[1]           Malcolm M. Mercer (for the panel):– Saad Gaya has applied to be licensed as a lawyer.

[2]           Section 27(2) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c. L.8 (the Act) provides that “It is a requirement for the issuance of every licence under this Act that the applicant be of good character.”

[3]           The Law Society has referred Mr. Gaya’s application to the Tribunal to determine whether he is of good character.

[4]           The hearing of this application proceeded on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, an agreed document book including 26 letters of support and the oral evidence of nine witnesses, including Mr. Gaya. The parties agreed that Mr. Gaya had the onus of showing present good character. After the evidence was completed, the Law Society advised that it did not oppose the application.

[5]           Mr. Gaya’s story is one of redemption and rehabilitation. In 2006, he committed serious criminal acts; today he is a law school graduate determined to do good. His good character has been attested to by those who participated in his rehabilitation in prison and after his release: the officer who arrested him; his parole officer; the imam who guided him towards deradicalization and a true understanding that his faith requires religious tolerance, compassion and humanity rather than violence; others who assisted in or witnessed his rehabilitation; those who study radicalization; and his new legal colleagues. His story is a testament to the criminal justice system’s premise that rehabilitation is possible and desirable.

[6]           We reserved our decision at the end of the hearing. We subsequently determined that applicant is presently of good character and allowed the application.

[7]           Our reasons are as follows.

[8]           The objectives of the good character requirement are to protect the public, to maintain high ethical standards, to maintain public confidence in the legal professions and its ability to regulate itself, and to deal fairly with persons whose livelihood and reputation are affected: Armstrong v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 ONLSHP 29 at para. 25.

[9]           These objectives are, of course, not just relevant at the time that a legal professional is licensed. Proper professional conduct is required after a licence is issued. Where misconduct is found, the question arises what penalty to impose. In considering the proper penalty, the Tribunal and the courts often must address the “character question.” As the Court of Appeal put in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Abbott, 2017 ONCA 525 at para. 78:

[10]        The term “good character” is not defined in the Act. Tribunal cases have often said that good character is

[11]        Our jurisprudence accepts that one’s character is not fixed. People can mature and grow. It is possible to learn from past misconduct; to gain insight, empathy and moral courage; and to be rehabilitated. It is the applicant’s present character that must be assessed.

[12]        To state the obvious, good character is not directly measurable. The strongest insights into a person’s character come from what the person has done previously. A person who has conducted themselves impeccably is assumed to be of good character. Where a person has misconducted themselves, the question becomes whether past misconduct evidenced a lack of good character and, if so, whether the applicant has become a person of good character, taking into account their more recent conduct.

[13]        In order to provide some structure to these considerations, hearing panels apply the so-called Armstrong factors, articulated at para. 29:

[14]        This is a non-exhaustive list of factors and it is not to be mechanically applied. These factors are in the nature of a checklist, intended to ensure that the parties provide relevant evidence and that panels fully consider and apply the evidence.

[15]        Sometimes, the licence applicant denies that alleged past misconduct occurred. Sometimes, the licence applicant denies that past misconduct raises the issue of present good character. Sometimes, there is a question of whether there is an onus on the licence applicant to show present good character. These are not issues here. There is no issue about the past misconduct and its significance. Mr. Gaya accepts that he has the onus to show present good character.

[16]        The standard of proof to be applied is the balance of probabilities. Mr. Gaya does not have to prove present good character beyond a reasonable doubt. Perfection is not required, nor is a guarantee of future proper conduct. To be licensed, Mr. Gaya must satisfy us, on the balance of probabilities, of his present good character.

[17]        Finally, we note again that our ability to assess good character is inherently limited. So is our ability to assess remorse and rehabilitation. While it is important that a licence applicant give evidence about their remorse and rehabilitation, it is particularly important that there be more than just the evidence of the licence applicant. What the licence applicant has done can be very important. Evidence from reliable witnesses who can testify about the applicant, the applicant’s path since prior misconduct, and who the applicant is today can be particularly valuable.

[18]        Mr. Gaya was born in Montreal in 1987. When he was 7 or 8 years old, his family moved to Pakistan for three years because his grandfather was in poor health. While his father returned earlier, Mr. Gaya returned to Canada in 1999 with his mother, his older sister and his younger brother. On his family’s return to Canada, Mr. Gaya lived in Oakville from grade 6 to the end of high school in 2005.

[19]        Mr. Gaya was raised in a Muslim family. He and his family observed Muslim religious traditions but were more culturally than religiously Muslim. Mr. Gaya attended Friday prayers and participated in Islamic religious education at his mosque.

[20]        Mr. Gaya was in his first week of high school when the terrorist attacks by al‑Qaeda were carried out against the United States on September 11, 2001. There were few people of colour at Mr. Gaya’s high school and only a handful of Muslims. Suddenly, religion and ethnicity mattered as they had not mattered before.

[21]        In mid-high school, Mr. Gaya was required to do 40 hours of volunteer work in the community. He approached his Mosque to learn what opportunities there were to contribute. As a result, he became more involved in the Muslim community. He felt a responsibility to learn more about his faith and he began attending an Islamic theology class on Saturday mornings.

[22]        While not apparent to him or his parents at the time, this theology class was not a mainstream class but rather advanced a very black and white Salafist/Wahhabist approach. Mr. Gaya also participated in weekend seminars in Toronto during high school. He described these seminars as being literalist, anti-authoritarian and politicized. The seminars portrayed globalized victimhood of Muslims and advocated for an obligation to alleviate this victimhood. While not advocating violence, Mr. Gaya later came to appreciate that the foundation for extreme ideas and nefarious conduct had been laid. When asked whether he met adherents to these beliefs as a student, Mr. Gaya said that he met many kids who did had been taught to see victimhood, but also lots who were just kids.

