NAIL POND, P.E.I. — A Palmer Road man will have to wait until early next year to find out the results of his trial relating to a single count of arson.
Nathan Paul Gaudet, 21, was arrested Nov. 1, 2018 at the scene of an unoccupied house fire in Nail Pond.
Gaudet is being tried by Supreme Court judge alone in Summerside. Nov. 15, the third day of the proceedings, saw the closing arguments of both sides of the case.
Crown lawyer Chris White and defence counsel Derek Bondt spent nearly four hours outlining their cases as to whether or not Chief Justice Tracey Clements has enough information before her to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Gaudet is guilty.
Clements reserved her decision until Jan. 28, 2020.
Gaudet was found at the scene of the fire with lighters, an empty gas can and cannabis in a car he didn’t have permission to have. He also seemingly confessed three different times that night to setting the fire. Three different RCMP officers also testified that Gaudet smelled strongly of gas during and after his arrest.
But Bondt argued that there were reasonable explanations for all of that evidence – more than enough for there to be reasonable doubt as to Gaudet’s guilt.
Bondt also strongly questioned the general RCMP investigation of the case given that there was no forensic evidence gathered at all.
“There were certainly steps not taken in regards to the investigation,” he said.
While on the witness stand himself, Gaudet told the court that on the night in question he’d borrowed a car that had belonged to his brother, but was recently sold to an uncle for parts.
The jerrycan found on the scene was the one he’d used to gas up the car, he said, and it was possible he may have spilled some fuel on himself, which would account for the smell on his clothes. Bondt did not concede that there had even been a smell at the time of Gaudet’s arrest as no testing was ever done on his client’s clothes, despite them being seized as evidence, to determine if there was gasoline on them.
Gaudet added that he spent that night driving around with two friends, whom he dropped off in the early morning hours of Nov. 1, and continued on alone. He said he had a disagreement with his then girlfriend and didn’t want to go home.
He said he eventually happened upon the beginnings of the fire at the Nail Pond home and pulled over on the other side of the road with the intention of smoking some cannabis and watching it burn.
But when two firefighters came along in a truck, Tignish Deputy Chief Shawn Ahearn and firefighter Tanner Gallant, Gaudet said he panicked, thinking he’d be caught with the stolen car and cannabis, which had just been legalized two weeks prior.
He said he hid in the woods until the other two men started looking in the car, at which point he emerged and said, “you got me,” though he insisted he was referencing the cannabis use and not the lighting of the house fire.
Gaudet’s ex-girlfriend also testified that he called her just before his arrest and said he’d “been caught lighting a fire”.
Bondt argued that Gaudet’s “been caught” comment was actually rural West Prince County vernacular meaning he’d been detained and accused of a crime and not any sort of admission of guilt.
Finally, Gaudet made some comments during an interview with RCMP the Crown alleges are incriminating, but Bondt chalked those up to flippantness in the face of a stressful situation and paranoia related to cannabis use.
As to how the fire got started if Gaudet didn't set it, Bondt pointed out that there were multiple other fires in the area that night and it was possible someone else had set this blaze. He also noted that there had been another fire at the same house less than 24 hours earlier and the possibility of that fire starting again from smouldering embers could not be discounted by any of the witnesses.
In terms of the Crown’s summations, White called Gaudet’s testimony into question and attempted to poke holes in the accused’s version of events.
Why run from the firefighters when cannabis was legal and they had no way of knowing the car was not his? Why didn’t he call 911 when he happened upon the house fire? Why would he say he was caught lighting a fire if that’s not actually what he meant? All, and more, were questions White postulated Gaudet’s testimony did not reasonably explain.
White also spent much of his remarks reviewing the relevant points the law says the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prove an arson case beyond a reasonable doubt and how that is related to the evidence presented.
“Based on the totality of the evidence, including the accused’s own words, the Crown submits it has met the burden of proof,” said White.
