2017 QCCQ 6948, 2017 QCCQ 6948

JD 2901 R. c. Habib 2017 QCCQ 6948 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL “ Criminal and Penal Division ” Nos.: 500-73-004402-166 500-73-004401-168 DATE: June 19, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE SERGE DÉLISLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

Ismaël HABIB Accused ______________________________________________________________________ VERDICT ______________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND [ 1 ] Ismaël Habib has been a subject of interest to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for several months. The RCMP launched an investigation consisting of a scenario technique using undercover agents in order to obtain a statement from the accused. The entire Mr. Big operation was centred on eliciting this statement.

The scheme worked and the statement was obtained on February 25, 2016, when the accused met the head of the fictitious criminal organization.

He stated that he wanted to leave Canada and go to Syria and join the Islamic State (ISIL). [ 2 ] At the end of the investigation, Ismaël Habib was charged with attempting to leave Canada, or attempting to go on board a conveyance with the intention to leave Canada, for the purpose of participating in, or contributing to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group , for the purpose of enhancing its ability. [1] He was also charged with having made a false or misleading statement for the purpose of procuring a passport. [2] The Court found the accused guilty of this offence immediately following submissions by the parties on May 9, 2017. [ 3 ] The cornerstone of the prosecution’s case is the statement made by the accused on February 25, 2016. [ 4 ] Following a voir dire , the Court ruled that the statement by the accused is admissible. [ 5 ] The Court refers to its decision [3] on March 6, 2017, to describe the investigation technique used: [translation] [10] In this case bar, the objective of the RCMP was to obtain a statement from Ismaël Habib, in a secret setting and through a structured interview, on his intention to leave Canada for the purpose of joining a terrorist organization. [11] To achieve this objective, the RCMP implemented what it calls the “Major Crime Technique.” The RCMP exploited the accused’s desire to leave Canada and created a criminal organization that falsified passports and engaged in smuggling.

Following meetings with the investigation team and based on information provided by a civilian police agent, a control agent developed 22 scenarios involving undercover officers who played different roles and interacted with the accused.

The scenarios were refined and adjusted following meetings with the accused and in the pursuit of the objective. [12] The accused gradually became involved as the scenarios evolved and was able to assess the organization’s ability to help him leave Canada in the near future. [13] To convince him that the organization was real, it was arranged for him to witness an exchange with a contact in the Passport Office and the delivery of a false passport to a fictitious client of the organization.

He then witnessed, in an apartment rented by the organization, the fictitious client’s final preparations so that he could be smuggled into the Port of Montreal and leave the country by ship. Later during the scenario, Ismaël Habib kept a look-out near the port entrance and witnessed the client entering the port.

[14] While maintaining the accused’s interest by reminding him that the organization could smuggle him out of the country, the crime boss took the accused up on his offer and asked if he could help him by escorting another client who wanted to go to Syria. If so, the accused would get a reduction in the amount he would have to pay the organization to help him leave the country. [15] Before anything could be organized, however, the boss insisted that the accused tell him everything about his previous trip to Syria to verify that he was telling the truth.

The boss justified the requirement by explaining that, before they could do business, he needed to make sure that he could trust him and that his purported contacts really existed. The boss also asked him what his real intentions were once he was in Syria. [16] Ismaël Habib stated twice during the investigation that he wanted to leave Canada to go to Syria and join ISIL. The investigation terminated on February 25, 2016, when the accused met the crime boss privately, in a commercial space rented by the RCMP, which was used as the fictitious organization’s office.

It was full of hidden cameras and microphones. [ 6 ] Essentially, during the February 25, 2016, meeting, Ismaël Habib stated that: • he wants to leave out of religious conviction. Even though he would have felt safe here with his children, he would still have wanted to leave because in his religion, he has to live in a Muslim country that enforces Sharia law. ISIL is fighting to establish an Islamic State in Iraq and in Syria; [4] • his ultimate goal is to go to Syria; [5] • for him, if he does not die in the path of God, he has lived for nothing.

