March 03, 2026

Terror Designations and Criminal Law: When Gangs Become “Terrorist Entities”

What the New Bishnoi Designation Means for Defence in Ottawa & Eastern Ontario

In September 2025, the federal government of Canada officially designated the Lawrence Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. This move marks a significant escalation in Canada’s approach to transnational organized crime. The effect is to treat certain criminal groups no longer merely as conventional organized crime networks, but as terrorist groups—with all the accompanying tools, presumptions, and legal implications that the anti-terror regime brings.

For criminal defence lawyers in Ottawa and Eastern Ontario, this shift matters deeply. It changes how prosecutions may be structured, how disclosure obligations may evolve, how asset seizures and freezing powers may be deployed, and how defence strategy must adapt.

The Legal Framework: Terrorist Designation in Canada

What Is a “Terrorist Entity”?

Under Canada’s Criminal Code (Part II.1, formerly created under the Anti-Terrorism Act), Parliament empowered the Governor in Council to list certain organizations as terrorist groups (a “terrorist entity”) if they meet defined criteria. Once “listed,” that entity is subject to special rules around property, financing, participation, etc.

Those criteria include that the entity is involved in or facilitates terrorist activity, which in turn generally means acts (or threats) of violence, property destruction, or interference with essential services done for political, ideological or religious purposes, or with intent to intimidate the public or compel some action.

Once an entity is listed, the law presumes that property owned or controlled by that entity may be “terrorist property,” and multiple offences attach to dealing with or facilitating that property.

Recent Application: The Bishnoi Gang

On Sept. 29, 2025, Public Safety Canada announced that the Lawrence Bishnoi gang has been listed as a terrorist entity. The government cited the gang’s use of murder, arson, extortion, intimidation campaigns in diaspora communities, and cross-border coordination of deadly acts as reasons.

As a result, all assets, property, and financial interests in Canada associated with the gang may be frozen or seized under anti-terrorism law. Authorities gain expanded prosecutorial powers over financing, recruitment, facilitation, and material support.

This move sends a strong signal: some organized crime groups are now being treated as part of the terrorist threat model, not simply subjects of ordinary criminal law.

What Changes: Prosecutorial Tools & Powers

Designation as a terrorist entity unlocks tools that were previously unavailable (or more limited) in organized crime prosecutions. Some of the major changes:

1. More Aggressive Freezing, Restraint, and Forfeiture of Property
   
   Under section 83.08 of the Criminal Code, once an entity is listed, the Crown may freeze or restrain property known to be owned or controlled by that entity, or even merely believed to be so. The prohibition is broad:
   
   “No person … shall knowingly (a) deal in any property owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist group; (b) enter into or facilitate any transaction in respect of such property; or (c) provide financial or other services in respect of such property.”
   
   Importantly, the law also provides for management orders—appointing someone to manage or maintain frozen property, sell perishable assets, or defend claims to the property. This is more aggressive than standard proceeds-of-crime regimes, which often require full judicial processes under the Seized Property Management Act.
   
   In sum: prosecutors gain accelerated leverage to lock down assets, sometimes before or parallel to full criminal proceedings.
   
   
2. More Stringent Offences Around Financing, Assistance & Participation
   
   Once an entity is listed, several statutory offences become more potent:
   
   Section 83.02: Providing or collecting property to be used in terrorist activity (max 10 years).
   
   Section 83.03: Providing services or property to a terrorist group, even if the services are indirect or partially beneficial.
   
   Section 83.18: Participation or contribution to the activity of a terrorist group—this is indictable, up to 10 years, and does not require that a terrorist act has actually occurred.
   
   Section 83.19: Facilitating a terrorist activity—i.e. helping with planning, support, or enabling even if the actor doesn’t know the exact nature or whether the activity will succeed.
   
   Section 83.2: Committing an offence for the benefit of or in association with a terrorist group—this can lead to life imprisonment in some circumstances.
   
   These offences often carry severe penalties and may require that sentences run consecutively to other sentences.
3. Consent and Jurisdictional Controls
   
   Because terrorism matters are federally sensitive, consent of the Attorney General of Canada is typically required to commence proceedings under many of these sections (e.g. s. 83.24). Moreover, proceedings may be initiated even if elements of the conduct occurred outside the province where the charge is laid.
   Thus, even in Eastern Ontario courts, prosecuting terrorism-linked charges may bypass ordinary local constraints.
4. Enhanced Intelligence / National Security Integration
   
   The involvement of CSIS, the RCMP national security units, and shared intelligence means evidence deriving from security operations, wiretaps, classified sources, or surveillance may play a larger role. Defence counsel must anticipate secret or ex parte evidence, use of publication bans or in-camera hearings, and the balancing of disclosure with national security interests.
5. Increased Penalties and Mandatory Parole Constraints
   
   Terrorism-related convictions often carry stiffer sentencing and parole ineligibility enhancements. Under the anti-terrorism regime, courts must treat terrorism involvement as an aggravating factor and may impose consecutive sentences. Also, homicide committed in conjunction with a terrorism offence can be treated as first-degree murder, with associated mandatory rules.

Impact on Disclosure, Burden, and Defence Strategy

The new regime is not just about tougher prosecutorial tools. It also shifts evidence, disclosure, and burden dynamics in ways that criminal defence must carefully counter.

Heightened Disclosure Challenges & Security-Information Regime

Terror prosecutions often involve sensitive or secret information—intelligence sources, classified surveillance, informant identities, or foreign intelligence presence. The Canada Evidence Act and provisions in the security‐info legislation permit portions of evidence to be withheld, or redacted, or heard in closed sessions.

From a defence perspective:

• You may be restricted in what evidence is disclosed or when.
• You may need to litigate disclosure motions under a security‐information scheme, balancing national security vs fair trial rights.
• Ensuring special advocates or cleared counsel roles may be necessary.
• You must anticipate publication bans, closed hearings, and alternate procedures for cross-examination of sensitive witnesses.

In the Ottawa / Eastern Ontario context, these proceedings may localize to regional courts, but with overlays of national security practice—meaning defence must be comfortable navigating hybrid criminal–security jurisprudence.

Burden of Proof / Reverse Onus Issues

While the Crown must always prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, certain terrorism statutes embed presumptions or reverse burden structures:

• In some cases, once the Crown establishes association of property or services with a terrorist entity, the burden may shift to the accused to show lawful justification or an authorization under section 83.09.
• The broad definitions of “participation” or “facilitation” in terrorist activity allow indirect, associative conduct—even if the defendant did not foresee a particular violent act.
• The fact that the entity is “terrorist” may create dependencies in the proof chain that favor inference constructions by Crown counsel.

Thus, defence efforts must attack inferences, present counter-narratives, and rigorously contest the assumed links between defendant and entity.

Higher Stakes, Draconian Penalties & Consecutive Sentences

A conviction under terrorism statutes often leads to harsher sentences and mandatory layers:

• Sentences must run consecutively with other convictions (i.e. stacking).
• Parole ineligibility periods may be extended beyond ordinary rules
• A terrorism conviction may carry collateral fallout (immigration bar, classification as dangerous offender, travel bans) far beyond a typical criminal conviction.

The defence must therefore assess whether accepting a plea on a terrorism‐adjacent offence is ever justified, and at what cost to liberties beyond prison terms.

Strategy Shifts: What Defence Must Do Differently

Given the heightened nature of terrorism prosecutions, defence strategy must evolve:

1. Early intelligence on designation
   
   - Monitor whether a group is under review for listing (e.g., Bishnoi did not appear on prior lists).
   - Determine whether your client’s alleged group or associates might be “terrorizable.”
   
   
2. Rigorous and preemptive disclosure motions
   
   - Seek to compel as much disclosure as possible, including non-classified intelligence.
   - Argue any redactions or withheld materials infringe the right to full answer and defence.
   
   
3. Attack linkage to terrorist group
   
   - The defendant must not merely be guilty of crime; the Crown must prove the terrorism predicate—that the defendant was associated with a terrorist entity.
   - Disentangle your client’s conduct from the “terrorist” label; show alternative motives (personal, criminal, commercial) rather than ideological or collective orientation.
   
   
4. Challenge presumptions or reverse burdens
   
   - Where the law shifts burden to defendant (e.g. in showing lawful justification or innocence), be ready to litigate constitutionality under the Charter.
   - Resist the drift toward “guilt by association” and emphasize individual autonomy.
   
