G. Orr

The defendants applied for a re-hearing of their dismissed s. 8 Charter application regarding a police search of a residential property where marijuana plants were found.

They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decisions in Jones and Marakah changed the law on standing, allowing them to rely on the Crown's allegations of possession to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Jones and Marakah applied to informational privacy claims and did not overrule the Edwards test for territorial privacy claims.

The court found that even if the Crown's allegations were assumed true, they only alleged possession of the plants, not possession of the property, which was insufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.

The accused was charged with arson contrary to s. 433(a) of the Criminal Code after a fire was discovered in a wall cavity of a dwelling occupied by her romantic partner.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally ignited combustible material in the wall as a diversion after she was unable to provide funds for a joint real estate transaction, thereby risking the occupant’s life.

Expert evidence from the Office of the Fire Marshal concluded the fire originated in a pre‑existing hole in the basement stairwell wall and was caused by the intentional application of an open flame to combustible material.

The court rejected defence theories that the fire was staged or set by the complainant and found the accused’s testimony not credible, applying the credibility framework in R. v. W. (D.).

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused damage by fire to an occupied dwelling.