[23]        Mr. Gaya graduated from high school in June 2005. He had been academically successful, graduating with a 92% average. He started at McMaster in the fall of 2005 in life sciences. He moved to Hamilton and lived off campus in a room in a house with five other Muslim students. This was his first time away from home. Before starting university, Mr. Gaya had started to believe that Muslims were always under attack as a result of a global conspiracy. These beliefs increased while at university.

[24]        Mr. Gaya was asked whether he discussed his beliefs and his evolving religious views with his parents. He said that he did not and emphasized that the understanding of youth radicalization in 2005/2006 was different than it is now. His parents didn’t recognize his radicalization and saw his engagement with his religion as a good thing.

[25]        Mr. Gaya described his move from sympathy for Muslim victims to his decision to engage in violence. Mr. Gaya had heard a lot about another student, Mr. Amara, while at university. He said he held Mr. Amara on a pedestal as a devout, intelligent student and great community member. When they met, Mr. Amara told him he had a responsibility to do something about Canadian soldiers killing Muslims. Mr. Amara said he was involved in a plan to force the Canadian government to withdraw from Afghanistan by causing an explosion. Mr. Gaya went online, looked at websites supporting these ideas, and felt special that Mr. Amara had trusted him with this information. He agreed to assist.

[26]        Mr. Gaya engaged in the commission of an offence for a terrorist group contrary to s. 83.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. He was ultimately sentenced to an 18-year jail term.

[27]        Mr. Gaya’s past misconduct is very serious criminal conduct. The criminal conduct began sometime after March 22, 2006, and ended when Mr. Gaya was arrested on June 2, 2006. Mr. Gaya’s overt actions took place over approximately four weeks in May/June 2006. The misconduct was not just isolated or spontaneous.

[28]        More specifically, Mr. Gaya participated in the unsuccessful attempt of the so-called “Toronto 18” to set off bombs at three locations in 2007, namely the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS headquarters on Front Street in Toronto, and an unspecified military base. This terrorist plot was not successful. Law enforcement learned of the plot before it could be carried out and arrested the Toronto 18.

[29]        Mr. Gaya’s role and understanding of the terrorist plot was, by design, limited. With another person, he was assigned the task of finding a place to store the required chemicals and make the bombs. He attempted to rent a house for this purpose but did not succeed. He helped purchase a large quantity of corrugated boxes and plastic bags and unloaded what were purported to be 120 bags of ammonium nitrate at an industrial unit.

[30]        An agreed statement of facts was part of the sentencing hearing after a guilty plea. In his reasons reported at R. v. Gaya, 2010 ONSC 434, Justice Durno summarized the agreed statement of facts at paras. 7 to 27 as follows:

[31]        As to Mr. Gaya’s motivation, Justice Durno wrote at paras. 39 and 40:

[32]        As noted in para. 39 of Justice Durno’s reasons, Mr. Gaya told Dr. Ramshaw, a forensic psychiatrist, that “he knew what he was doing was wrong but the prevention of death and suffering in Afghanistan was much more important than the destruction of property.”

[33]        While the court did not find that Mr. Gaya had actual knowledge that death or serious bodily harm were likely consequences of the bombs, Justice Durno found that “… with his desire to make a difference and pursue the goals, he deliberately refrained from making further inquiries on this record. He did so because he knew that those inquiries would fix him with knowledge of the extent of the offence and likelihood of death or serious bodily harm.”

[34]        Justice Durno addressed the potential harm of Mr. Gaya’s criminal conduct at paras. 47 to 49 of his reasons stating (emphasis added):

[35]        The question of willful blindness as to the likelihood that there would be death or serious bodily harm was a contested issue in sentencing before Justice Durno. Mr. Gaya admitted knowing that there was a serious risk to the health or safety of the public. Justice Durno found that Mr. Gaya was wilfully blind as to the likelihood that there would be death or serious bodily harm. It was an issue before us whether Mr. Gaya accepted this finding.

[36]        Mr. Gaya’s criminal misconduct occurred in 2006, nearly 16 years ago. Mr. Gaya is now 34 years old. He was 18 when he engaged in the criminal conduct. Sixteen years is a substantial period of time. Sixteen years is almost all of Mr. Gaya’s adult life and is nearly one-half of his entire lifetime.

[37]        As well as the length of time that has passed, the quality of that time is notable as discussed below.

[38]        The Law Society agrees that there has been no relevant misconduct since 2006. While Mr. Gaya was found to have engaged in several administrative infractions while at Millhaven Penitentiary, the Law Society does not see these as being of any consequence here. We agree. Mr. Gaya’s incarceration, parole and post-parole conduct has been without a misstep.

[39]        On June 2, 2006, Mr. Gaya was arrested and charged. For 13 of the following 14 months, Mr. Gaya was held in segregation. He spent over 23 hours of each day in his 10' x 7' cell. He was permitted daily showers, to go to the yard for 40 minutes per day, two visits per week, two opportunities to make phone calls each day, and access to some books.

[40]        In August 2007, Mr. Gaya’s time in segregation ended. In January 2008, he began his first distance learning course through Athabasca University. Mr. Gaya testified that his sister was crucial in motivating and assisting him to pursue his studies while incarcerated and that this was key to his rehabilitation.

[41]        On September 28, 2009, Mr. Gaya pled guilty and was convicted. On January 18, 2010, he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. This sentence was later increased on appeal to 18 years on the basis that he was not eligible for parole until he had served half of his sentence.

[42]        In February 2010, Mr. Gaya was transferred to Millhaven Penitentiary. After time in the assessment unit, he was moved to maximum security where he spent four years. Mr. Gaya was forced to adjust to prison life in a maximum-security institution. He witnessed significant violence and prison subculture activities. He distanced himself from negative influences and focused on his education.

