The accused, Christopher Deamude, was charged with arson and possession of an incendiary device following a fire at a Dollarama store.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony from store employees and expert opinion from a fire investigator, arguing that the only reasonable inference was that the accused intentionally started the fire.
The defence contended that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that an alternative inference of an innocent shopper was reasonable.
The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's proximity to the fire's origin, his actions, and his statements, led to the sole reasonable inference of guilt.
The conviction for possession of an incendiary device was conditionally stayed.
