When does a criminal act merit a terrorism charge?

A man has been charged with 10 counts of firstdegree murder and 13 counts of attempted murder after a van struck pedestrians along one of Toronto’s busiest thoroughfares.

Why have no terrorism charges been laid in the case?

Here’s a look at the Canadian legal regime on terrorism:

DEFINITION: The Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act carried out “for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” intended to intimidate the public by causing death or serious bodily harm, endangering health and safety, or interfering with an essential service.

WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY: When Criminal Code offences for terrorism were introduced as a part of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2001, Parliament decided that one of the things that should help distinguish such offences from other forms of violent crime was the specific motivational definition, said Wesley Wark of the University of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs.

“Some violent crimes may have the same effect as terrorism but if the motivational element cannot be demonstrated then they are not considered, legally, acts of terrorism, even if they terrorize,” Wark said.

The terrorism offences in Canadian law “do not work well” with so-called lone-wolf suspects who act on their own, given the code’s emphasis on participating in or contributing to the activities of a terrorist group, said Kent Roach, a law professor at the University of Toronto.