Experts and observers said, following the conclusion of the historic trial this week, that the case of a man from Ontario who carried out a deadly attack on a Muslim family was the first case to recognize terrorism based on the ideology of "white supremacy," and also emphasized that terrorism is not limited to those belonging to specific groups.

Nathaniel Veltman was sentenced on Thursday to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years for each of the four counts of first-degree murder in the June 2021 attack that claimed the lives of four members of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario.

Veltman (23 years old) was also sentenced to life imprisonment for the attempted murder of a boy who survived.

When issuing the sentencing decision, Ontario Superior Court Judge Renée Pomerance said on Thursday that the "inevitable conclusion" is that Veltman committed an act of terrorism when he rammed the Afzaal family with his truck. She noted that he targeted them because they are Muslim, and he expressed his white nationalist beliefs in a statement and in his police statements.

She added that "terrorism is not the exclusive domain of any group or ideology." "Right-wing extremism can be as destructive to the social order as any other ideology that encourages hatred and violence."

The attack killed Salman Afzaal, 46; his wife Madiha Salman, 44; their 15-year-old daughter Yumna; and his grandmother Talat Afzaal, 74. The couple's 9-year-old son was seriously injured but survived.

This case was the first time Canadian anti-terrorism laws were presented before a jury in a first-degree murder trial.

Amira Elghawaby, Canada's Special Representative on Anti-Islamophobia, said after the verdict that this also "represents the first time in Canadian history that a case involving white nationalism has reached the level of terrorism." Elghawaby said: "This decision will have profound repercussions across Canada."

Amarnath Amarasingham, assistant professor at the Queen's University Faculty of Religion, said the terrorism finding is important in light of the compelling evidence of ideological motivations.

"If Veltman, of all people, who took the lives of a family, and left a statement... literally called himself a white nationalist and called for the deportation of certain minorities — if this isn’t ideology and isn’t defined as such, then what exactly is the purpose of these words?"

He added: "It is important that these things be applied fairly across ideologies and movements."

He said it will be interesting to see what happens in future cases involving "more obscure individuals and far-right extremists who leave little behind."

Michael Nesbitt, assistant law professor at the University of Calgary and counter-terrorism specialist, said: "While the terrorism ruling was not surprising given the evidence heard at trial, Pomerance’s decision provides details on how the political purpose and ideological motivations — both key elements of terrorism under the law — are considered 'in a way we have not seen before; they’ve been caught before in criminal trials.'

He added that in the past, a terrorism defendant was associated with a group, and that group had an ideology, which then linked the person to that ideology.

He added that this made matters more difficult when dealing not only with lone actors but also with individuals "derived from a mixture of various ideological influences," rather than a focused movement or group.

He added that the ruling handed down on Thursday shows that existing anti-terrorism laws are capable of monitoring this kind of activity, which better reflects what officials have identified as Canada’s current security threat environment.

He said: "This is an example of a successful trial where they built the case on the available evidence linked to the individual."

Pomerance said in her ruling that Veltman "did not need to communicate with a group and did not even need to leave his apartment to fully immerse himself in the extremist doctrine."

She added that while extremism is complex, based on the evidence presented at trial, Veltman "derived much of his anger from internet sources, which he repeatedly accessed in the days and moments leading up to the attack."

The judge said she would not name Veltman or repeat his beliefs to avoid giving him the attention he seeks.

Barbara Perry, director of the Centre on Bias, Hate and Extremism at Ontario Tech University, said this stance is understandable but makes it harder to analyze how what Veltman said conflicts with our understanding of white nationalism, which is part of assessing ideology.

She added: "I think this will serve as material for many conversations and discussions in the months to come."

Faisal Bhabha, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, has long opposed anti-terror laws, arguing that they are deployed in a discriminatory manner and do not serve any real purpose because the acts they cover are already illegal.

He said Veltman faces the same penalty for first-degree murder as anyone convicted of these crimes without a terrorism element, indicating that terrorism convictions are largely symbolic.

He asked: "If it does not lead to different sentencing principles, then what is the point of the terrorism offense at all?"

Bhabha referred to the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, the gunman who killed six people at a mosque in Quebec City in 2017. Bissonnette pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder, none of which had a terrorism element.

Bissonnette was initially sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 40 years, under a law in force at the time that allowed judges to stack parole ineligibility periods of 25 years for cases involving multiple first-degree murders.

The Quebec Court of Appeal then overturned this ruling and the enabling law, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, reducing Bissonnette’s parole ineligibility to 25 years.

However, he said the fact that Pomerance considered terrorism a major factor in sentencing Veltman to life imprisonment for attempted murder is "noteworthy."

He said: "This may be the future of anti-terror legislation, to be able to capture acts... that may not entail lengthy sentences, for acts that do not reach the level of murder but reinforce a terrorism case."