[43]        In August 2014, Mr. Gaya was transferred to a medium-security prison in Peterborough where he remained until released on day parole.

[44]        In February 2016, nearly ten years after his arrest, Mr. Gaya was released on day parole to a halfway house in Hamilton.

[45]        While on day parole, Mr. Gaya enrolled at York University. He completed his Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in April 2017.

[46]        Mr. Gaya was granted statutory parole on January 17, 2017.

[47]        Mr. Gaya began his studies at Osgoode Hall Law School in September 2017. He graduated in April 2020 in the top 7% of his graduating class.

[48]        Mr. Gaya was engaged to be married to Saba Khan in July 2019. They married one year later.

[49]        Mr. Gaya worked as a summer student for Legal Aid Ontario in 2019.

[50]        Mr. Gaya articled at St. Lawrence Barristers from June 2020 to January 2021. He continues to work at St. Lawrence Barristers. He passed his barristers and solicitors exams in late 2020 and early 2021.

[51]        The extent and depth of Mr. Gaya’s rehabilitation is evidenced by his own testimony and actions and the testimony of others who participated in or observed his rehabilitation and current character. At the start of his journey, Mr. Gaya was a young religious extremist who believed that religious goals justified violent actions. During his incarceration, he co-operated with prison authorities, participated in efforts to help them understand radicalization, tutored inmates in math and English, successfully deradicalized his own religious beliefs and political thinking, and educated himself though university and law school. We were fortunate to have evidence of Mr. Gaya’s redemption from police and prison authorities, religious leaders, volunteers in the prison process, university professors and staff, and members of the legal profession.

[52]        Inspector Marwan Zogheib is the officer in charge of Serious and Organized Crimes investigations at the RCMP Toronto West Detachment. His investigation team collected the evidence leading to the charges against Mr. Gaya. He regularly attended the court proceedings, testified and witnessed the case unfold from the beginning.

[53]        Inspector Zogheib appeared as a witness at this hearing to give evidence as to Mr. Gaya’s successful rehabilitation 16 years later. He said that Mr. Gaya earned his respect; instead of being stuck in despair, Mr. Gaya started rebuilding his life, one brick at a time.

[54]        At the outset after his arrest, Inspector Zogheib saw Mr. Gaya as being distinct from the others in the Toronto 18. He noted Mr. Gaya’s very good family support and positive influence. In the years that followed, Inspector Zogheib continued to have dealings with Mr. Gaya and his family. Inspector Zogheib met with Mr. Gaya while he was incarcerated and sought his insight and assistance in addressing religious extremism. Inspector Zogheib remained involved with Mr. Gaya during his incarceration, during his parole and after his sentence ended. As Inspector Zogheib put it, his relationship was professional for many years and then became personal.

[55]        As Inspector Zogheib said in his letter of support and confirmed in his testimony:

[56]        In addition to his support of Mr. Gaya at this hearing, Inspector Zogheib supported Mr. Gaya before the Parole Board in 2015. One of the points made by Inspector Zogheib to the Parole Board was that “Saad is aware that he has a continuous role to play in countering violent extremism and in providing a credible exposure of the fallacies in the arguments present by radical and violent extremists” and that Mr. Gaya had fulfilled this responsibility.

[57]        Inspector Zogheib further stated that:

[58]        In cross-examination, Inspector Zogheib was referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in which Mr. Gaya’s sentence was increased and para. 13 of the reasons reported at R. v. Gaya, 2010 ONCA 860:

[59]        Inspector Zogheib confirmed that this was a very accurate statement of Mr. Gaya’s conduct at the time but also confirmed that Mr. Gaya had grown and evolved as a person, perhaps in part as a result of his maturation as an adult.

[60]        Inspector Zogheib is uniquely placed to provide evidence regarding Mr. Gaya’s successful rehabilitation. He has been involved with Mr. Gaya, first as an arresting officer and ultimately as a friend, since the time of Mr. Gaya’s criminal conduct. Inspector Zogheib observed that he can only think of one other occasion in his career when such a relationship has developed.

[61]        Inspector Zogheib has long and deep experience in law enforcement and in the criminal justice system and a long involvement with Mr. Gaya. His evidence is highly reliable given his lengthy contact with Mr. Gaya and given his experience in dealing with offenders. Inspector Zogheib was a highly credible witness. He was thoughtful in giving his evidence and took care not to overstate or to give evidence that he could not properly give. He was a powerful witness as to Mr. Gaya’s successful rehabilitation.

[62]        Mr. Gaya became radicalized as a teenager. He took on an extremist worldview and accepted that addressing global victimization of Muslims, as he understood it, justified the use of violent criminal means. Mr. Gaya’s rehabilitation to a man who accepts that his faith requires religious tolerance, compassion and humanity rather than violence is best understood and assessed in this context.

[63]        Imam Ramzy Ajem offered Mr. Gaya the spiritual counselling that led to his deradicalization. He testified that the Saad he first knew, a young man who was agitated and resentful, no longer exists. He has been replaced by a thoughtful man who has reformed himself while rediscovering his beliefs. Imam Ramzy described Mr. Gaya as an honest and upright member of his community.

[64]        Imam Ramzy is the founder and lead counselor of the Network of Reintegration and Muslim Mentorship (NORMM). He has served as a chaplain for Correctional Services Canada (CSC). As Imam Ramzy’s letter of support put it:

[65]        In his capacity as a CSC chaplain, Imam Ramzy was introduced to Mr. Gaya in 2011. Imam Ramzy was asked to assist by Imam Yasin Dwyer, also a CSC chaplain, and Father Ted Hughes, a priest and a CSC employee who oversaw chaplaincy services. Since then, Imam Ramzy has been present throughout Mr. Gaya’s period of incarceration, and his reintegration into the community. Imam Ramzy met with Saad very frequently.

