Arson

The accused pleaded guilty to recklessly causing damage by fire to occupied property and participating in a riot while covering his face, arising from a January 27, 2019 incident at the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre.

The riot resulted in approximately $50,000 in damages.

The court imposed a sentence of 17 months incarceration followed by two years probation, with a 30-day reduction for lockdown and COVID-19 conditions.

The court rejected the defence's requests for enhanced pre-sentence custody credits for collateral consequences, Duncan credits for lockdowns, and additional COVID-19 credits, finding the sentence already at the low end of the appropriate range.

The appellant appealed his conviction for arson causing damage to property and mischief endangering life arising from two incidents involving damage to a vehicle belonging to the mother of his former girlfriend.

The appellant was acquitted of a third mischief charge involving a slashed tire.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's admission and reliance on similar fact evidence and her identification of the appellant from security video footage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's identification of the appellant from video evidence or in her conclusion that the two offences were likely committed by the same person based on striking similarities.

The court also granted leave to appeal sentence to eliminate the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence of ten years and two months imposed for arson causing bodily harm and arson causing property damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit, finding that even if the trial judge erred in referring to an aggravating factor, it had no impact on the global sentence.

The court confirmed that consecutive sentences were appropriately imposed as the offences involved different elements.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and any victim fine surcharge was set aside.

Crown appeal of sentence for three counts of attempted murder, one count of arson causing damage to property, and one count of possession of incendiary materials.

The accused set fire to his girlfriend's home with the intent to kill her and her two young children (ages 7 and 1) after she asked him to move out.

The seven-year-old suffered severe burns resulting in permanent scarring and loss of functionality in her hands and feet.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of 11 years concurrent on each attempted murder count.

The Crown appealed, seeking a life sentence or elevated sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit and increased it to 20 years concurrent on each attempted murder count.

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.

The accused was convicted of arson causing damage to property and mischief endangering life following a trial.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2 to 2½ years imprisonment, while the defence sought 90 days on an intermittent basis.

The court imposed 18 months concurrent imprisonment on each charge, followed by three years probation, with conditions including no contact with the victims, a 100-meter exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, DNA order, and mandatory counselling for anger management.

The court emphasized that arson convictions warrant significant sentences regardless of mitigating circumstances, and that conditional sentences are generally inappropriate in arson cases.

The appellant was convicted of three counts: intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to his dwelling house knowing it was inhabited or occupied (s. 433(a)), intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire that seriously threatened the safety and property of residents in proximity (s. 434.1), and wilfully endangering his dog (s. 445(1)(a)).

The trial judge found the appellant deliberately set a fire by igniting paper under a television.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal on counts one and four, quashing those convictions, while upholding the conviction on count two.

Benjamin Marki was found guilty by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder, one count of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a residence, and one count of improperly interfering with human remains.

The convictions stemmed from the brutal stabbing deaths of two victims, Wilfred Potts and Anne Chuchmuch, followed by the deliberate setting of fire to their residence and Ms. Chuchmuch's body.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence for murder and determined the parole ineligibility period, taking into account the offender's character, the nature and circumstances of the offences, the jury's recommendations, and Gladue factors.

The court imposed a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 20 years on each murder count, to be served concurrently, along with time served for the arson and indignity to human remains charges.

The appellant appealed her conviction for arson and her sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the sole issue was ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant alleged that she did not receive Crown disclosure, that her lawyer did not communicate with her, did not advance her defence, and promised acquittal.

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not support these assertions and, in some instances, directly contradicted them.

The appellant had received electronic versions of transcripts and voice recordings, and there was voluminous communication between the appellant and counsel regarding trial strategy and witnesses.

Counsel had clearly advanced the defence that the appellant wished to advance: that she had not set the fires and that her admissions in recorded conversations were play-acting.

The Court found no deficiency in trial counsel's representation and no miscarriage of justice.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the Court finding no basis to interfere with the restitution order.

Appeal from conviction for arson and possession of incendiary material.

The appellant, an unrepresented accused in custody, was convicted after a two-day trial.

The appeal raised issues concerning the Crown's disclosure obligations to an unrepresented accused and the trial judge's duty to assist such an accused.

The Crown failed to ensure the appellant received a substantial disclosure package of over 500 pages containing witness statement transcripts and fire investigation photographs, which was couriered to the custodial institution but not properly communicated to the appellant.

The trial judge failed to adequately inquire into disclosure issues when they became apparent during trial.

The court found both a breach of the right to disclosure and inadequate judicial assistance, resulting in impairment of the right to make full answer and defence.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in hospital rather than conditional discharge for a person found not criminally responsible on a charge of arson.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to consider legal mechanisms under the Mental Health Act for managing her condition in the community.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding the Board properly considered the appellant's history of decompensation episodes, medication non-compliance, homelessness, and the need for supervised accommodation to monitor medication compliance and manage public safety risks.

The appellant was convicted of arson under sections 433 and 434 of the Criminal Code for deliberately setting fire to his two-storey building in Espanola with the intent to collect insurance proceeds.

The Crown's case relied on evidence of motive, planning, preparation, forensic evidence linking the appellant to the fire, and testimony from a disreputable witness who was likely an accomplice.

The appellant appealed on four grounds: that the trial judge improperly used neutral evidence to confirm the accomplice's account, misused the appellant's exculpatory statements as evidence of guilt, improperly excluded relevant evidence through misapplication of the collateral fact rule, and engaged in speculative reasoning inconsistent with the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge made some errors, they were not material to the conviction given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The accused, Sean Gellvear, faced 14 counts of arson and mischief related to two fires in Kensington Market.

The Crown relied on surveillance videos, witness identification, and similar fact evidence to prove identity.

The defence challenged the identification, arguing the video quality was poor and witness descriptions were inconsistent.

The court found that the video evidence was insufficient for positive identification beyond a reasonable doubt, even with non-expert recognition evidence from acquaintances.

The court emphasized that "similar" clothing or circumstances are not enough to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The defendant, Connie Rose Gordon, was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to the Voyageur Inn Motel, resulting in bodily harm to Dallas Jason Bluebird, contrary to section 433(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness identifications, threats made by the defendant, her movements before and after the fire, and the purchase of a gas can.

The defendant denied involvement, challenging the identifications and witness testimonies.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, concluded that the defendant's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated action, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, having been commenced more than two years after a fire and explosion.

The plaintiff, through its insurer Intact, contended that the claim was not discovered until the Ontario Fire Marshal's report identified the cause as arson.

The court found Intact's evidence regarding its due diligence in investigating the claim to be significantly lacking, relying on hearsay.

Despite the evidentiary deficiencies, the court, applying the enhanced powers under Rule 20, ordered a mini-trial to determine the issue of Intact's reasonable diligence in discovering the claim, emphasizing the need for a fair and just adjudication and the unique circumstances of pending official investigations.

The accused was charged with arson for deliberately setting fires at his family home on December 25, 2014, and with breaching a probation order.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's bizarre destructive behavior earlier that morning, his presence in the vicinity of the home shortly before the fire was discovered, his possession of a lighter, and the absence of signs of forced entry.

The defense argued that the circumstantial evidence could not exclude the reasonable possibility that an intruder had set the fires.

The court found that the accused's pattern of destructive conduct throughout the day, combined with the unlikelihood of a random arsonist targeting the home on Christmas Day, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

The accused was charged with arson and break, enter and commit arson in connection with a barn fire deliberately set on April 11, 2014.

The co-perpetrator, Tim Norris, pled guilty and testified that he and the accused jointly set the fire.

The accused denied involvement and provided multiple inconsistent versions of events.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to constant shifting accounts and accepted the testimony of the co-perpetrator.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the arson.

Conviction was entered on the break, enter and commit arson charge, with the standalone arson charge stayed at the Crown's request.

A 16-year-old youth sought a review of a bail order denying release with a proposed surety.

The youth faced charges including theft and two counts of arson involving serious property damage.

The Crown argued detention was necessary under the secondary grounds to protect the public from a substantial likelihood of serious reoffending.

The court found that detention was not necessary, considering the youth's minimal criminal record, underlying mental health and social issues requiring community support, and the triable issues regarding her level of involvement in the arson charges.

The court released the youth on her own recognizance with conditions.

A 16-year-old youth sought a review of a bail order denying release with an unsuitable surety.

The youth faced charges including theft and two counts of arson involving serious property damage.

The Crown argued detention was necessary under the secondary grounds to protect the public from a substantial likelihood of serious re-offending.

The court found that the youth's detention was not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level through conditions of release, considering her lack of significant criminal history, obvious need for social supports, and triable issues regarding her involvement in the arson charges.

The court also found the tertiary grounds (public confidence in administration of justice) were not satisfied.

The youth was released on her own recognizance with conditions.

Four accused were convicted of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a residential property on August 22, 2010, knowing or being reckless as to whether the property was inhabited.

The victim's residence was firebombed with Molotov cocktails in what was characterized as a crime for hire based on false allegations that the victim was a pedophile.

The offenders caused approximately $10,000 in damage.

One accused also faced charges of disguising his face with intent to commit an indictable offence and breaching probation.

Another accused faced an additional charge of attempting to obstruct justice.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from two to four and one-half years, with the lead offender receiving the longest sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of arson, particularly when targeting an occupied residence, and applied principles of denunciation and deterrence.