Skip to content

Ontario Court of Appeal rules on local arson sentence

The province's top court has upheld a Sault Ste. Marie judge's decision not to send a young local man to jail for setting a carport fire four years ago that spread to the attached home.

The province's top court has upheld a Sault Ste. Marie judge's decision not to send a young local man to jail for setting a carport fire four years ago that spread to the attached home.

In a ruling released Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a Crown appeal of the suspended sentence Matthew Hart received for the June 2011 arson that damaged a residence in the north end of the city.

Ontario Court Justice Nathalie Gregson placed Hart, who was 20 years old at the time of the offence, on probation for three years after she suspended sentence on May 28, 2014.

The Crown was seeking nine to 12 months behind bars, followed by three years probation.

Hart pleaded guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a house.

Five people were in the home when the early-morning blaze spread to the residence. No one was injured.

In its appeal, the Crown noted Hart didn't intend to set a big fire, but his actions were clearly reckless and stemmed from a drug debt he owed one of the residents.

The prosecution argued Gregson over emphasized mental health issues and Hart's prospects for rehabilitation when she opted for a non-custodial sentence.

A suspended sentence may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances, but this isn't one of those cases, it maintained.

The appeal court disagreed, concluding Gregson "properly considered issues of mental health and rehabilitation together with several other mitigating factors and arrived at a fit sentence."

It is clear Hart has a history of mental health issues, the three-member panel said, citing a pre-sentence report that identified the issues (Tourettes Syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Conduct Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and his resulting behaviour that brought him to court.

These factors, his peer group choices and substance abuse put him at the greatest risk for recidivism, the report noted.

When she sentenced the offender, Gregson concluded that "to now impose a custodial sentence would likely destroy any progress that has been made by Mr. Hart with respect to his mental health and in my view serve no genuine societal interest."

The judge had outlined the many aggravating and mitigating factors she had considered and "we see no error in her thorough analysis,"  the higher court said.

When the mental health issues, along with other mitigating factors - Hart's guilty plea, his youth, lack of a criminal record, show of remorse, co-operation with police and no further charges since 2011 - are considered, the sentence "is not manifestly unfit," it decided.

As part of his probation, Hart must take any recommended counselling,  including substance use and mental health assessments, meet regularly with his doctor, psychiatrist and mental health worker and comply with any treatment they recommend.


What's next?


If you would like to apply to become a Verified reader Verified Commenter, please fill out this form.




About the Author: Linda Richardson

Linda Richardson is a freelance journalist who has been covering Sault Ste. Marie's courts and other local news for more than 45 years.
Read more