The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of uttering threats to burn down property.
The trial judge found that while the respondent made statements about burning down the house during an argument with his spouse, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would interpret these words as a threat, nor that the respondent intended to intimidate or have the words taken seriously.
The trial judge considered the context of the parties' relationship, including their history of heated arguments where both parties said things they did not mean.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, finding the trial judge's reasoning was sound and that he properly applied the legal test for uttering threats.
The court also rejected the Crown's allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's questions to the complainant and his suggestion of potential resolution options.
