Alek Minassian, the perpetrator of the horrific 2018 Toronto van attack, is attempting to overturn his ten murder convictions. His strategy hinges on newly surfaced questions surrounding the testimony of a key witness – a forensic psychiatrist whose professional conduct is now under intense scrutiny.
The prospect of this merciless killer being granted a new trial is deeply unsettling. Minassian deliberately drove a rented van onto a crowded sidewalk, targeting women in a calculated act of violence that left ten people dead and many more injured. His appeal rests on challenging the validity of the expert evidence used to determine his criminal responsibility.
At the heart of the challenge is Dr. Scott Woodside, a prominent psychiatrist who testified that despite Minassian’s autism spectrum disorder, he understood the moral wrongness of his actions. The judge accepted this assessment, finding Minassian criminally responsible and rejecting a plea of not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.
However, Dr. Woodside’s credibility has been severely damaged by subsequent legal rulings. A 2023 decision revealed he had plagiarized portions of a report, copying and pasting text from an unrelated case to support a dangerous offender designation. This wasn’t a minor oversight; the court found the resulting report contained incorrect diagnoses, false accusations, and misrepresented risk assessments.
When confronted, Woodside attempted to justify his actions, but the judge was unswayed. His expert opinion was rejected, and he was found to be exhibiting “professional credibility bias,” unable or unwilling to fulfill his duty to the court with the necessary diligence. The concerns didn’t end there.
A year later, the Court of Appeal further condemned Woodside’s work as “careless” and “unreliable,” ordering a new hearing in another dangerous offender case where his recommendation for an indeterminate sentence was being questioned. The Chief Justice warned that Woodside “may not treat his important responsibilities as an expert witness with the care and diligence that his duty to the court requires.”
These revelations prompted a directive from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General regarding Woodside’s use as a forensic psychiatrist. The specifics of this directive remain confidential, but Minassian’s lawyers are demanding access to it, along with any internal reviews conducted in response to the concerns raised about Woodside’s work.
They argue the original judge erred in finding Woodside capable of fulfilling his duty as an expert, given the subsequent evidence of his professional failings. Prosecutors claim the defense already possesses all relevant information and that no further details are being concealed.
Despite the serious questions surrounding Woodside, prosecutors maintain that removing his testimony wouldn’t alter the outcome of the case. They point out that one defense expert agreed with Woodside’s assessment of Minassian’s criminal responsibility, while the other was dismissed by the judge.
In 2022, Minassian received a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. The judge, in her sentencing remarks, emphasized that Minassian was fully aware of the devastating consequences of his actions, driven by a desire for notoriety and a chilling disregard for human life.
She stated he “knew death would be irreversible. He knew their families would grieve.” This was a calculated act of violence, fueled by a desperate need to be remembered. The central question now is whether the questionable conduct of a single forensic psychiatrist should be enough to potentially unravel the justice delivered to the victims and their families.