[66]        Imam Ramzy testified that he and Imam Dwyer studied together and have a common interest and concern about the ideological and theological underpinnings of violence. As he put it, this is an issue with which the Muslim community has grappled for a long time. As Imam Ramzy described it, there are “do it yourself” approaches to understanding the Quran that can result in “black and white” radicalized views by those who do not have the benefit of spiritual counselling, who radically by-pass Islamic scholarship and who come to misunderstand sacred texts.

[67]        Imam Ramzy described a process by which he came to build a genuine relationship with Mr. Gaya. Imam Ramzy worked with Mr. Gaya to develop his understanding of Arabic language and grammar and of Islamic theology and reading. They then proceeded to more serious discussion, rigorous questioning and study of articles and religious texts. The ultimate goal was for Mr. Gaya to come to the realization that his conduct was contrary to religious law as well as secular law.

[68]        Once Mr. Gaya’s understanding of Islam moved from the superficial and radical to a deeper and thoughtful understanding and he recognized that his actions were contrary to his religious obligations, Imam Ramzy worked with Mr. Gaya to help him achieve the true repentance required by their faith, a genuine and sincere request for forgiveness and an unequivocal denouncement of his crime. Imam Ramzy testified that this took a very long time but that Mr. Gaya ultimately got there on his own. By the end of their third year working together, Imam Ramzy testified that it was his view that Mr. Gaya had clearly renounced his acts and understood that, and could articulate why, what he had done was fully prohibited by sacred law.

[69]        In his testimony, Imam Ramzy rightly observed that a change of heart cannot be seen and that it is necessary to look for signs of sincerity and to see those signs in interactions with others. Imam Ramzy testified that he has been with Mr. Gaya for over a decade and has seen Mr. Gaya’s long-term journey. An agitated, resentful and angry young man is now a new, reformed and mature person. In Imam Ramzy’s opinion, Mr. Gaya has completely reformed himself, has rediscovered his traditional beliefs, knows shades of grey and is intelligent, kind, articulate and thoughtful. Imam Ramzy further says that Mr. Gaya is an upright, honest, truthful and courteous member of their community.

[70]        Imam Ramzy testified that he has only seen one similar transformation and that he has not previously testified in support of anyone else. When asked in cross-examination what he meant by that, Imam Ramzy said that his statement was made in the context of terrorism-related offenders and that he has not been in a position to vouch for someone in that context other than Mr. Gaya.

[71]        Imam Ramzy was asked in cross-examination whether Mr. Gaya made any attempt to avoid responsibility for his actions. As Imam Ramzy put it, Mr. Gaya didn’t do that, but did challenge him in early conversations. For example, Mr. Gaya would ask, if this is wrong then why does the Quran say thus and so, and asked how to justify inaction when brothers and sisters are suffering. Imam Ramzy said that this was typical of early stages of deradicalization, and that Mr. Gaya was no exception.

[72]        Imam Ramzy was a highly credible witness. He has the experience and expertise to provide the panel with real insight. He spoke thoughtfully, carefully and cogently. He has had a lengthy opportunity to assess Mr. Gaya’s progress and his evidence is accordingly particularly reliable. There was no attempt to impugn Imam Ramzy’s credibility or reliability and no apparent reason to do so.

[73]        Imam Yasin Dwyer provided a letter of support for Mr. Gaya. Imam Dwyer has known Mr. Gaya since 2010, in his capacity as a professional chaplain with the Correctional Service of Canada, while providing pastoral care at Millhaven Institution. As well as providing his view that Mr. Gaya has “consistently expressed deep remorse for his crimes and the harm he caused to his family, religious community and the wider Canadian public,” Imam Dwyer’s expressed view is that:

[74]        Imam Mohamed Mahmoud also provided a letter of support. Imam Mohamed is a co-founder of the Risalah Foundation, of which NORMM is a project. Imam Mohamed served as chaplain from time to time along with Imam Ramzy, and began a mentorship with Mr. Gaya as part of the rehabilitation and reintegration mandate of Risalah Foundation. Imam Mohamed advises that this mentorship grew as a result of “Mr. Gaya’s spiritual and ideological transformation” and that Mr. Gaya continues to deepen his understanding of the principles of religious tolerance, compassion and humanity that are central to the Islamic faith.” According to Imam Mohamed:

[75]        In this unusual case, rehabilitation required rejection of radicalized religious beliefs. But we conclude that Mr. Gaya’s rehabilitation is not just based on rejection of beliefs that were thought by him to justify immoral and unethical conduct but rather is based on a serious and mature adoption of new and different religious beliefs. While good character is, of course, not necessarily dependent on religious belief, rehabilitation and good character can involve religious development as it has here.

[76]        The official record of Mr. Gaya’s journey through prison and parole demonstrates acceptance of his progress and rehabilitation. Countless official decisions document his transformation. In addition to formal reports, Mr. Gaya’s parole officer testified in person. We also had the benefit of observations from members of the public who volunteered within the prison system and others who had occasion to meet Mr. Gaya while he was incarcerated.

[77]        In 2014, Mr. Gaya was assessed for transfer from Millhaven to a medium-security facility. The referral decision sheet stated:

[78]        Mr. Gaya was transferred from Millhaven to Warkworth Institution in Peterborough. In June 2015, a report was prepared in support of the recommendation for day parole release to a halfway house in Hamilton. The report states:

[79]        The 2015 Parole Board decision which authorized day parole stated:

[80]        Mr. Gaya was released on day parole to a half-way house in Hamilton.

[81]        Joe Braithwaite was Mr. Gaya’s parole officer from February 2016 to July 2020. Mr. Braithwaite testified and provided a letter of support. Like Inspector Zogheib and Imam Ramzy, Mr. Braithwaite maintained a personal relationship with Mr. Gaya after he was no longer his parole officer.

