Sunday, May 27, 2012 — Partly Cloudy 17°C
News Flash

Police confirm that fire at Yonge & Gould was arson

Posted by Derek Flack / February 7, 2011

13 Comments


Toronto police have confirmed that the fire at Yonge and Gould on January 3 was the result of arson. "It has been deemed as arson. That's all we can disclose at this time," said Constable Wendy Drummond. Although no additional details have been released or a suspect identified, police continue to look into a person of interest caught on video surveillance the night of the fire. The building, which was once the home of the Empress Hotel, has since been demolished.

More from the Eyeopener.

Discussion

13 Comments

Sort By Oldest First / Newest First

Subscribe

Jacob / February 7, 2011 at 01:31 pm
user-pic
Bigger news would be if anyone was surprised.
Reply
JP / February 7, 2011 at 02:11 pm
user-pic
My thoughts exactly..... I miss Salad King.... First the wall falls down, then the fire.... Will I ever be able to get my seafood fried rice again
Reply
Marion Cobretti / February 7, 2011 at 02:30 pm
user-pic
Is anyone going to investigate the developer who clearly set this whole thing up? I get busted for parking after midnight routinely. These guys burn large chunks of our heritage and nary a ticket is issued.
Reply
skeeter / February 7, 2011 at 02:31 pm
user-pic
JP, Salad King is opening a new location across the street above Foot Locker.
Reply
Justin replying to a comment from Marion Cobretti / February 7, 2011 at 03:36 pm
user-pic
They _just_ said they concluded it was arson, which means a person or persons is implicated.

Did you even read the story?
Reply
Sean replying to a comment from Justin / February 7, 2011 at 04:12 pm
user-pic
Concluded that it was an act of arson does not mean any one person is implicated. It just means they can tell that someone set the place on fire intentionally.

Yes, there is a person of interest but that person might have absolutely nothing to do with the arson.

Reply
Sean replying to a comment from Sean / February 7, 2011 at 04:12 pm
user-pic
*Concluding
Reply
Marion Cobretti replying to a comment from Justin / February 7, 2011 at 05:03 pm
user-pic
Yea, I read the article - all 100 words of it. Concluding its arson is one thing - we all knew that already. Actually devoting resources to putting together a case and proving the developer set the whole thing up, is another thing altogether. We all know they're going to get away with it, although I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this one.
Reply
Justin replying to a comment from Marion Cobretti / February 7, 2011 at 11:32 pm
user-pic
What I meant was - it implies that someone did it intentionally - whether the person of interest is the landlord or not remains to be seen.

This one Seems too obvious for the investigation to be bungled so let's wait and see before we're jumping the gun that someone got away with it.
Reply
rek replying to a comment from Justin / February 8, 2011 at 01:39 pm
user-pic
Motive and opportunity without evidence isn't enough to convict someone, as far as I know.
Reply
KL replying to a comment from rek / February 8, 2011 at 02:44 pm
user-pic
Thank you.
Reply
Justin / February 8, 2011 at 03:01 pm
user-pic
I was going to visit there during summer break but I guess I won't be anymore =(
Reply
Marion Cobretti replying to a comment from rek / February 8, 2011 at 03:20 pm
user-pic
That's why the Crown is paid to find evidence.
Reply

Add a Comment
Other Cities: Vancouver – Montreal