They (Muslims) love death like non-Muslims love life; [6] • his ultimate goal is to die for God and have the 72 virgins. To go to the front and fight; [7] • he is going there to fight and will join ISIL; [8] • he is ready to do as much as he can to help ISIL, in any way, financially or physically, or to die, whatever they need. He is ready to die for them, for the principle. That he will be with them as long as they follow the words of God; [9] • he is prepared to do anything for ISIL, except attacks here.

His priority is to defend Syria and Iraq, to gain territory and to implement Sharia law. [10] • he wants to go to Raqqa, the capital of ISIL. [11] [ 7 ] The evidence from the voir dire was entered at trial and the accused testified. [ 8 ] Ismaël Habib does not deny that he tried to leave Canada to go to Syria. He claims, however, that it was to go join his wife and his children and not to join ISIL as the Crown alleges. [ 9 ] The prosecution submits that the Court should reject the accused’s testimony because it is not credible.

Further, in its view, there is independent evidence that confirms significant portions of the accused’s statement. The prosecution submits that it has proven all the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. ISSUE [ 10 ] The sole issue to be addressed is how much credibility should be given to the accused’s version, analyzed within the context and the circumstances by applying the tenets set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v .

W.(D.) . [12] THE LAW [ 11 ] The accused testified at trial, and the Court must assess his evidence in light of the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R . v . W.(D.) . [ 12 ] Thus, if the Court believes his evidence, it clearly must acquit the accused. Also, even if the Court does not believe him, it should acquit the accused if, in light of the evidence as a whole, his version raises a doubt in the mind of the Court. If not, the Court must ask itself whether it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence as a whole, that the accused is guilty. If so, the accused should be convicted.

If not, he should be acquitted. [ 13 ] Note here that the accused has no burden. He is presumed innocent and the onus is always on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 14 ] The accused’s evidence cannot be assessed in a vacuum. The judge must always assess the evidence as a whole, including the testimony of the accused. [13] ANALYSIS [ 15 ] In this case, to assess the testimony of the accused, one element raised by the defence must first be examined before analyzing

the evidence as a whole. [ 16 ] The accused submits that any interview conducted during a Mr. Big operation is a [translation ] “confession trap” that results in coerced confessions. Ismaël Habib testified that he felt pressured by the continued insistence of the fictitious crime boss. Therefore, he willingly distorted the truth, the reality, so that he could live up to expectations and obtain a ticket to Syria, his ultimate objective. [ 17 ] The evidence establishes that all the meetings held during the investigation scenarios were cordial and without coercion.

A viewing of the video of the interview with the fictitious crime boss reveals that the atmosphere was relaxed. The accused appears nervous at first but is subsequently very comfortable and relaxed. There is frequent laughter and the accused even offers to help his interlocutor, without being asked and of his own volition. [ 18 ] This is when the accused offers to directly contact the other client that the fictitious crime boss wanted to send to Syria.

He also explains that it would be easier for him, i.e., the other client, if he went to Raqqa instead of Dabiq. [14] [ 19 ] Therefore, Court characterizes the relationship between the accused and the fictitious crime boss as a business relationship.

Certainly, the boss takes advantage of his strong desire to leave and encourages the accused to talk about himself, but he very clearly explains that given the nature of the undertaking and the intended destination, he must make sure that he knows his business partner to maximize the chances of success. [ 20 ] The accused did not limit himself to the fictitious organization, even if it was his most promising option for leaving the country at the time of the investigation.

The evidence establishes that the accused himself pressured the boss and told him clearly that if it took too long, he would find another way to get to Syria. [ 21 ] The evidence reveals that before the scenarios began, the accused took several unsuccessful steps to leave Canada and was exploring other avenues to achieve his goal at the same time as he was talking with the RCMP’s organization. [ 22 ] Not only did the accused not feel pressured or coerced, he felt somewhat reassured by the crime boss’s attention to detail when he reminded him of the importance of trust and explained that if he needed to know everything about him, it was for business reasons. [ 23 ] Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication of any violence or compulsion during the investigation.