[82]        In a parole report dated July 20, 2020, Mr. Braithwaite assessed Mr. Gaya’s motivation and accountability as follows:

[83]        In his letter of support, Mr. Braithwaite wrote that:

[84]        In his oral testimony, Mr. Braithwaite confirmed his views of Mr. Gaya noting that he has faced many challenges given his index offence and that he has handled himself responsibly, expressed contrition, sustained stability over time and been forthright in atonement. Mr. Braithwaite’s view is that Mr. Gaya is a changed person since 2006 who has come to be trusted as a result of his deeds and actions. As with other witnesses, Mr. Braithwaite sees Mr. Gaya’s case as being unique. Mr. Braithwaite testified that he has had a front row seat and that he is always in Mr. Gaya’s corner because of his journey.

[85]        Mr. Braithwaite is also a particularly valuable witness given his professional expertise and his opportunity to observe Mr. Gaya and his progress. His evidence is reliable and he was credible. The combined evidence of Inspector Zogheib, Imam Ramzy and Mr. Braithwaite provides significant insight into Mr. Gaya’s progress from the time of his offence to date. Their ongoing relationships with, and support of, Mr. Gaya add important weight to their evidence.

[86]        In his 2020 report, Mr. Braithwaite noted that:

[87]        The founder of Book Clubs for Inmates, the Reverend Doctor Carol Finlay, O. Ont., M.S.M., testified. She corresponded with Mr. Gaya from 2011 to 2016 and met him in person in 2016 when he was released on day parole to the halfway house in Hamilton. Mr. Gaya first joined the Book Club when he was at Millhaven and continued with the book club in which he took an active leadership role.

[88]        The Reverend Finlay met with Mr. Gaya in person upon his release and subsequently visited his home and got to know his family. Her letter of support states that:

[89]        Geraldine Sharpe is a volunteer with the Book Club for Inmates. She met Mr. Gaya in 2016. For the first few years, they met approximately once a month and are still in touch every few months. She has described her dealings with Mr. Gaya and his parents in a letter of support. With respect to Mr. Gaya and his criminal offence, Ms. Sharpe wrote:

[90]        The Honourable Justice Robert J. Sharpe is a retired judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, He is married to Geraldine Sharpe and, through her, has known Mr. Gaya since 2016. Justice Sharpe accompanied his wife on one or two early visits to see Mr. Gaya. They have had Mr. Gaya and his family at their home for dinner. He met frequently with Mr. Gaya after he decided to apply to study law and become a lawyer. Since then, Justice Sharpe has often discussed Mr. Gaya’s legal studies and his plans to become a lawyer.

[91]        In a letter of support, Justice Sharpe wrote:

[92]        Daniel Enright is a friend of Mr. Gaya, having been introduced to him in 2016 through a friend of Mr. Enright’s father, who is a volunteer at Book Clubs for Inmates. Mr. Gaya was then enrolling in first year at Osgoode Hall Law School, one year behind Mr. Enright. In a thoughtful letter of support, Mr. Enright described his friendship with Mr. Gaya and their time together as law students. In his letter of support, Mr. Enright wrote:

[93]        The conclusion that Mr. Gaya is rehabilitated is further supported by evidence from those he encountered in his educational pursuits and during the steps he took to become a lawyer. One of his law school professors described him as sincere and honest and said she couldn’t imagine the resilience it took to overcome the hurdle of his conviction. She described his life as an extraordinary story of redemption. His current employer testified that Mr. Gaya was open about his past, showed no sign of anger, frustration or animosity towards the criminal justice system that incarcerated him for so long and had a depth and maturity that allowed him to empathize on a very deep level. An academic who met Mr. Gaya in the context of his studies on religion, violence and social movements testified that he had no concerns about Mr. Gaya ever becoming radicalized again; his behaviour was indicative of someone who had left that life behind.

[94]        Mr. Gaya enrolled in York University in 2016. As a result, Debbie Hansen, Executive Director of York University’s Community Support & Services, met with Mr. Gaya. Mr. Gaya and York University entered into a contractual arrangement as a result of which Ms. Hansen and Mr. Gaya met monthly to touch base, go over his academic progress and discuss any other supports needed. In a letter of support, Ms. Hansen wrote:

[95]        Mr. Gaya was accepted at Osgoode Hall Law School. He began his first year in the fall of 2017 and obtained his J.D. from Osgoode Hall Law School in 2020.

[96]        Professor Jamie Cameron taught Mr. Gaya in his first year of law school. She provided a letter of support and testified at this hearing. Professors Bhabha, Haigh and Priel taught Mr. Gaya and provided letters of support:

[97]        Professor Cameron wrote:

[98]        Professor Bhaba wrote:

[99]        Professor Haigh quoted from letters of recommendation that he had previously made in his letter, stating:

[100]     Professor Priel wrote:

[101]     While at Osgoode Hall Law School, Mr. Gaya was a Division Leader with CLASP, which is an intensive clinical program. Suzanne Johnson is the clinic director of CLASP. Natasha Persaud served as Review Counsel with CLASP. She closely supervised and evaluated the work of student Division Leaders within the Administrative Law Division. Both Ms. Johnson and Ms. Persaud provided letters of support.

[102]     Ms. Johnson wrote positively with respect to Mr. Gaya’s self-discipline, honesty, self-reflection and responsibility, and stated:

[103]     Ms. Persaud wrote:

[104]     Howard Sapers testified and provided a letter of support. Mr. Sapers is a former Vice-Chair of the Parole Board of Canada and was the Correctional Investigator of Canada for 12 years. He now teaches at the University of Ottawa where he is a visiting professor in the Department of Criminology.

