The accused, Brandon Aubin, faced four charges: three Criminal Code offences related to a residential basement fire and one Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) offence for Butane honey oil production.
The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on expert fire investigation evidence.
The defence presented an alternative fire origin theory and the accused testified, denying the introduction of Butane.
The court dismissed the mischief endangering life charge but found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the two arson charges and the CDSA production charge, concluding that the fire was caused by the ignition of Butane vapour introduced by the accused shortly before the incident.
