Wayne Richard

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.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal order made by a preliminary inquiry judge.

The preliminary inquiry judge had admitted the complainant's written statement under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code and denied the applicant's request to cross-examine the complainant under s. 540(9).

The Superior Court found that while the admission of the statement was an evidentiary error, it was not jurisdictional.

However, the blanket denial of cross-examination on the sole piece of evidence forming the Crown's case amounted to a breach of natural justice and a jurisdictional error.

The certiorari application was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary inquiry.

The accused, Tony Gordon, pleaded guilty to choking while committing an assault and breach of probation.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of 18 months jail, but the court found this too low, considering it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 3 years less a day, comprising 2 years less a day for the assault and a consecutive 1-year sentence for the breach of probation, after considering Gladue principles, the victim impact, and the accused's extensive criminal record.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000 and one count of fraud under $5,000, committed between June 2017 and May 2018.

Working as a part-time receptionist, she created a company credit card and used it for personal expenses totalling $37,834.18, and also misappropriated company funds for personal bills totalling $6,440.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment followed by three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation, with restitution orders and a DNA order.

The Crown brought a s. 521 bail review application to vacate a release order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Justice of the Peace had released the accused without a bail hearing because the original signed information was not physically present in court, despite a signed warrant being before the court.

The Superior Court held that the Justice of the Peace erred in principle and acted in excess of jurisdiction, as the existence of a signed warrant compels the conclusion that a signed information exists.

The release order was vacated.

Conducting a new bail hearing, the court released the accused on a $5,000 recognizance with a surety and conditions, noting the complainant had recanted.