[105]     Mr. Sapers met Mr. Gaya after a lecture given by Mr. Sapers at Osgoode Hall Law School on reform of segregated incarceration. Their post-lecture conversation developed into a fuller conversation and ongoing subsequent contact. Mr. Sapers testified that he has dealt with thousands of past offenders over his career and that Mr. Gaya is unusual. In Mr. Sapers’ experience, there is always a wariness and distrust on the part of past offenders and candour is hard to come by. But wariness was not present in Mr. Gaya. His honesty on difficult questions was impressive, he realized the implications of what he had done, and was doing his best to take responsibility for his actions. Mr. Gaya was introspective and thoughtful. Surprisingly, there was no anger, bitterness or resentment; rather he was focused on the future and aware of the past. Mr. Sapers testified that Mr. Gaya’s progress was remarkable and that his rehabilitation represented the best possible outcome of the corrections system.

[106]     Brian Gover and Nadar Hasan are lawyers at Stockwoods LLP. They met with Mr. Gaya in 2018 to assess Mr. Gaya’s prospects as a prospective lawyer and give him any advice that they could. They have stayed in regular contact with Mr. Gaya and have provided letters of support:

[107]     Mr. Gover wrote:

[108]     Mr. Hasan wrote in 2020:

[109]     During the summer of 2019, Mr. Gaya worked as a summer student for Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). Simone Bern was Criminal Policy Counsel. Keith Taller was counsel in the Policy and Strategic Research Department of LAO, and the lead of LAO’s Prison Law Strategy. Both Ms. Bern and Mr. Taller worked with Mr. Gaya. Both provided letters of support.

[110]     Ms. Bern wrote:

[111]     Mr. Taller wrote:

[112]     Alexi Wood is a founding partner of St. Lawrence Barristers and an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Mr. Gaya is currently employed by St. Lawrence Barristers.

[113]     Ms. Wood learned of Mr. Gaya as a result of his efforts to find an articling position. A colleague of Ms. Wood suggested that she consider meeting with Mr. Gaya which she did on several occasions in 2019 with a view to assisting and mentoring him.

[114]     After meeting with Mr. Gaya on several occasions, Ms. Wood considered offering a position to Mr. Gaya. She met and spoke with several other members of the profession who had interactions with Mr. Gaya, including Mr. Hasan mentioned above. She reviewed articles about the Toronto 18 and the reasons in Mr. Gaya’s criminal case. She discussed with Mr. Gaya the nature of her women-run firm that does work in progressive areas such as sexual assault.

[115]     While not looking for an articling student, Ms. Wood states in her letter of support that “I was left with no doubt of Mr. Gaya’s good character and that he has the potential to be an excellent lawyer. I was delighted when he accepted our offer of an articling position.”

[116]     Mr. Gaya worked for St. Lawrence Barristers part-time during his third year of law school and as an articling student staring in June 2020. Mr. Gaya continues to work at St. Lawrence Barristers under the supervision of Ms. Woods. Ms. Woods testified that Mr. Gaya is committed to excellence and is a person of integrity and honesty. In practice, Mr. Gaya demonstrates depth, maturity, empathy and analytic skill. Ms. Woods observed that the extent of Mr. Gaya’s depth and maturity is rare, perhaps as a result of his experiences and perhaps being somewhat older than many articling students.

[117]     Mr. Gaya has impressed Ms. Woods and the others working at St. Lawrence Barristers as well as the clients for whom he has assisted. Mr. Gaya is open about his past misconduct. He owns up to his mistakes, including as a student, and takes responsibility. Ms. Woods testified that she trusts Mr. Gaya implicitly. She has never had reason to question his honesty – as she said, “never, the opposite.” Ms. Woods testified that Mr. Gaya has the support of his colleagues at the firm.

[118]     Ms. Woods has no doubt that Mr. Gaya is remorseful. She testified that Mr. Gaya demonstrates remorse and rehabilitation and that he is one of the best students that she has ever worked with. His work with clients, including vulnerable clients, is well beyond expectations. Ms. Woods is enthusiastic about Mr. Gaya remaining with the firm as a lawyer.

[119]     Ms. Woods testified that she has no concern about Mr. Gaya’s past which, in her view, was the result of past radicalization or radical ideology. Ms. Woods believes that Mr. Gaya is a “poster child” for rehabilitation and that his journey is remarkable and praiseworthy.

[120]     Ms. Woods has had a significant opportunity to assess Mr. Gaya and his character, having worked with him for approximately two years. Her evidence was clear and credible. Ms. Woods has had the benefit of seeing Mr. Gaya’s work with colleagues at, and clients of, the firm and of seeing their reactions to him.

[121]     Philip Tunley is a partner of St. Lawrence Barristers. He provided a letter of support. Mr. Gaya was recommended to Mr. Tunley by Bryan Finlay and the late Tom Heinzman. Mr. Finlay and Mr. Heintzman had met Mr. Gaya through the Book Club for Inmates.

[122]     In his letter of support, Mr. Tunley wrote:

[123]     Inspector Zogheib sought out Mr. Gaya’s assistance while Mr. Gaya was incarcerated. He was interested in seeing how Mr. Gaya would deal with radicalization in others and thought that Mr. Gaya would be viewed as being credible in talking with extremists.

[124]     As a result, Mr. Gaya met with others to help them understand the process by which he had become radicalized. Inspector Zogheib recorded an interview with Mr. Gaya which was played at a conference of persons involved in these matters. Mr. Gaya was fairly candid and open, very factual and straight forward, well-spoken, honest and did not seek to deflect responsibility or make excuses. Inspector Zogheib considered this to be very beneficial to the police and social workers who were present in their work to counter extremism.

[125]     As Inspector Zogheib wrote to the Parole Board in 2015:

[126]     Professor Amarnath Amarasingam testified and provided a letter of support. Professor Amarasingam is an Assistant Professor in the School of Religion and is cross appointed in the faculty to the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s University. Professor Amarasingam’s scholarship focuses on religion, violence and social movements.

