I spent yesterday poring over hundreds of pages of court documents to piece together why Raed Jaser and Chiheb Esseghaier won’t get another day in court. The Supreme Court of Canada quietly closed the book on one of Canada’s most high-profile terrorism cases by refusing to hear their appeal. This effectively upholds their life sentences for plotting to derail a Via Rail passenger train traveling between New York and Toronto.
When the court denies leave to appeal without reasons, as happened Thursday, it leaves observers to connect the dots. The decision marks the end of a legal saga that began over a decade ago with arrests that authorities claimed prevented a “major terrorist attack.”
“This ruling reinforces that our courts take terrorist conspiracies extremely seriously, even when no attack actually occurs,” Leah West, a national security law expert at Carleton University, told me yesterday. “The planning itself constitutes the crime.”
The case against Jaser and Esseghaier first captured headlines in 2013 when the RCMP announced they had foiled a plot targeting a passenger train. The investigation, dubbed Project SMOOTH, involved extensive surveillance and an undercover FBI agent who recorded conversations where the men allegedly discussed their plans.
Court records show that Jaser and Esseghaier were convicted in 2015 on multiple terrorism-related charges, including conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a terrorist group. Esseghaier, who represented himself during the original trial, maintained throughout that he should be judged by the Quran, not Canadian law.
The journey through Canada’s court system has been anything but smooth. In 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, ruling that the jury selection process had been improperly conducted. However, in a significant twist, the Supreme Court later reversed this decision in a separate ruling on jury selection procedures that affected multiple cases, sending Jaser and Esseghaier’s case back to the appeals court to consider their remaining arguments.
Last December, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed those arguments and upheld the convictions. Justice Harvison Young wrote that “the evidence against the appellants was overwhelming” and “there was no miscarriage of justice.”
I spoke with Kerry Pither, who has documented several post-9/11 security cases. “Regardless of the specifics here, we’ve seen a pattern where terrorism prosecutions receive less scrutiny than other serious criminal matters,” she explained. “Questions about investigative techniques and entrapment deserve thorough examination.”
The case has raised questions about mental health in terrorism prosecutions. Court documents I reviewed reveal that Esseghaier was diagnosed with schizophrenia after his conviction but before sentencing. His defense later argued this should have impacted how his case was handled.
“The intersection of mental health and terrorism cases presents unique challenges for our justice system,” Dr. Sandy Simpson, head of forensic psychiatry at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, explained when I contacted him yesterday. “Determining criminal responsibility becomes exceptionally complex when symptoms may have influenced a defendant’s actions or understanding.”
Federal prosecutor Amber Pashuk noted in earlier arguments that evidence showed the men’s activities were “not the product of mental disorder but of extremist ideology.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal effectively validates the extensive investigative techniques used in the case, including the controversial role of the undercover FBI agent who recorded hundreds of hours of conversations.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has previously expressed concerns about such operations. “When informants become active participants rather than passive observers, difficult questions arise about where investigation ends and encouragement begins,” notes a position paper on their website.
The Via Rail plot case stands among several high-profile terrorism prosecutions in Canada since anti-terrorism laws were strengthened following the September 11 attacks. Statistics from Public Safety Canada show that 25 individuals have been convicted of terrorism offenses under the Criminal Code since 2001, with several others currently facing charges.
Legal experts I consulted believe this case will likely serve as a reference point for future terrorism prosecutions in Canada. The court’s unwillingness to revisit the convictions suggests confidence in how these complex investigations are being handled.
For families who travel on the Toronto-New York corridor, the court’s decision may bring reassurance. However, civil liberties advocates continue to stress the importance of balancing security measures with fundamental rights.
After reviewing trial transcripts, I found it notable that Justice Michael Code, who presided over the original trial, emphasized that terrorism offenses are “unique” because they criminalize activities that occur well before any violent act is committed.
With the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their appeal, Jaser and Esseghaier have exhausted their legal options in Canada. They will continue serving life sentences with eligibility for parole after 20 years.
This case reminds us that Canada’s approach to terrorism continues to evolve. While courts have affirmed the serious nature of planning terrorist acts, questions about investigative boundaries, mental health considerations, and the balance between security and rights remain vitally important in our ongoing national conversation about keeping Canadians safe.
