BREAKING: Toronto van attacker convicted of all 26 counts

The man who carried out the pickup truck attack in Toronto, which left 10 dead and 16 injured, has been found guilty of all 26 counts. A sentencing timeline will come on March 18.

Judge Anne Molloy, who asked journalists not to publish the author’s name, delivered the verdict on Wednesday.

Molloy said much of it depended on whether the perpetrator knew the crime was morally wrong rather than legally false. This would mean that he lacked rational perception and therefore rational choice, being unable to rationally assess what he was doing.

Molloy said it was clear to her that he knew the actions would be viewed “by the vast majority of society as morally wrong.”

Molloy said she concluded that the defense failed to prove that the author did not know his crimes were morally wrong.

“He knew it was legally wrong to kill people, he also knew that his plan to smear and kill people amounted to first degree murder … which is why Mr. Doe tried to die by a cop “said Molloy.

The culprit had previously admitted to hiring a van and driving it to the sidewalk in North York in April 2018, intentionally hitting civilians and mostly killing women. The shocking incident has been described by many as an “incel” terrorist attack.

Incels, a suitcase of “involuntary celibacy,” typically describes a young man who cannot sexually attract women.

Molloy also said the perpetrator hired the van more than three weeks before the attack and intentionally sought out a van large enough to cause as much damage as possible, but small enough to maneuver on sidewalks and make sharp turns.

Lawyers for the culprit argued his autism prevented him from recognizing the seriousness of his actions, which Molloy said the defense failed to accomplish.

This is the first major case where an autism spectrum disorder has been used to try to find someone not criminally responsible for murder in Canada, according to CTV.

The Criminal Code of Canada says that to be not criminally responsible means that one is “incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong”.