[127]     Professor Amarasingam met Mr. Gaya in 2016 when he was conducting research regarding former extremists. While not formally part of his study, Professor Amarasingam met with Mr. Gaya and discussed his experiences.

[128]     Professor Amarasingam invited Mr. Gaya to come and tell his story at the Terrorism, Security and Society Network’s Summer Academy in July 2019. Mr. Gaya and Professor Amarasingam engaged in an extended discussion in front of a room full of law enforcement officials, graduate students, and Canadian policy makers about his journey and his current successes and challenges.

[129]     Mr. Gaya answered questions about growing up, how he had come in contact with extremist views, his radicalization, his experience in prison and on and after release. According to Professor Amarasingam, the feedback from people who were at the event was that their understanding of terrorism was completely altered by Mr. Gaya’s story.

[130]     In Professor Amarasingam’s view, Mr. Gaya is quite unique. He says this having had significant exposure to Neo-Nazi and Islamist extremists. Mr. Gaya stands out and is “miles ahead of others” in terms of turning his life around. Professor Amarasingam has no concern about re-radicalization taking into account his dealings with Mr. Gaya and Mr. Gaya’s conduct. Professor Amarasingam considers Mr. Gaya to be an amazing story and example.

[131]     Professor Amarasingam does not have the length and depth of contact with Mr. Gaya as the other referees but he is well placed by experience and expertise to provide insight in respect of terrorist offenders. Professor Amarasingam states, “As someone who has been studying political violence and terrorism for over 15 years, I truly believe that Saad can have a very positive role in society by being an example of rehabilitation and reintegration. …”

[132]     Mr. Braithwaite noted Mr. Gaya’s work in this area stating in his letter of support that:

[133]     Hussein A. Hamdani also provided a letter of support. Mr. Hamdani is a practising lawyer and a director of the Hamilton Law Association. He was appointed to Canada’s Cross-Cultural Roundtable on National Security by Public Safety Canada in 2005. He has spoken at many conferences and symposia in Canada and the US sponsored by Homeland Security about youth extremism and national security.

[134]     Mr. Hamdani knew Mr. Gaya as a teenager from his involvement in a Muslim youth group at his local mosque in Mississauga. Mr. Hamdani met Saad again after his release. According to Mr. Hamdani, Mr. Gaya has done important work in the counter-extremism field, helping young people to not make the same mistakes that he once made. The specifics of this work are not described by Mr. Hamdani. It is not clear whether this is a reference to work other than described by other witnesses. Mr. Hamdani’s view is that, as a result of Mr. Gaya’s life and experiences, he possesses wisdom and sincerity and that his story is a story of redemption.

[135]     Saba Khan is a lawyer. She is now married to Mr. Gaya. They met while Mr. Gaya was a law student. What is of significant assistance is her evidence detailing the extensive and through investigation of Mr. Gaya and his evolution that was undertaken by Ms. Khan and her family. Ms. Khan did not lightly decide to start a relationship with Mr. Gaya. Their relationship was not initially accepted by her family. But their investigations confirmed to them Mr. Gaya’s rehabilitation and current character and overcame their very reasonable concerns that he might not be a suitable husband for their daughter.

[136]     We have left our review of Mr. Gaya’s testimony to the end because much of it parallels the evidence of the other witnesses and because Mr. Gaya’s evidence is inherently self-interested. That said, Mr. Gaya’s evidence was clear, cogent and credible. Given the structure of these reasons, it is not necessary to fully detail Mr. Gaya’s testimony to the extent it repeats what others have already described.

[137]     However, Mr. Gaya’s testimony on several points is instructive as to his character, rehabilitation and remorse.

[138]     Mr. Gaya testified that his arrest had a tremendous impact on him. He didn’t expect to be arrested. His family was in complete denial. In solitary confinement for 14 months, Mr. Gaya was alone with his thoughts. He spoke to his family on the phone every day. He saw the impact of his actions on them and slowly began to realise how serious his crime was. When he was arrested, he did not think he was a terrorist. He said his later realization that he had been a terrorist was a bitter pill to swallow. Mr. Gaya described his time in solitary as a period of survival.

[139]     Mr. Gaya testified that he accepted Justice Durno’s conclusion that he was wilfully blind to the risk the explosions would cause death or serious bodily harm. He said that he originally felt that he had asked appropriate questions and had received satisfactory answers but came to accept that he should have made further inquiries. He explained he failed to do so because, in the context of his extreme and radicalized thoughts, he was blinded by his goal to end what he saw as a war against Muslims. In cross-examination, he said that his purpose was not to kill anyone but that, by June 2006, he knew or was wilfully blind or was indifferent to the harm that could be result. He described himself as having been brainwashed and having been focused on the outcome he sought to achieve.

[140]     Mr. Gaya emphasized the importance of his family’s ongoing support for him, despite their clear disapproval and angered surprise at his misconduct. He described the gratitude he had for their role in convincing him to finish his university degree through correspondence. As he could not access the internet, and only had the use of a small pencil, his sister applied for him. The family brought him course materials and sent in his work for him. Mr. Gaya also described the first visit during which his parents were actually allowed to physically be with him. He said that he broke down and apologized to them. Their response was that that was not enough and that he had to make up for the grave thing he had done. He then started working with the authorities, which was risky in a maximum-security prison. He described his work with the RCMP and others to help address radicalization.

[141]     Mr. Gaya testified about the support he received throughout his prison term from others as well. He testified about the pastoral community in prison and his work with Imam Ramzy. He said he understood that what he did was wrong but didn’t have the tools to counteract the extremist ideas he had accepted. With Imam Ramzy’s guidance, he was able to understand the historical basis for his religion and the development of the extremist ideology. Mr. Gaya described a slow and gradual evolution from extremist ideas to a better understanding of mainstream Islamic faith.

[142]     Mr. Gaya testified about the Book Club for Inmates and how it lifted his spirits. He described the experience of having non-prison people come to a maximum-security prison to discuss books with inmates. He talked about how those he met through the book club provided support and guidance when he was released on parole. He described the help and support that his parole officer at Warkworth, Bill Jamieson, gave him in applying for day parole, and the guidance and support of Joe Braithwaite, his parole officer when he was released. Mr. Gaya testified about his dilemma of having to choose to tell Saba about his past and ultimately of the love and support of her and her family. He spoke about the support of a number of lawyers who went out of their way to help and support him in his quest to overcome his past to become a lawyer.

[143]     Mr. Gaya described his quest to build a new life for himself beyond the terrorist conviction in his past. He talked about his initial acceptance by York University and then his devastation on being asked to quit because of his criminal conviction. He talked about the steps he took, with the support of his parole officer, to persuade York that he could be trusted. He said he knew that he had to excel at law school if he wanted to work in the legal profession given his past. He became editor of a law blog providing commentary on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. He described his excitement in finding that, when he googled his name, it was no longer just his past that came up.

[144]     Mr. Gaya testified that he accepted responsibility for his actions, that he recognizes the harm he has caused to his family and the larger community, and that he is deeply remorseful for his actions. He said that what he did could have been awful and could have had terrible consequences. He also recognized that his actions could have affected Canadians’ sense of risk of other similar acts. He testified that he has to live with the guilt and shame of his actions. He told us that he hopes to make his family proud, that he hopes that his whole life will not be defined by his early decisions and that, by his actions, he can show that rehabilitation is possible.

[145]     We accept that Mr. Gaya has taken responsibility for his actions and is genuinely remorseful for his participation in the Toronto 18 plot. The Law Society accepts that there is significant evidence of his remorse. The evidence of those who have provided support letters and of those who have testified is that Mr. Gaya is genuinely remorseful. Mr. Gaya was clear in his evidence that he is deeply ashamed of his criminal conduct.

[146]     We concluded that Mr. Gaya has demonstrated that he is currently a person of good character. The evidence supports the conclusion that since engaging in violent criminal activity in 2006, he has grown from a misguided youth into a thoughtful and caring man with a powerful desire to do good in the world. His rehabilitation has been long and challenging. He spent ten years in prison, much in segregation and maximum security, and four years on parole. He co‑operated with prison authorities, engaged in three years of deradicalization education, took advantage of all rehabilitation opportunities available and continued throughout with his education. He has impressed those he encountered during his imprisonment with his good faith, honesty, remorse and strength of character. Their testimony is compelling.

[147]     Mr. Gaya’s criminal conduct is not excused by his then age or his radicalization. However, this context is relevant to understanding the criminal conduct and to the assessment of rehabilitation and remorse. Mr. Gaya’s motivation for his criminal conduct is not typical of most criminal misconduct. This is a case in which an immature naïve teenager engaged in criminal misconduct because he was led to believe that what he was doing was good within the context of his faith.

[148]     Mr. Gaya was entitled to oppose Canada’s participation in the war in Afghanistan. Right or wrong, he was entitled to believe and say that Muslims were being victimized and that Canadian forces should not be in Afghanistan. However, he was not entitled to use violence or criminal means to attempt to force the withdrawal of Canadian forces. It is the attempted use of terrorist tactics to achieve the end that he believed was good that is the relevant misconduct.

[149]     As rightly said in Sriskandarajah v. Law Society of Ontario, 2020 ONLSTH 122 at paras. 69 and 71:

[150]     Willingness to accept that ends can justify criminal means, including potential injury or death, is highly relevant in the assessment of good character. This is particularly so for the purposes of becoming a lawyer. An essential aspect of the role of lawyers is the support of the administration of justice and the legal system so that serious differences can be fairly and peaceably resolved.

[151]     In terms of rehabilitation and remorse, Mr. Gaya submits, and testified, that he came to understand and accept that his prior belief was false and that what he did was wrong both in secular and in religious terms. He submits that sufficient time has passed and that he has conducted himself such that it can be confidently concluded that this change is well-grounded and stable.

[152]     The evidence in support of this application is powerful. Collectively, the witnesses were able to describe Mr. Gaya’s progress since the time of his criminal conduct. Because of their roles, the witnesses were well-positioned to assess Mr. Gaya’s progress and to provide insight into his current character. The decisions of a number of witnesses to continue to support Mr. Gaya and to be part of his life after their professional relationships with him ended is striking. We unhesitatingly accept the reliability and credibility of the witnesses.

[153]     Considering the evidence of the individual witnesses and looking at the evidence as a whole, we have no doubt about Mr. Gaya’s present good character. His insight, remorse and acceptance of responsibility are clear from his testimony and from his actions, from what he has overcome and accomplished, and from the respect and support he has earned from those many people who he encountered in his lengthy and challenging path to rehabilitation.

[154]     Mr. Gaya made terrible mistakes as a young man. His long and hard journey back deserves recognition. Our criminal justice system is not premised just on denunciation and punishment but also on correction and rehabilitation. Allowing Mr. Gaya to become a lawyer, despite his past, helps give meaning to true correction and rehabilitation. Requiring demonstration of current good character, as we have done, protects the public. Both support public confidence in a fair and just legal system. Clients, and our society as a whole, will benefit from Mr. Gaya becoming a lawyer. His insight, dedication and resilience will well serve his clients and the administration of justice.

[155]     We reserved our decision after the evidence and submissions were received. After considering the matter and for these reasons, we subsequently found that Mr. Gaya was presently of good character and ordered that: