Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Falsification of smoke alarm records - Obstruction of justice - Evidence - Whether the majority of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred at law with respect to the standard of appellate review - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred with regard to the law governing circumstantial evidence, in effect misapplying the rule in Hodge’s Case (1838), 168 E.R. 1136, and/or overturning the conviction on a factual rather than a legal point.

A fire occurred on March 3, 2005, in premises owned by a numbered company and managed by the Respondent. The tenant at the premises suffered serious injuries and two of her children died.

The Crown alleged that the Respondent attempted to obstruct justice by attempting to alter and falsify records relating to the testing and maintenance of smoke alarms at the premises. On March 7, 2005, the Respondent filed with the fire inspector a copy of a record purporting to show that the smoke alarms at the premises had been tested, and one had been replaced, on January 25, 2005. This record had not been verified by a tenant at the premises, as is required, but was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Ron Plamondon, the caretaker of the premises, attesting that he had inspected the smoke alarms on that date and not gotten a signature verifying his attendance because no adult had been at home. He said that he had intended to return to obtain the tenant’s signature but had forgotten to do so. He admitted having filed the documents with the fire inspector. The tenant and her mother, who had at one time been a co-tenant, testified that one or the other of them had been present at the premises the entire day of January 25, 2005, and no one had attended to inspect the smoke detectors.

The trial judge made a finding of credibility in favour of the tenants and against the Respondent and convicted the Respondent of attempting to obstruct justice by attempting to alter and falsify smoke alarm records. On appeal, the majority allowed the appeal. Jackson J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal.