Arson

The accused was charged with multiple counts of arson and public mischief following a fire that destroyed his truck and damaged adjacent vehicles and a building.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance videos and the testimony of the accused's former fiancée.

The court found the accused guilty of arson seriously threatening another's property and arson for a fraudulent purpose, concluding he intentionally set fire to his own insured truck.

However, the accused was acquitted of the remaining arson charges because the Crown failed to prove the ownership of the other damaged vehicles.

The accused, Jennifer Castillo, was charged with arson (s. 434 Criminal Code) and wilfully causing property damage exceeding $5,000 (s. 430 Criminal Code) following a fire at her rented basement unit.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, found that the accused had exclusive opportunity to start the fire and that it was intentionally set.

The defence's theory of an accidental fire caused by a space heater was rejected as speculative.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally or recklessly caused the fire.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life, uttering death threats, break and enter, and disobeying a court order, all committed against his separated spouse.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the highly aggravating domestic context and the planned nature of the arson.

The court imposed a global sentence of 77 months in custody, reduced to 23 months net after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with arson and manslaughter following a fatal fire at a rooming house.

The Crown's case relied heavily on two alleged confessions by the accused and his history of making threats to burn down the building.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the Crown witnesses, many of whom suffered from mental health issues or had extensive criminal records.

Furthermore, the presence of a plausible alternate suspect with a motive raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

The defendant insurer moved under Rule 30.10 for production of records from various non-parties, including the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), relating to an organized crime investigation known as Project Hobart.

The insurer sought these records to defend an action for coverage following an arson at the plaintiff's business premises.

The court dismissed the motion for the OPP records, finding that the insurer failed to establish that the criminal investigation file, which did not involve arson charges, was relevant to a material issue in the civil action.

An alternative request to stay the action was also dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after setting fire to a neighbour's house with his brother.

The fire caused $150,000 in property damage and destroyed the home.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness was significantly reduced due to his severe cognitive limitations, functioning at the 1st percentile.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's reduced culpability, the court imposed a two-year conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

This judgment addresses the criminal responsibility of the accused, V.F.-P., for six counts of Arson Endangering Life under section 433 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the defence proved on a balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offences, rendering her exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered evidence of erratic behaviour, apparent intoxication (despite zero blood alcohol readings in prior similar incidents), and a history of mental health issues including suicide attempts and a diagnosis of Bipolar Mood Disorder.

Applying the holistic approach from R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found that the accused's actions stemmed from an underlying mental disorder, not transient self-induced states, and that her condition presented a recurring danger.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with arson endangering life and arson damaging property following a fire in his apartment.

The accused, who was found unconscious and badly burned, testified he had no memory of the event and no motive to harm himself.

The court rejected the defence of automatism due to a lack of expert evidence.

However, the court found the Crown's expert fire investigator's opinion unreliable regarding the intentional setting of the fires.

Given the lack of motive and the gaps in the expert evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fires were intentionally or recklessly set.

The accused was acquitted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer after it denied coverage for his vehicle, which was destroyed by fire.

The insurer alleged the plaintiff made wilfully false statements, committed arson, and used the vehicle purchase to launder money.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's insurable interest, whether the fire was accidental, and the insurer's allegations of false statements, noting significant evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies that could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder and arson, applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant drove the perpetrators to meet the victim, witnessed the kidnapping, and later assisted in burning the victim's vehicle and hiding the perpetrators.

The court found the proposed release plan involving the applicant's brother and sister-in-law as sureties was weak.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to discharge his onus on the primary (flight risk), secondary (substantial likelihood of re-offending), and tertiary (confidence in the administration of justice) grounds under s. 515(10).

The accused, a volunteer firefighter, was charged with arson and conspiracy to commit arson after an acquaintance set fire to an abandoned home.

The Crown alleged the accused planned the fire with the acquaintance via social media and phone calls.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility, the court found the accused's version of events raised a reasonable doubt, particularly because he took a call from the acquaintance on speakerphone in the presence of his girlfriend.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender, a transgender refugee claimant from Guatemala, was convicted of arson causing damage to property after setting a fire in her Toronto Community Housing apartment.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of six months less a day to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court held that while collateral immigration consequences must be considered, they cannot artificially skew a sentence below the appropriate range.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence (satisfied by pre-sentence custody), two years of probation, and a restitution order of $15,809.11.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief endangering life following a fire on the stovetop of her rental apartment.

The court found that the physical evidence, including fuel deliberately placed under a burner, proved the fire was intentionally set.

The accused was found guilty of arson and the included offence of mischief to property, but acquitted of mischief endangering life as the Crown failed to prove the small, contained fire posed an actual danger to human life.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking production of the police investigation file related to an arson charge against her that was later withdrawn.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the police file and its investigator's file, as they were relevant to the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to answer undertakings regarding the sale price of her home and the name of a doctor who treated her for a brain injury, but found other requested information irrelevant.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The offender was convicted of three counts of attempted murder by arson after pouring gasoline in a bedroom and setting it on fire, trapping his former romantic partner and her seven-year-old daughter.

A one-year-old child was also in the home.

The court weighed the horrific nature of the domestic violence and severe injuries to the victims against the offender's lack of prior violent record and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 11 years imprisonment and declined the Crown's request to delay parole eligibility under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to 20 counts of arson, including multiple counts of arson with disregard for human life, following a crime spree in which he set numerous fires in residential and commercial areas while highly intoxicated.

The fires caused over $3.1 million in property damage and displaced numerous residents, though no one was seriously injured.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, his Aboriginal background (Gladue factors), and his struggles with substance abuse and potential fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 12 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after pouring gasoline inside his home during a domestic altercation, causing a fire that destroyed the house and killed two pets.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail plus two years of probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months plus 18 months of probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to an effective term of three years' imprisonment (12 months net after 24 months of pre-sentence custody credit), followed by two years of probation and a restitution order of $92,153.12.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence internet searches.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief after his former girlfriend's parents' shed burned down.

Hours after receiving a text accusing him of the fire, the accused searched for information about arson, evidence required, and drone controllers (which were destroyed in the fire).

The accused argued the searches were consistent with an innocent person falsely accused and that he had an alibi.

The court held that the internet searches were relevant circumstantial evidence of identity and narrative.

The court found the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, leaving the ultimate weight and inferences to be determined by the jury.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and arson after breaking into the apartment of a pregnant woman to steal her underwear.

When discovered, he brutally murdered the victim and subsequently set the apartment on fire to destroy evidence.

The court weighed the extreme brutality of the unprovoked attack, the vulnerability of the pregnant victim, and the severe post-offence conduct against the offender's guilty plea and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a 22-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence for arson.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to amend its statement of defence to allege that the plaintiffs committed arson and fraud, eight years after the fire that destroyed the plaintiffs' business.

The insurer had originally only pleaded a lack of co-operation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the extreme and unexplained delay in seeking the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had lost the opportunity to properly investigate the allegations when the evidence was fresh.

The court also noted concerns regarding the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.