   
5. Focus on proportionality and severance
   
   - Seek to sever non-terror aspects of the case (e.g. pure drug, murder, or organized crime charges) from terrorism charges where possible.
   - Argue that applying the terror regime is disproportionate to the defendant’s role or culpability.
   
   
6. Consider Charter challenges
   
   - Presumptions, restricted disclosure, and classification as terrorist may breach due process or right to fair trial.

   - Challenge the designation itself—entities listed may seek judicial review under section 83.05.
   
   
7. Prepare for collateral consequences
   
   - Even if acquitted, clients may face immigration removal, travel bans, or enhanced monitoring. Plan mitigation ahead.
   
   
8. Leverage local contextual defence
   
   - In Eastern Ontario/Ottawa, contextual factors matter: the defendant’s local reputation, employment, community ties, lack of prior terror linkages, and absence of ideological motive should be emphasized.

Local Considerations: Ottawa & Eastern Ontario

While terrorism cases tend to concentrate in national security centers, the Bishnoi designation—and its implications—will affect Ottawa and Eastern Ontario in several ways:

• The RCMP "One National Security" model means federal terrorism investigations often pass through major RCMP regional headquarters, including those servicing Eastern Ontario.
• Accused individuals in Ottawa may be caught in cross-jurisdictional net: even if local acts are in Eastern Ontario, the Crown may decide to prosecute terrorism-related offences in courts that serve Ottawa.
• Classified intelligence or CSIS operations in the National Capital Region may lead to locally based terrorism prosecutions. Defence counsel here must be conversant with national security law, not just local criminal law.
• Communities in Eastern Ontario with diasporic links (e.g. South Asian, Sikh, Punjabi communities) may feel heightened pressure, increased surveillance, or more aggressive investigation. Defence practices must be culturally attuned.
• Local courts may be early testbeds for how the terror regime is operationalized—e.g., whether judges in Kingston, Cornwall, Brockville, or Ottawa accept or resist expansive disclosure restrictions and procedural deviations.

In short: even if your client is charged for conduct in Cornwall or Brockville, the implications of national security prosecutions will shape strategy, courts, and advocacy in Ottawa.

Risks, Critiques & Defence Warnings

While listing criminal gangs as terrorist entities may appear politically appealing, it also raises serious risks and critiques—many of which defence counsel must actively push back on:

1. Blurring of crime and terrorism

   
   Some critics warn that ordinary criminal gangs (even violent ones) are now being shoehorned into a terrorism framework—inviting overreach, politicization, and undue penalties.
   
   
2. Chilling effect on communities

   
   Ethno-religious communities may feel unfair scrutiny or guilt by association. The terror label carries stigma beyond individuals.
   
   
3. Due process concerns

   
   With secret evidence, restricted disclosure, and intelligence-based claims, defendants may struggle to rebut allegations. The risk is convictions based on untested assertions.
   
   
4. Presumption of guilt

   
   Once an organization is listed, the default assumptions about connections, property, or support may tilt unfairly against defendants.
   
   
5. Judicial capacity strain

   
   Local judges may not be experienced with national security or terror procedures; inadequate understanding may lead to error in disclosure rulings or fairness judgments.
   
   
6. Overuse of consecutive sentences

   
   The stacking of terrorism sentences with conventional charges may lead to over-punishment beyond proportionality.
   
   
7. Designation review opacity

   
   The decision to list entities is largely political and often lacks transparency, with limited access for challenge.

Defence counsel must vigilantly guard against these pitfalls, both in individual cases and through systemic advocacy and challenge.

If you—or someone you know—is under investigation or facing charges related to gang activity, financing, or suspected terrorist association in Ottawa, or Eastern Ontario do not wait. These charges bring vastly higher stakes, novel legal burdens, and procedural complexity.

Celine Dostaler provides experienced defence in terrorism, national security, and complex criminal law matters in Ottawa and the surrounding region. We can:

• Review whether a purported designation was legally valid
• Challenge disclosure limitations and secret evidence
• Disentangle alleged associations from extremist or ideological motives
• Evaluate plea vs trial strategy under heightened sentences
• Protect constitutional and Charter rights through every stage

---