The sentencing of the man found guilty of running down and killing four members of a family because they were Muslim continued Tuesday, as the judge heard arguments on whether the attack amounted to terrorism under the law.

Calling it a planned and deliberate terrorist attack, crown attorney Sarah Shaikh told the court, “There should be no doubt about the offender’s intent to terrorize Muslims…all of (the victims) are scared when they see a black truck, all of them are afraid to cross the street.”

Shaikh said the June 6, 2021 attack in London, Ont. that killed four members of the Afzaal family and seriously injured a fifth, meets the legal definition of terrorism because it was ideologically motivated and was intended to instill fear and intimidate Muslims.

Shaikh rejected the defence’s assertions that Veltman wasn’t ideologically motivated but instead, an act committed due to mental health disorders.

“All of these assertions have no footing in reality…the defense strains credulity.”

Fifteen-year-old Yumnah Afzaal, her parents 44-year-old Madiha Salman and 46-year-old Salman Afzaal and 74-year-old grandmother Talat Afzaal were killed and her younger brother injured, when the family was struck.

After his arrest, Veltman confessed to police, saying he was a white supremacist and that he killed the Afzaals to inspire others to commit similar acts of hatred against Muslims.

The crown says the act itself, Veltman’s statements and confessions after his arrest, and his manifesto, “a white awakening” which was filled with racist ideologies, all overwhelmingly prove this was an act of terrorism.

Defence attorney Christopher Hicks took a much different view, arguing it wasn’t terrorism because, in his view, the manifesto was simply ideas written to himself and they don’t rise to an ideology.

Hicks conceded the attack was planned and deliberate, but stands firm that it wasn’t terrorism as Veltman didn’t intend to instill fear.

“The issue of terrorism has not been litigated in Canadian law, so that’s why I’m determined to oppose it, because I don’t think this was a terrorist act at all.” said Hicks.

The defence defended the idea that mental health issues and a traumatic childhood explain what Veltman did.

The day concluded with Veltman reading a statement to the court, making a last minute apology for what he did saying he can’t turn back time and once again claiming mental health disorders played a role in his actions.

However, it wasn’t well received and the family rejected the apology in a statement made to the media in the final hour of the trial.

“It would be a failure for anyone to believe this was an apology. It is one more strategy in a series of ploys that has not stopped for two and a half years,” said the family.

“An apology would be confessing to the terrorism charge, not fighting it.

Additionally discussed was a sentence for the attempted murder charge on the Afzaal’s young son. The crown is seeking 25 to life, while the defence is arguing for 10 years.

Regardless of the final sentence on that charge, he is facing a mandatory 25 years to life for the four first-degree murder counts.

If the judge rules that this was indeed an attack of terrorism, it won’t change his sentence but may have an impact on his chances at parole far in the future.

Court is scheduled to resume on Feb. 22, when the judge’s ruling is expected to be delivered.