R. v. Bou-Daher (J.), (2015) 366 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA)

• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA);2015 NSCA 97

R. v. Bou-Daher (J.) (2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 241 (CA);

    1154 A.P.R. 241

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.043

Jean (John) Joseph Bou-Daher (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 422634; 2015 NSCA 97)

Indexed As: R. v. Bou-Daher (J.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.

October 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused and Badour were charged with arson. Badour was acquitted by way of a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case (see (2013), 337 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 1067 A.P.R. 153).

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in a judgment reported [2013] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 316, convicted the accused. The accused appealed and applied for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Farrar, J.A., in a judgment reported (2014), 349 N.S.R.(2d) 398; 1101 A.P.R. 398, allowed the application.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - Two fires were deliberately set in the upstairs level of a bar co-owned by the accused - On the night of the fire, Badour went to the bar around midnight to be paid for plumbing work - There was evidence that the accused was upstairs, then returned downstairs to set the security system and exit the building with Badour - The video surveillance system had been disabled, so there was no video of who set the fires - The fire alarm went off minutes after the accused set the security alarm - The trial judge convicted the accused - The accused had the exclusive opportunity to set the fires - The only rational inference was that the accused set the fire - The accused's theory that there must have been an unidentified person starting the fire was pure conjecture - There was no evidence of a forced entry and someone other than the accused would not have had time to set the fire undetected and exit the bar before the security alarm was set - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's conviction appeal, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The accused's theory of an unidentified arsonist was wholly unreasonable - Based on the circumstantial evidence, particularly the accused's exclusive opportunity to set the fire, the accused's guilt was the only rational inference - See paragraphs 33 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5320.2

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - From circumstantial evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Henderson (H.A.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 164; 1003 A.P.R. 164; 2012 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Muise (C.A.) (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 106; 1052 A.P.R. 106; 2013 NSCA 81, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Imrich, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 622; 15 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42; 388 N.R. 334, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Thompson (I.S.) (2015), 360 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 1135 A.P.R. 283; 2015 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Seymour (R.E.) (2005), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 725 A.P.R. 249; 2005 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Campbell (K.A.) (2015), 599 A.R. 142; 643 W.A.C. 142; 2015 ABCA 70, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Chin (Y.H.) (2014), 566 A.R. 288; 597 W.A.C. 288; 2014 ABCA 11, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Pearson (E.P.), [2014] A.R. Uned. 400; 2014 ABCA 379, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Dipnarine (B.) (2014), 584 A.R. 138; 623 W.A.C. 138; 2014 ABCA 328, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Panghali (M.S.) (2012), 328 B.C.A.C. 256; 558 W.A.C. 256; 2012 BCCA 407, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223; 28 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

David Dalrymple, for the appellant;

Timothy O'Leary, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 9, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On October 27, 2015, Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.