Dr. Van Gijseghem

The accused, Gaston Nicholas, was found guilty of two counts of arson.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a 12-month reformatory sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation, citing the accused's advanced age, poor physical and mental health (including vascular dementia and depression), and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental health and the offences, and concluded that incarceration would have a severe negative effect on him due to his vulnerabilities and the pandemic conditions in correctional institutions.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and a 10-year weapons prohibition, declining a DNA order.

Gaston Nicholas was charged with two counts of arson and admitted to setting the fires.

The issue was whether he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued that vascular dementia, paranoia, or delusions rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were wrong.

The Crown contended that despite some dementia, his actions and words demonstrated appreciation and knowledge of wrongfulness.

The court found that Nicholas suffered from early-stage dementia, which qualified as a mental disorder, but it did not render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong.

Consequently, the NCR defence was not established, and Nicholas was found criminally responsible and guilty of arson.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.