Normand Matte

The appellant was convicted of arson and unlawfully producing cannabis resin after a fire broke out in his mother's basement.

The Crown's expert testified the fire was caused by the ignition of butane vapours from the production of butane honey oil.

The appellant appealed, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to seek legal aid funding to call a competing fire expert who had concluded the fire was caused by a faulty extension cord.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge had considered the competing expert's report and correctly concluded it was flawed and would not have affected the verdict, as it focused only on the ignition source and ignored the fuel source.

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.