Sonny Dudani

This criminal trial concerned charges of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire, common nuisance, and breach of a release order against the accused, Jeanette Belanger.

The Crown alleged the accused set fire to a residence out of retribution for infidelity, knowing it was occupied.

The court examined circumstantial evidence, including grainy security footage, text messages purportedly from the accused, and the testimony of a key witness, Simon Pelletier.

The Fire Marshall's investigation could not definitively determine the fire's cause, identifying five possible ignition sources.

The court found the security footage inconclusive for identification, the electronic messages unreliable due to lack of expert evidence and uncertain dating, and Simon Pelletier's testimony untrustworthy as he admitted to lying.

Applying principles for circumstantial cases, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court noted the offender's lengthy criminal record and the significant amount of fentanyl involved, but also recognized his exceptional rehabilitative efforts and success in overcoming a long-standing drug addiction.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the court found that returning the offender to jail would undermine his rehabilitation and serve little useful purpose.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

This endorsement provides reasons for four trial rulings made during a jury trial for manslaughter, where the accused were ultimately found not guilty.

The rulings addressed: (1) whether jurors could ask witnesses questions (denied, emphasizing the adversarial nature of criminal trials); (2) the Crown's re-examination of a witness on prior consistent statements (allowed to clarify a one-sided picture created during cross-examination); (3) the Crown's request to introduce bad character evidence against one accused (denied, as the defence had not put character in issue); and (4) the Crown's request for a specific jury charge on aiding and abetting related to a push by one accused (declined as speculative and unduly complex given the Crown's primary theory of a group beating).