2 total
The Superior Court certified a class action for tenants displaced by an apartment fire, finding jurisdiction because the claims exceeded the Landlord and Tenant Board's monetary limit.
This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.
The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.
The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.
The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.
The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.
Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.
The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.
The accused was convicted of arson based on circumstantial evidence but acquitted of intent to defraud her insurer.
The accused was tried on two arson-related offences arising from multiple fires discovered in her home on June 10, 2014.
She was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to property owned in part by another person (section 434 of the Criminal Code) and with causing damage by fire with intent to defraud an insurance company (section 435(1)).
The Crown's case was circumstantial.
The accused and her mother were the only two people in the home immediately before the fires started.
Fire investigators identified three separate areas of origin for the fires: the upstairs bathroom, the kitchen stove, and the basement electrical panel.
The court found that the fires were deliberately set and that the accused was responsible for setting them.
However, the court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused set the fires with the specific intent to defraud her insurer.