severed from the rest of the definition. The other parts of Justice Rutherford’s decision were, however, equally important because he rejected arguments that the offences were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and that they had constitutionally inadequate fault requirements. In this case comment, I will first outline the various charges faced by Mr. Khawaja including their complex legislative framework. I will next outline Justice Rutherford’s rulings on 1) vagueness and overbreadth, 2) fault and 3) religious and political motive. Finally, I will critically evaluate Justice Rutherford’s conclusions in light of the jurisprudence and possible future judicial and legislative developments of Canadian anti-terrorism law. I. The Terrorism Charges and their Complex Legislative Framework Mohammed Momim Khawaja faces multiple charges in ...