‘I still feel remorseful’: UWaterloo stabber apologizes at his sentencing hearing

The man who stabbed three people in a University of Waterloo gender studies class last year expressed remorse for his crimes at the conclusion of his sentencing hearing Friday, but acknowledged that his apology may ring hollow to some. 

“Even though I committed a violent attack, I still … don’t know what happened,” Geovanny Villalba-Aleman told the court. “Right now, I don’t know what’s going (on) with my head. I still feel remorseful for what happened.”

The 25-year-old has pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of assault with a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm in the June 2023 attack that left a professor and two students with stab wounds.

Federal prosecutors have argued the offences amount to terrorism in this case because they were motivated by ideology and meant to intimidate the public. Provincial prosecutors argued that Villalba-Aleman was motivated by hatred toward members of the LGBTQ+ community and feminists. The defence rejected both arguments.

Villalba-Aleman said Friday that some people may not believe his apology since “the act is done,” but he asked the judge to consider his remorse. 

“If there is a way to reconsider the situation because I admit that violence is not good … my intention was not to promote more violence here,” he said after Ontario Court Justice Frances Brennan offered him a chance to speak.

Provincial prosecutor Armin Sethi told the court Thursday that a manifesto Villalba-Aleman wrote before the attack railed against transgender people, feminists and ideologies that he believed were resulting in censorship of his views. 

Villalba-Aleman also told police that he specifically targeted a gender studies class, Sethi said, noting that he destroyed a Pride flag during the attack, which took place during Pride month. 

But the defence argued Friday that the Crown has not proven that Villalba-Aleman was motivated by prejudice or hate toward a specific group.

Lawyer Cooper Lord said his client believed that left-wing activism was becoming authoritarian and stifling freedom of speech, suggesting that Villalba-Aleman’s perceptions were rooted in delusions and “disordered thinking.” 

Lord suggested that Villalba-Aleman’s more “tempered” comments to police after the attack should carry more weight than the manifesto he wrote before the crimes were committed, arguing that the short text shouldn’t be considered a manifesto at all and that there’s no way of knowing what kind of mental state Villalba-Aleman was in when he wrote those words. 

Lord argued that Villalba-Aleman targeted the professor of the gender studies class — whom he called a “Marxist” before stabbing her — because she was “a stand-in” for his issues with authoritarianism and perceived limits on free speech in academia.

He said Villalba-Aleman’s attack was not personal and “it’s not clear that he singled out Pride month for this attack to take place.”

A psychologist who recently assessed Villalba-Aleman told the court earlier this week that he appeared to be in a downward spiral and may have experienced a psychotic break in the weeks leading up to the attack, although there is no clinical evidence of psychosis. 

The defence also said Thursday that the standard of proof for terrorist activity is high, and the federal Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the stabbings meet that standard because Villalba-Aleman did not attach himself to any specific ideology.

The federal Crown argued on Friday that Villalba-Aleman’s personal beliefs can still be considered as a motivating factor in deciding whether terrorism applies in this case.

But in response, the judge said she had concerns about a broad definition of ideology being applied to terrorism arguments. 

Villalba-Aleman, an international student who came to Canada from Ecuador in 2018, initially faced 11 charges in the case. Court has heard that he will eventually be subject to a deportation order.

The federal Crown has called for a sentence of 16 years if the judge agrees that the offences amount to terrorist activity, while provincial prosecutors have asked for a 13-year sentence if the judge rejects the terrorism argument but does find the crimes were hate-motivated. 

The defence argued Friday that a sentence of eight years, minus credit for time already spent in custody, is more appropriate if the judge accepts the terrorism argument. Otherwise, the defence is seeking a sentence in the five- to six-year range, and even less time behind bars if the judge also finds the offences were not hate-motivated.

The judge is set to deliver the sentence in January.