Arson

The appellant appealed his convictions for five counts of attempted murder and arson, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He claimed his counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness of his police statement and failed to prepare him for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no factual basis for the claims and concluding that, even if there were, the appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting his testimony.

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

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail (effectively 3 years minus 24 months pre-sentence custody credit) plus 2 years probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing the Crown's requested sentence of 12 months further custody, 2 years probation, and a restitution order of over $92,000 to the insurer.

During a criminal jury trial for arson with disregard for human life under s. 433(a) of the Criminal Code, the Crown sought to have the jury also consider arson causing damage to property under s. 434 as a lesser and included offence, or alternatively, to amend the indictment to add a s. 434 charge.

The court ruled that s. 434 is not a lesser and included offence of s. 433(a) because it contains distinct elements, such as the property not being wholly owned by the accused.

The court denied the Crown's motion to amend the indictment mid-trial, finding it would prejudice the accused and risk confusing the jury.

However, the court permitted the offence of mischief to be put to the jury as a valid included offence.

The accused was charged with arson with disregard for human life and arson for a fraudulent purpose following an explosion and fire that destroyed a restaurant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who claimed the accused confessed to setting the fire, as well as expert evidence regarding the fire's origin.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to the witness's testimony and found it unreliable without sufficient corroboration.

The expert evidence was deemed equivocal.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the fire, resulting in acquittals on both counts.

The accused applied for judicial interim release on charges of second degree murder and arson arising from a contract arson of a variety store that resulted in a death.

The court found the Crown's circumstantial case to be strong and the proposed release plan involving family supervision to be inadequate.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding the accused failed to show cause for release on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.