Arson

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to her son and threatening to burn her daughter-in-law's business property.

Both threats arose from a single voicemail message left on August 25, 2023, following the accused's exclusion from her other son's funeral.

The accused admitted leaving the voicemail.

The defence argued the language was figurative, referring to civil litigation rather than literal threats.

The court found that a reasonable person would perceive the voicemail as containing threats of physical harm and property damage, and that the accused subjectively intended to intimidate and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, David Bukoski, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The prosecution, involving 13 charges including criminal harassment, sexual assault, arson, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, had taken 71 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court calculated the net delay by subtracting defence-waived delay (5.5 months), defence delay due to applicant's illness (14 months), Crown/complainant circumstances (3 months), and pandemic impact (4 months), and defence's underestimation of trial time (10 months), resulting in a net delay of 34.5 months.

The court found the case to be "particularly complex" due to the nature of the evidence, including extensive internet communications, pseudonyms, international coordination, and the unique circumstances of witnesses.

The Crown was found to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate delay.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings, finding the remaining delay justified by the case's complexity.

The accused, Charles Duku, was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire (arson) contrary to s. 434 of the Criminal Code, and mischief contrary to s. 430(3) of the Code, following a fire in his high-rise apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including testimony from firefighters and an expert fire investigator who classified the fire as "incendiary." The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the accused was the sole resident, was seen entering and exiting the apartment around the time of the fire, and possessed the means to set it.

The evidence indicated the fire was not accidental.

The court concluded that guilt was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The defendant, Tyler Willan, was charged with arson as an aider under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, for assisting in the burning of a Honda Accord used in a murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including video chronology of the Honda and Willan's Outlander, the purchase of gas in a Jerry Can, and the movements of the alleged perpetrators (Male 1 and Male 2).

The court found that Male 1 and Male 2 committed arson by intentionally burning the Honda, which was not wholly owned by them, to destroy evidence related to a murder.

The court concluded that Willan aided the arson by driving Male 1 and Male 2 from the burn site back to Oshawa, having known about the Jerry Can and the purpose of the trip.

Willan was found guilty.

The accused, Joseph Gingras, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and arson causing damage to property.

The charges stemmed from an incident where, while intoxicated, he poured gasoline on himself and the victim, Thomas Boissoneau, in an attempt to dissuade Boissoneau from suicidal ideations, leading to a fire that severely burned Boissoneau and destroyed a residence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severe impact on victims and the inherently dangerous conduct, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, remorse, and the accused's Indigenous background, which necessitated the application of Gladue principles.

The court imposed a global sentence of six-and-a-half years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitation efforts.

The appellant, Tracy Robinson, appealed convictions for causing damage by fire to property and arson with intent to defraud after a judge-alone trial.

The prosecution's case was circumstantial, relying heavily on an Ontario Fire Marshal investigator's expert opinion that the fire was deliberately set.

The defence presented a counter-expert suggesting an electrical cause.

The trial judge accepted the prosecution's expert and found motive and opportunity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings, and no unreasonable verdicts.

While the trial judge erred in enunciating the R. v. W.(D.) test, the court found he applied it properly in context.

The accused was charged with arson following the destruction of the Alliston Feed Mill by fire in August 2016.

The Crown's theory was that the accused started the fire to send a message to his ex-girlfriend, who was staying at an adjacent residence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's prior conduct of burning the ex-girlfriend's belongings, his presence near the mill at the time of the fire, and alleged knowledge that the ex-girlfriend would be at the adjacent residence.

At the preliminary inquiry, the justice found that the Crown failed to establish the essential facts necessary to support the inference of guilt, particularly that the accused knew the ex-girlfriend would be staying at the adjacent residence.

The accused was discharged and not committed to trial.

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.

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 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.

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 accused was charged with one count of mischief relating to tire slashing on December 26, 2016, one count of arson relating to a car fire on February 7, 2017, and two counts of mischief relating to an attempted car ignition on March 7, 2017.

The Crown relied on video evidence from a gas station and home security camera, along with similar fact evidence to establish the accused's guilt.

The court found the accused guilty of the March 7 mischief charges and the February 7 arson charge using similar fact evidence, but acquitted on the tire slashing charge due to insufficient similarities.

The accused was charged with arson under section 434 of the Criminal Code for intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a hotel property on April 21, 2016.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown relied almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, including security video footage and expert fire investigation testimony.

The Crown's case rested on identifying the accused in the breezeway area where the fire originated in the hours before the fire was discovered, and the fact that the accused was found in possession of a lighter.

The court found that while there was evidence the fire was intentionally or recklessly set, the Crown failed to establish a permissible inference regarding the accused's identity as the person who set the fire.

The critical gap was the timing: the accused was last identified in the breezeway at approximately 12:52 pm, but smoke was not noticed until approximately 1:25 pm—a 33-minute gap.

The expert testimony established that the fire would likely have ignited no earlier than 1:05 pm, meaning the accused could not have been the person who set it.

The court held that any inference bridging this temporal gap would constitute impermissible speculation rather than a reasonable inference based on proven facts.

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 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 tried on two arson-related offences arising from multiple fires discovered in her home on June 10, 2014.

She was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to property owned in part by another person (section 434 of the Criminal Code) and with causing damage by fire with intent to defraud an insurance company (section 435(1)).

The Crown's case was circumstantial.

The accused and her mother were the only two people in the home immediately before the fires started.

Fire investigators identified three separate areas of origin for the fires: the upstairs bathroom, the kitchen stove, and the basement electrical panel.

The court found that the fires were deliberately set and that the accused was responsible for setting them.

However, the court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused set the fires with the specific intent to defraud her insurer.

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.

The accused was charged with arson/damage to property contrary to section 434 of the Criminal Code following a fire that destroyed her trailer in the early morning hours of March 21, 2014.

The Crown alleged the accused deliberately started the fire in the wood stove to damage and destroy her common law partner's property following an argument between them.

The accused claimed she lit the fire for warmth and did not intend to cause damage.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that she made a voluntary act causing damage by fire and that she was reckless as to whether damage would occur, despite her advanced intoxication at the time.

Following conviction for arson (causing damage by fire to property not wholly owned by the accused), the court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by two years probation.

The court found that while the first four prerequisites for a conditional sentence were met, the sentence would not be consistent with fundamental sentencing principles given the seriousness of arson, the absence of documented mental health issues (unlike comparable cases), and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a DNA order and restitution order of $31,741.96 to the insurance company.