Court of Appeal for Ontario
CITATION: R. v. Singh, 2015 ONCA 855
DATE: 20151207
DOCKET: C59672
Feldman, Gillese and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Jasvir Singh
Appellant
Walter Fox and Sayeh Hassan, for the appellant
Deborah Calderwood, for the respondent
Heard: December 1, 2015
On appeal from the conviction entered on August 6, 2014 and the sentence imposed on November 28, 2014 by Justice Bonnie L. Croll of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant landlord operated a rental property in an unsafe manner that violated a number of provisions in Ontario’s Fire Code, O. Reg. 213/07. The premises had been inspected a number of times before the fire and the appellant had been told – repeatedly – that specific upgrades, including a system of linked smoke alarms and pulls, with smoke alarms in every bedroom, were necessary in order to bring the property into compliance with the Fire Code. Also no cooking was allowed in the bedrooms.
[2] A fire started on the premises when one tenant – Karnail Dhaliwal – who had been drinking excessively, left on the hot plate in his room and his blanket and mattress caught fire. None of the tenants were alerted to the fire by the sound of a fire alarm.
[3] Mr. Dhaliwal stayed in his room to try and fight the fire. He died from smoke inhalation. Another tenant – who tried to help Mr. Dhaliwal – suffered serious burns and was in hospital for four days. Two others fled the premises for their lives and were treated for smoke inhalation.
[4] The appellant was convicted, following a judge-alone trial, of criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and four counts of mischief endangering life. A global sentence of three years’ imprisonment was imposed.
[5] At the oral hearing of this appeal, the appellant abandoned his appeal in relation to the mischief convictions and sentence and focussed his submissions on the conviction for criminal negligence causing death. He contends that there was no direct relationship between his conduct and Mr. Dhaliwal’s death. Given that Mr. Dhaliwal stayed in his room to fight the fire, he says that there was no evidence that the smoke alarms called for by the Fire Code would have saved him. Consequently, the appellant submits, the trial judge erred in finding that his negligence was the legal cause of Mr. Dhaliwal’s death.
[6] We do not accept this submission.
[7] As the trial judge correctly noted, the test for determining legal causation is whether the appellant’s conduct was a significant contributing cause of Mr. Dhaliwal’s death: R v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, at paras. 69-72; R. v. Shilon, 2006 CanLII 41280 (ON CA), 240 C.C.C. (3d) 401, [2006] O.J. No. 4896 (C.A.), at paras. 27, 30.
[8] On the findings of the trial judge, it is clear that:
there were no smoke alarms in each upstairs bedroom;
the appellant knew that Mr. Dhaliwal cooked in his room but failed to take effective measures to prevent this;
the appellant knew that Mr. Dhaliwal was a serious alcoholic who was very often drunk, while in his room in the property;
the appellant knew that the smoke alarms that were in the house were not working;
when the appellant was advised that he was in breach of the Fire Code, he failed to complete the required upgrades, thereby risking the lives and safety of his individual tenants;
the appellant deliberately deceived the fire inspector into believing that a group of tenants, living as a family, occupied the second floor of the property and he did so to avoid the costs of bringing the premises into compliance;
had the required interconnected smoke alarms and pull system been installed, they would have been activated within seconds of the fire starting, even before there were flames; and,
the required smoke alarm system would have provided the occupants with the crucial time needed to avoid injury.
[9] In short, the trial judge found that the appellant created an unsafe environment and that had he made the upgrades required by the Fire Code, the tenants would have been alerted to the fire before it became too large to extinguish.
[10] We see no error in the trial judge’s findings or in her conclusion that the appellant’s actions were a significant contributing cause of Mr. Dhaliwal’s death.
[11] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As the sentence appeal was not pursued, it too is dismissed.
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”