Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
Did ARSON VICTIM overstep civil liability limits in alerting ARSONIST's NEW NEIGHBOURS ? 2019/03/02 14:23  
Freeing oneself from the trauma of neighbour shenanigans, may not always be easy. Much less totally avoiding them.

That's even if the neighbour tormentor moves away with a criminal record & restraining order for the torment.

Does this alter public understanding of Neighbourhood Watch designations ? And possibly of the casualness of how community support may be claimed or evaluated ?

knock knock

"Hello. I'm a licensed private investigator. Here's my proof.

I have been retained by one or more arson victims of an individual who has moved into your neighbourhood.

My client(s) have justified concerns for your safety.

These arise on a neighbourhood basis from an unprovoked & outrageous act of criminal arson for which an individual was convicted in 2012. It occurred in my client(s)' current neighbourhood, that individual's former one.

In 2011 that individual - a total stranger without any wrongdoing by my client(s)
- accosted my client(s) and threatened their death.

That individual returned within hours in the middle of the night to my client(s)' home and poured accelerant around the foundations.

That individual then lit a fire that fortunately failed to destroy the home & the client & family sleeping inside.

The individual burned a "happy face" into the adjacent turf. The individual also "keyed" vehicles.

That individual was criminally convicted for arson.

Recent events involving that same individual in the client(s) neighbourhood , present a credible need that as a neighbour here you should now be alerted of that individual . . . ."

( This may ? - MAY ? - have been the general sort of dialogues brought into the convicted arsonist's new neighbourhood after she was spotted near the victim's home in early 2016 picking up a friend for shopping . . . )

( Background : In Kingston a Superior Court judge has completed hearing cross-claims between a convicted arsonist S.E. and one of her arson targets, a total stranger K.T.

The criminal justice system has already long wrapped up all of the criminal aspects of the 2011 arson & sentences after the alarming events in an upscale neighbourhood of detached homes southwest of Kingston's Gardiner Rd & the 401.

Victim K.T. appears in 2011 to have had ZERO blameworthiness nor any role in whatever annoyances triggered the 2011 arson. Arsonist S.E. had simply targetted a total stranger / homeowner.

But who wouldn't be frightened after what happened in 2011 ? Can only imagine especially the potential long lasting psychological effects on children whose home was hit by arson ! Or who see the same arsonist not too far from their doorstep several years later.

Arsonist S.E. pleaded quilty in 2012, was convicted of arson endangering life & received a suspended sentence with 3 year restraint order that expired in 2015.

Arsonist S.E.'s suspended sentence & probation are argued to reflect that she had received some judicial leniency by moving out of the neighbourhood.

In 2016 convicted arsonist S.E. - no longer under criminal sanction - was observed lawfully near the home of the arson target K.T., an individual who coincidentally had been the victim of criminality during childhood.

( What was of concern to the victim ? - "allegedly glaring". Remember that arsonist S.E. in 2011 had picked victim K.T.'s house from the list of Neighbourhood Watch participants to whom to issue a in 2011 threat : "Get me off the participants list or you'll F-xxxing die !" )

Victim K.T. vainly sought re-vitalization of the expired restraint order. As a professional in the health fields & mom she apparently had missed a court date. The original order may ? surprisingly ? have kept arsonist S.E. away for 3 years during de-tox etc . . .

Critically, with the 2016 return visit(s) victim K.T. also hired a private investigator to contact the arsonist's new neighbours in her new neighbourhood. But was that smart ?

Convicted arsonist S.E.'s current civil claim against her victim K.T., is reportedly for malicious prosecution, harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering. "She wasn't leaving me alone," arsonist S.E. told court. Wants $ 100 K.

The victim has cross-claimed.

Superior Court has reserved judgement. CBC had a reporter in court both days for the hearings & its getting TV + press, although this sort of stuff in whacky U.S. HOA wars is not so unusual. )

Feb 28/19 “Arsonist suing victim for harassment” by Chris Vileta

Feb 28/19 Global News “Convicted arsonist sues victim for harassment after 8 years of legal battles” by A. Mazur
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
outing perpetrators 2019/03/03 17:13  
The details of these re-vitalized but historical 2011 neighbourhood-level crimes, already got significant media attention. More will come. Deciding the civil cross-claims is still incomplete.

Whatever the eventual judicial outcomes, the arsonist perpetrator S.E. has brought forward some health & lifestyle explanations or grounds for sympathy.

And another conceivable argument in her favour : that having totally paid her criminal & civil justice penalties, maybe should arsonist S.E. get a blanket of anonymity from her victims & maybe from others ? Or at least eventually ? Shouldn't healing be allowed to occur ?

Several issues :

1 - Was the 2016 "outing" to S.E.'s new neighbours, unfair harassment or defamatory hurt-speech or whatever civil wrong ?

Would it make a difference that the "outed" crimes occurred 4 years earlier ? Or 14 years ? Or 24 years ?

Is the nature of the historical crimes relevant ? ( S.E.'s of course wasn't removing a Do Not Remove label. Hers were unprovoked autumn 2011 death threats to a neighbour she did not know, followed shortly by a night of vandalism & what easily could have killed K.T and her sleeping family ! The 2016 new neighbours arguably could meet exactly the target, totally out of the blue . . . )

Restated, should non-malicious, truthful “outing” ( by victims or others ) expose to liability for harassment and/or defamation at least IF the sting of hurtful speaking cannot successfully raise the usual defamation defences ?

2 - Are criminal perpetrators generally entitled to some sort of blanket anonymity after formally discharging criminal & civil penalties fully ? If so, what ?

Is a victim restricted to funding & applying to courts for endless personal restraint Orders ?

Is it only the press or law enforcement able to revisit publicity onto historical perpetrators ? What does muzzling a victim do to the principle of deterrence ?

3 - How for example does a widely-notorious perpetrator prove a civil loss if "outed" to neighbours ?

An accompanying issue here might be, could “outing” by a victim be exempted partially or fully by factors like childhood victimization by crime ie one speculated a “thin-skulled victim” with non-typical vulnerability ?


- 4 - Beyond police getting such an "outing" what role if any would governancers have in some sort of a shared ownership scenario ? ( this was not such of course. ) This was arguably neighbour-level terrorism ! Yes the skillset levels of many governancers TOTALLY preclude actual "outing" being done at all by them, nor certainly without competent legal oversight ! . .

Without such alert, just imagine unsuspectingly attempting even a minor compliance activity against the 2011 version of arsonist S.E. !

Sorting out the arsonist-outing matter judicially may not be easy.

Postscript :

Adjacency neighbourhood disputes can escalate wildly & unpredictably even in Ontario. But how often are they between total strangers ? In a notorious 2007 non-condo Pickering adjacency dispute, the senior victims of bizarre & terrifying acts of vandalism themselves were smart to sell a.s.a.p. This was platformed by their next door tormentor being jailed for a week & then restrained by Court Order from returning to his own home for 6 months ! During the tormentor's court-ordered absence his terrified victims were able to list, sell and move 12 Km away. The trigger had been grass-cutting & boundary defiance by their next door neighbour / tormentor, who by 2014 had still not paid the half million dollars in court costs awarded to his victims ! Court heard allegations of some possible later stalking by the tormentor in his victims' new neighbourhood !

Fitzpatrick v. Orwin, 2014 ONCA 124
Fitzpatrick v. Orwin, 2012 ONSC 6712
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Superior Court DISMISSES CROSS CLAIMS between ARSONIST & VICTIM who "leafletted" new neighbours 2019/07/05 22:18  
ONSC Ontario Superior Court has dismissed “intentional interference” / harassment etc cross claims between arsonist & victim.

Bottom Line : Has trading pain been really worth it for the victim of a boozy geriatric arsonist ? Did the neighbour war victim twice allow herself to be sucked into her antagonist's own Twilight Zone ?

Anyway, gets held short of degree of harm, even though victim’s investigators twice “leafleted” or polled the arsonist’s new neighbours ( in rounds 1 & 2 ). They even sifted arsonist’s garbage ! !

With round # 2 later re-triggered by the nearby sight of convicted but probationed arsonist no longer under "stay away" order, victim had botched application for extension of original probationary Restraint Order.

( Frightened or whatever, was it fair to expect the victim to initiate another round of seeking protection ? )

No court order for costs = litigants ( & taxpayers of course ) will suck up costs.

And scarce civil justice resources get consumed instead of some sort of restorative justice . . .

Discloses interestingly that the victim had actually been a block captain for Neighbourhood Watch, so in 2011 not totally a random targetting for the threats & arson.

Issued June 17/19 : Eks v. Tadeu, 2019 ONSC 3745
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
COSTS NIGHTMARE and appeal loss for arson victim who later OUTED HER ARSONIST at new neigbourhood 2020/06/30 16:04  
Former Neighbourhood Watch block captain Ms. KT was unfortunately unable to "move ahead", later having the convicted arsonist Ms. SE outed in SE's new neighbourhood.

It's been almost 9 years since KT was randomly threatened at curbside and had her home targetted overnight by SE's criminal arson! They reportedly had never even met beforehand.

But that's not the end of the giant nightmare in a Kingston struggle that caught national attention.

Victim KT years later had the convicted arsonist SE "outed' at the arsonist's new neighbourhood !

The ladies next squared off in civil court ( most details are above ) before cross claims - BUT NOT COST CONSEQUENCES - were adjudicated In June 2019 by ONSC (East) Justice Graeme Mew.

Although Round # 2 claims had been rejected, in August 2019 Justice Mew released a costs award after taking a look at settlement offers & responses.

( worth again considering here ? : Is litigation really "a financial black hole" even for winners as quipped by a retired HOA lawyer in New York State after wiping the floor with his former Owners Association ? )

Justice Mew then notes gigantic costs to date BUT penalizes victim/ denouncer KT by $ 17 K payable to the ‘outed’ arsonist for the victim’s handling of settlement cross-offers.

He cites that Round # 2 disclosured claims of costs incurred by the litigants to that date had been :

“ . . . [7] . . . The total of fees and disbursements incurred by ( SE ) was $68,304.29. ( KT ) incurred fees and disbursements of $ 101,508.74 (this is based on substantial indemnity rates; the full indemnity rates would possibly yield an even higher total). ..”

- Eks v. Tadeu, 2019 ONSC 4922 issued Aug 21/19

On to the court of appeal . . .

Victim KT next appealed this & other aspects. She has just lost at ONCA Ontario's Court of Appeal sucking up a further ( just now revised ) $ 11 K payable to the departed arsonist SE plus whatever victim KT's own legals. ( party-agreed minor revision just issued )

- Eks v. Tadeu, 2020 ONCA 425 issued June 30/20

Suggests repectfully - without any reference to this outcome - it's better to listen to your lawyer instead of your rage. Unless that lawyer wants to empty your pockets . . .
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster