The man accused in London attack faces terrorism charges. Here's why experts are watching closely

The jury-trial set to begin Monday that will see Nathaniel Veltman tried on four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder, will also be a test of Canada's terrorism laws.

The accused, who has pleaded not guilty to the attack on the Afzaal family on June 6, 2021 in London, Ont., is also charged with terrorism, meaning Crown prosecutors must prove his actions were planned and deliberate, but also motivated by a political, religious or ideological cause. 

It is the first time that terrorism will be argued before a jury in a first-degree murder case since Canada passed its terrorism laws. It could set a precedent for how cases of this type are tried in the future. 

London Morning guest host Matt Allen spoke to Barbara Perry, the Director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at Ontario Tech University, about the impact this trial could have.

The following has been edited for length and clarity

Matt Allen: How could this case set a precedent?

Well, I think it's important for a number of reasons. In general, it's one of the very first cases where we've seen something that isn't Islamist inspired extremism. So it's a recognition that there are multiple forms of extremism and terrorism that leave our country at risk.

But also, it will be about establishing the ideological motivation and what the burden of proof is, and what the bar will be set at in terms of identifying and arguing that motivation. Is it Islamophobia? Right wing extremism? White supremacy? It will be interesting just in that respect alone.

MA: How do you think the prosecution will be looking to prove the case for the terror charges?

I think the key here is going to be ideological motivation and what shaped the behaviour. We don't know very much at this point, but presumably - and I think this is what we did hear very early on - is that there is some evidence in the accused's social media history that suggests sympathy for and perhaps engagement with right wing extremist ideologies. 

So what we don't know is whether he was simply a consumer or whether he was actively engaged and this will be part of the burden of proof. Does he have to be posting these horrific views himself or is it enough that he's engaged with that subculture in that community and informed by those ideologies? 

So I think at this point, that's the speculation that a lot of that evidence will come from his online history.

MA: Why do you think they are choosing to use terrorism as a charge in this particular case?

That's a very good question because there have been some similar cases where we haven't seen that.