Several times and in different situations, the boss told the accused that if he did not like what he saw or disapproved of his way of working, he was free to leave without any consequences. As for the boss’s insistence on trust, the truth and honesty from the accused, it had much more to do with his accompanying the other client of the fictitious organization than with Mr. Habib’s departure. [ 24 ] As a result, the Court finds that all these elements defeat the argument of the accused and prove that (

i) there was no distrust and (ii) he was unaware of the situation in which he found himself. [ 25 ] Thus, this was the context in which, at the beginning of the meeting on February 25, 2016, the accused explained his priorities in life. They are: God, his children and his wife. But he added that he wants to leave out of religious conviction, and that even though he would have been safe here with his children, he would still have wanted to leave because in his religion it is necessary to live in a Muslim country that enforces Sharia law.

He added that ISIL is fighting to establish an Islamic state in Iraq and in Syria, and that his ultimate goal is to go to Syria. Testimony of Ismaël Habib [ 26 ] Before the Court assesses the testimony of Ismaël Habib, it identifies several elements indicating dishonesty and lies, which affect its credibility.

For example: • Ismaël Habib lied to his second wife, xxxxxx xxxxxxx , about the fact that he was not divorced from his first wife. • He had false passports from the U.K. and another one from Syria. [15] He testified that the U.K. passport [translation] “was of such poor quality that he couldn’t even use it to commit fraud”. • He applied for a Canadian passport in his brother’s name but using his own photo. • He used the names Alexandre Fortin and Steve Lemieux several times and in several circumstances.

He has a driver’s license with his photo but in the name of Alexandre Fortin. • He knowingly illegally cashed government family allowance cheques, even though his children do not live in the country. • He enrolled at a number of educational institutions and received loans and bursaries. He boasted to an undercover officer that he knew a really good way to make money, and that with Quebec student loans and bursaries, it was possible to make up to $9,000 per year without paying anything. He said he had received $70,000 from the government over the past several years.

It should be noted that he did not complete most of the courses or programs in which he was registered, either by choice or because he was kicked out of the program for absenteeism or low grades. • He told an undercover officer that he had a second tablet computer to [ translation ] “commit fraud”. • He talked to an undercover officer about applications that jam the waves so that the police cannot intercept communications. • He asked the fictitious crime boss to get rid of his second wife’s car so that he could collect the insurance. [ 27 ] These elements form part of the evidence as a whole, and it is in this light that the Court must now assess the testimony of Ismaël Habib.

[ 28 ] In sum, his testimony contains several contradictions and implausibilities that undermine its credibility. [ 29 ] First, as the main part of his defence, the accused submits that he wanted to go to Syria to be with his wife and children. He states that his wife was in danger, that she was imprisoned, that she had no solution, and that she was begging him for help. He says that he panicked. [ 30 ] According to his explanations, this is why he was ready to say whatever the fictitious crime boss wanted to hear.

Under pressure, he felt that he had to satisfy his expectations to get his organization’s help to leave the country. He is [ translation ] “very affected by what is happening with his wife” and he really got into the role he had to play (for the boss) to convince him. [ 31 ] At the outset, the Court concludes that the state of mind described by the accused is inconsistent with that of a person who looks for a new wife online, dates her, marries her and lives with her. But this is what he did, between November 2015 and February 2016, with xxxxxx xxxxxxx . [ 32 ] Let us return to his wife’s imprisonment in Syria.

Ismaël Habib emotionally testified that when he spoke with Abu Bara on January 22, 2016, he thought that his family was with ISIL. Abu Bara is an acquaintance, a contact of the accused. [ 33 ] Yet on February 25, 2016, he told the fictitious crime boss that he left his wife and his children with a Syrian in Turkey and that the Syrian delivered them to ISIL.

At another time, he stated that he knew that his wife has been in Syria for [translation] “four or more months”. [ 34 ] He also told the crime boss that at the beginning, his wife and his children were in a house with other women, being cared for, housed and fed by ISIL, but that she wanted her independence and a house. The accused added, [translation] “So they told her: Well, first you have to find the money. ... You want a house, OK we’ll give you one. But you’re on your own.

So now I have to send her money for uh...” [16] [ 35 ] He added that an ISIL member called him on his cellphone to get his permission for his wife to go outside, study, work or do what she wanted because the husband’s authorization was necessary. [17] [ 36 ] He told xxxxxx xxxxxxx that his wife was in Syria with his children and that their intention was to live together as a family in Syria.

He also told her that he wanted to fight with ISIL to help them take territory over there. [ 37 ] He testified that his wife in Syria called him only once a month, but the evidence establishes that the accused speaks to her regularly and that they message each other electronically. [ 38 ] The passages [18] to which the accused refers as evidence of his wife’s distress refer more to the fact that she needs money and that [translation] “it’s not easy for a woman on her own” over there.

They reflect much more the concerns of the accused than a state of distress related to imprisonment or a dangerous situation. [ 39 ] The evidence establishes that the pressure he was under came from that fact that he could not get to Syria and join ISIL in accordance with his religious convictions, rather than the fact that his wife was in danger.

For example, xxxxxx xxxxxxx overheard conversations between the accused and his wife in which his wife pressed him to hurry up and join them and that if he could not, he could carry out jihad in Canada. [ 40 ] Such a marked difference between his wife’s situation and the reality established by the evidence completely undermines the credibility of the accused.

But there is more. [ 41 ] First, his account of events, from the start of his problems following a visit by Wassim Boughadou until his return from Turkey in 2013, is implausible. [ 42 ] He explains that Wassim Boughadou, friend and future brother-in-law, came to tell him that they were being investigated by the RCMP. Boughadou frightened him. According to his testimony, he decided without actually checking or consulting anyone to abandon his studies and go to Vancouver, from where he tried to get to London, but he says that he was turned away at the airport for no reason.

He then decided to see if he could get into the United States, but he claims that he was detained for six hours by seven armed police officers who finally let him return to Canada because they were [ translation ] “fed up” and working overtime. [ 43 ] That is not all. He was still in contact with Wassim Boughadou, who was pressuring him and telling him he had to leave Canada. In July 2013, Ismaël Habib went to Algeria, but as soon as he arrived, he learned that Canada wanted him to return his passport.

Wassim Boughadou then convinced him to join him in Turkey where, he told him, there was no risk of any problems because he had been there for eight months without any complications. Yet no more than two or three weeks after the accused arrived in Turkey, the two men gradually started to move closer to Syria. From Ganzientep they went to Rayhanli, a town controlled by the Free Syrian Army near the Syrian border. From there, a contact took them to Atma, in Syria. Boughadou reassured him that the war was not everywhere.

The accused maintains that he had no choice but to follow Wassim Boughadou to Syria, but that also he had a certain [ translation ] “curiosity” to see what was going on there. [ 44 ] He spent time with three groups while in Syria: the Free Syrian Army, Ahrar Ash-Sham and the Chechens. He explains that there were no fewer than 70 groups, including Al Qaeda and ISIL. He claims that he did not hear a single gunshot, that he did not fight, and that it was like a summer camp.

He says, however, that every group was there to overthrow the government of Bashar Al-Assad, and that as soon as they arrived in Syria, he and Boughadou bought an AK-47 for their safety. There are also photos showing them wearing combat gear, with Boughadou wearing a bullet proof vest and the accused with a long knife at his waist. [ 45 ] It is difficult to give any credit to such a tale because it is far-fetched and preposterous. It becomes totally unbelievable when assessed in light of the accused’s statement on February 25, 2016, that he was in Syria in 2013 to carry out jihad.

Moreover, this evidence reveals another contradiction because he testified that he did not go to Syria in 2013 for this purpose.

[ 46 ] Nevertheless, he explains in his statement that every group was intent on overthrowing the government of Bashar Al-Assad and spoke about jihad and of establishing Sharia law and creating an Islamic state. At another point in his statement, he also mentioned that his goal in 2013 was to carry out jihad to establish Sharia law, to fight to set up an Islamic government. The Court believes that this explains the [ translation ] “curiosity” referred to in paragraph [43]. [ 47 ] The fact that the accused remained there for three months and spent time with the three groups mentioned above appears true.

However, he explains in his testimony that, when he was with the Chechens at the end of his stay, the group questioned his passivity and suggested that he go fight. He felt that the group was starting to doubt his interest in fighting. He claims that this is the reason, because he was being pressured and felt that he had to do it to quiet their doubts, he whipped a prisoner… from the Free Syrian Army.

He explains that he left Syria after this event. [ 48 ] How could he whip a prisoner from the first group he joined at the beginning of his stay (the Free Syrian Army) just before leaving Syria if, at the end of his stay, he was with the Chechens, as he declared in his statement on February 25, 2016, and during his testimony?

This is a major contradiction that, once again, destroys the credibility of the accused. [ 49 ] This evidence also reveals another contradiction, since in his statement he said that he left Syria to go get his wife and his children in Turkey to return to Syria to carry out jihad. [ 50 ] Finally, the questions posed regarding the evidence taken from the accused’s electronic devices also reveal contradictions.

For example, when the Crown questioned the accused about an online search for “turkey syria crossing border” that appeared on a computer in his possession, he replied that the computer belonged to Wassim Boughadou and that he did not conduct the search. The evidence, however, establishes that he was in Canada in July 2014 and in possession of the computer at the time of the online search.

When confronted with this contradiction, the accused tried to offer an explanation that was not very convincing or credible. [ 51 ] The Court need not analyze each piece of evidence in detail or discuss each contradiction raised. [19] [ 52 ] In this case, the evidence analyzed undermines the credibility of the accused. His testimony has been prepared and adapted to explain and minimize all the shocking declarations in his statement on February 25, 2016. His testimony does not, however, withstand a consideration of the evidence as a whole.

The pieces of evidence analyzed are sufficient to reject his testimony. [ 53 ] The Court therefore rejects the testimony of the accused in its entirety. [ 54 ] His account, riddled with contradictions and plagued by the previously mentioned deceit and lies, does not support his statement that his sole objective was to go to Syria to join his wife and his children.

For all the reasons mentioned above, his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court. [ 55 ] Does the evidence accepted convince the Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the constituent elements of the offence charged ? [ 56 ] The prosecution must prove two levels of intent to obtain a conviction for the offence in s. 83.181 of the Criminal Code . In addition to the primary intent to attempt to leave Canada, it must also prove that the accused had the specific intent to commit an offence under s. 83.18 of the Criminal Code . [20] outside Canada.

Thus, the evidence must establish that an accused who attempts to leave Canada does so with the intent to knowingly participate in or contribute to a terrorist activity, to carry out a terrorist activity or to facilitate its commission. Note that under subsection 83.18(2) of the Criminal Code, the terrorist activity does not actually have to have been carried out or facilitated or the ability actually and/or effectively enhanced. [21] [ 57 ] There is no doubt that in the case at bar there was intent to leave Canada. The accused implicitly concedes as much.

Indeed, he maintains that he wanted to go to Syria, but that his purpose was not the one the prosecution alleges. It was instead to go join his wife and his children, who he claims were in danger there. [ 58 ] Did Ismaël Habib have the intent to knowingly participate in or contribute to a terrorist activity? [ 59 ] Based on the evidence as a whole, yes. [ 60 ] First, the accused stated twice that he wanted to leave Canada to go to Syria and join ISIL. [ 61 ] The first time was on January 14, 2016, when the accused told the fictitious crime boss that he wanted to leave for Syria.

He stated that he was a member of ISIL and that the goal of the group was to purify the country. [ 62 ] He repeated it during his meeting with the fictitious crime boss on February 25, 2016.

At this meeting, a great deal of detailed evidence was disclosed, including numerous indicators of the inherent reliability of the accused’s statement. [ 63 ] First, the strength of his religious convictions, the details of his plan to enter Syria via Turkey, and how he intended to get the money to pay for his trip demonstrate a true desire to leave and not return. [ 64 ] There is also the fact that he has already been there and was involved with various groups for the same reasons as those mentioned to the crime boss, i.e., to carry out jihad.

There is also his detailed knowledge of the past and present situation in Syria and the differences between the groups involved in the Syrian conflict. His prior and ongoing attempts to leave Canada and his warning to the boss that he would not wait a year to leave the country must also not be forgotten. This evidence leaves no room for ambiguity or dilettantism. Ismaël Habib knows what he is getting into if he leaves Canada to join ISIL in Syria. [ 65 ] It is true that he stated several times during the investigation that his goal is to join his wife and his children in Syria.

He also said several times that he wants to fight for ISIL. One does not preclude the other. The Court recalls that when he made the statement on February 25, 2016, his wife had been in Syria with ISIL for over four months. The Court finds that even if he wanted to join his wife and

his children who are already there, his objective was to go and fight with ISIL. [ 66 ] In the excerpt from his statement that best illustrates the accused’s two objectives, he tells the fictitious crime boss that [translation] : “For me, the first thing I would definitely like to do is spend at least two quiet weeks with my kids, before doing anything else, training or wherever they want to send me” because he misses his children. [22] He then goes on to mention that he will definitely go to a training camp and fight for ISIL, and that his ultimate goal is to see his wife and his children and [translation] “do as much as I can to help the Islamic State, in any way, financially or physically, or to die for____ whatever they need.” [23] [ 67 ] Finally, his suspicion that the boss’s telephone might be bugged and the fact that he knew what was at stake [24] when he revealed himself as he did are other indicators that his statement on February 25, 2016, is reliable. [ 68 ] The accused’s statement taken as a whole proves that his desire to leave Canada to join ISIL is not hypothetical or a whim.

When he left Syria to go to Turkey in 2013, it was indeed to get his wife and his children and to return to Syria to carry out jihad. He was unlucky and was arrested, returning to Canada because his passport had been cancelled by the Canadian authorities. His tale, as told to the crime boss, shows that he has been working ever since to return to Syria and join ISIL. [ 69 ] Second, there is evidence confirming parts of his statement. [ 70 ] There is, of course, the fact that he told the fictitious crime boss twice that he wants to leave the country to go to Syria and join ISIL.

The statements were made in a friendly setting, without pressure or coercion. [ 71 ] In addition, in her testimony, xxxxxx xxxxxxx confirmed the religious convictions of the accused. She also explained that he spent his time at home watching videos about religion, and about what was happening in Syria and with ISIL.

He showed her training videos ending in executions, and he watched the Syrian news every day and kept up on the territory captured and the active wars. [ 72 ] She found out that he is not divorced, contrary to what he told her, and that his first wife is in Syria, with his children, and not in Algeria. He told her that he intended to join her in Syria. The accused also told her that he was talking to someone who was going to help him leave Canada by ship.

His intention was to get to Syria through Turkey and join ISIL to fight because they are at war to capture territory. [ 73 ] The evidence seen and heard by xxxxxx xxxxxxx and related during her testimony is contemporaneous with but independent of the police investigation. It increases the reliability of Ismaël Habib’s statement. Indeed, the intentions and plans of the accused as related by the witness, are the same as those told to the boss by the accused during their meetings.

He cannot allege that he was under pressure, induced or directed by Ms. xxxxxx . [ 74 ] The accused told the fictitious crime boss that he has a contact named Abu Bara in Syria who could help get him into the country and ISIL, evidence that further serves as confirmation. [ 75 ] Several pieces of evidence related to this contact establish that he exists, which increases the reliability of the accused’s statements. First is the fact that the accused gave the boss the opportunity to speak with this contact.

Second, during his meeting with the boss, the accused showed him a bit of paper on which the contact information for Abu Bara was written. Finally, a contact named Abu Bara was found in a tablet computer in the possession of Ismaël Habib, the content of which was analyzed by the RCMP. The contact photo shows an individual holding an ISIL flag.

A conversation on February 22, 2016, between Abu Bara and the tablet user using the Telegram application confirms the connection between Abu Bara and the accused’s first wife in Syria. [ 76 ] Finally, an analysis of the computer in the accused’s possession reveals a series of online searches and sites visited primarily in 2014.

Overall, the Court notes the searches for ISIL and jihad (Islamic state media official, Islamic state in iraq and sham, Islamic state news, Jihadology.net, Islamhouse.com) and for how to leave Canada illegally, “turkey-syria crossing border”, breathing in a maritime container, how to heal a gunshot wound, and more.

The accused’s computer was also used to visit several news sites discussing Syria and ISIL (their battles and territorial advances). [ 77 ] While distant in time, the content of the computer reveals his interest in Syria and ISIL and explains the steps he took. [ 78 ] Indeed, the Court recalls that that reason the accused left Syria in 2013 after spending three months there was to get his wife in Turkey and bring her back to Syria with him because [translation] “he liked what he saw” after having participated in the three groups and wanted to continue contributing.

He was unlucky when he was arrested by the Turkish authorities and sent back to Canada. [ 79 ] His online searches and the websites he visited establish that as soon as he returned to Canada in 2013, he kept informed of the situation there and looked for a way to return. The steps he later took were towards this objective.

They therefore increase the reliability of his statements that he intended to go to Syria to join ISIL, which he said twice to the fictitious crime boss. [ 80 ] In this case, the nature of the offence investigated [25] made it impossible to find any material evidence to confirm the accused’s statement, as is often the case when the Mr. Big technique is used to solve a murder, for example.

There are numerous indicators, however, that the statement made on February 25, 2016, is true, as the preceding paragraphs demonstrate. [ 81 ] During his submissions, counsel for the accused asked, [translation] “Had his wife returned to Canada... would he have left?

That’s the question!” He suggests that the answer to this question determines the outcome of the case. [ 82 ] The question is hypothetical because the evidence establishes that his first wife is in Syria with ISIL and had no intention of returning to Canada. [ 83 ] Moreover, in his statement on February 25, 2016, Ismaël Habib provides the answer to his lawyer’s question. First, he stated that he wanted to leave out of religious conviction.

Even though he would have been safe here with his children, he would still have wanted to leave because in his religion it is necessary to live in a Muslim country that enforces Sharia law. ISIL is fighting to create an

Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. [ 84 ] Other words uttered by the accused during this meeting are also unequivocal and in keeping with his religious convictions.

There is no doubt about his desire to join ISIL and to contribute. [ 85 ] As stated above, the accused told the fictitious crime boss that he was ready to [translation] “do as much as I can to help the Islamic State, in any way, financially or physically, or to die for____ whatever they need .” [26] He said he is ready to die for them, for the principle, and that he would be with them (ISIL) as long as they follow the words of God. [ 86 ] It is difficult to find a better example of his intent to enhance the ability of ISIL to carry out its operations.

He knowingly wants to leave Canada for Syria to join ISIL. [ 87 ] The Court concludes that the Crown has proven all the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: FINDS Ismaël Habib guilty of Count 2. __________________________________ SERGE DÉLISLE, J.C.Q. Mtre Lyne Décarie For the prosecutrix Mtre Charles Montpetit For the accused Hearing date: May 9, 2017