ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-05-12
COURT FILE No.: Central East – Newmarket 4911-24-91111431-00
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
KAY LOUISE BELK
Before Justice A. A. Ghosh
Heard on April 17, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
Released on May 12, 2025
J. Kim — counsel for the Crown
I. Donnell — counsel for the defendant
I. Overview:
1Ms. Kay Louise Belk stabbed her husband while he slept. No proximate disagreement nor conflict preceded this incident. She was in a dreamlike state at the time and heard voices compelling her to commit the act.
2Ms. Belk pleaded not guilty to “Attempted murder”. She agreed to committing the act of stabbing her husband. All parties jointly proposed that I find Ms. Belk was not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offence, by virtue of a mental disorder.
3These are my reasons in finding that she was indeed NCR, due to symptoms of a confirmed Major Neurocognitive Disorder that prevailed upon her at the time.
II. Summary of the evidence
4On December 15, 2024, at 11:51 p.m., police attended the Belk residence regarding a weapons call. Kay Louise Belk lived there with her husband, Professor Russell Belk. They were both seventy-nine years old. Their daughter, Amy, had been visiting from the States. Amy had called the police to report her mother had stabbed her father.
5Police arrived to find Russell Belk lying on the floor, being tended to by Amy. The knives allegedly involved in the incident were found on the kitchen counter. Kay Louise Belk was arrested by the police, taken to the police station, then transferred to Southlake Regional Health Centre, pursuant to the Mental Health Act. Russell Belk was also taken there to have his injuries addressed.
6Russell Belk provided a statement to the police. He reported that there was nothing “abnormal” about the conduct of his wife that day, nor was he aware of any signs she had been hallucinating.
7Mr. Belk had been sleeping “peacefully” when he woke to feel a sudden pain in his back. He saw his wife holding a knife in each hand. She demonstrated “super-human strength”, such that he was unable to fend her off and called for their daughter, who helped “disarm” Ms. Belk.
8During the incident, Mr. Belk asked Ms. Belk what she was doing. She replied, “I’m killing you.” She kept repeating this phrase to their daughter. Once Amy got the knives away from Ms. Belk, things “seemed to calm down”. She seemed no longer “in a rage”. Mr. Belk had never seen his wife in this state, nor had she ever been aggressive before.
9The couple usually slept in separate bedrooms, although they had shared a bed while their daughter was visiting them. There were no apparent conflicts within the couple, and certainly nothing in the recent interaction could have portended an unprovoked stabbing. Mr. Belk characterized her stabbing him as “very bizarre”.
10Mr. Belk reported that his wife had been on anti-depressant medication for the past fifty years. She had a history of suicidal ideation, although she had not expressed any such concerns to him for the past six months or longer.
11Mr. Belk reported Ms. Belk had been experiencing cognitive challenges for approximately three years. She had fallen twice, likely injuring her head each time, and she received neurosurgery to treat a subdural hematoma. There were complications from this procedure, and she was subjected to a second neurosurgical operation. Since these injuries, Mr. Belk noted that she could “hold a normal conversation… but there are big chunks of her memory that are gone.”
12Their daughter Amy confirmed to the police that her mother was not the same after these brain injuries. She observed that her mother’s memory deteriorated in the evenings, as she seemed to be experiencing “sun downers”. Amy observed that her mother had never been aggressive towards anyone, and that this incident was “so out of character.”
13Amy heard her father shouting “Kay, why are you doing this?” Then he yelled “Amy, Amy, come here! Amy, come help!” She ran to their bedroom. Amy observed her mother on the floor holding knives in both hands. Her father was in his underwear, attempting to disarm and “subdue” her mother. There was a stab wound on his back.
14Amy also demanded to know what her mother was doing. Kay replied, “I’m trying to kill you both.” Amy collected the knives and took them to the kitchen. Russell said he felt like he was going to faint, so Amy promptly called 911.
15Kay remained “very aggressive”, but Amy was able to move her to the sofa as her father lay on the floor. Kay was still agitated as Amy rubbed her back and rocked her in an effort to soothe her. Kay was upset by these efforts and said, “Don’t rock me like a baby”. She soon calmed down.
16Kay Belk was recorded on the police in-cruiser camera during transport to the police station, and then later to the hospital. When asked if she wished to contact duty counsel, she replied “I guess, I don’t know”. She then asked if she could lie down “for a second”, as she was “going to faint”. She laid down for the rest of the recording. Ms. Belk wanted someone to notify her ailing sister Judy of her arrest. Her affect appeared somewhat blunted. She did not show any emotional response during the recording, even when she was informed of the criminal charge.
17The second recording captured the interior of the police cruiser that transported Ms. Belk to the hospital. She was silent for most of the video and showed no emotion. She asked to lie down. After fifteen minutes, she sat up, examined her injured hands, and asked “Will somebody look at my hand while we’re there? ‘Cause it’s bleeding again”.
III. Victim Impact and Perspective – Russell Belk
18Russell Belk sustained a laceration to his right upper back and superficial lacerations on his left upper thigh and right upper arm. He had an abrasion on his left hand. He was treated with sutures and discharged the same day.
19A victim impact statement of Mr. Belk was referenced, and notably he had asked his wife’s lawyer to read it to the court. His only remarks emerged from his reply to the request in the victim impact form to distill any physical impact of the incident: “None. I’m fully recovered both physically and mentally.”
20Sensing Mr. Belk may wish to convey more to me or the Ontario Review Board, I later further invited Mr. Belk to share his related insights or perspectives. He observed:
“It’s been difficult for these past four months now that I haven’t been able to talk to my wife and I’m sure it’s been difficult for her as well. So, I’m hoping after the hearing today that I will be able to visit her and communicate with her and that I hope she’ll be home soon. I do love her and miss her and I know that’s mutual.”
IV. Analysis:
A. Uncontested Facts and a Joint Submission for an NCR finding:
21The defence intended to acknowledge the commission of the criminal act and join the Crown in proposing that I find Ms. Belk “not criminally responsible”. While a formal plea of “no contest” or nolo contendere is not available in the Criminal Code, “its functional equivalence has developed in Ontario courts.”1 Prior to arraignment, I conducted an NCR-focused plea inquiry to ensure her participation in this process was voluntary and informed.2
22In doing so, I confirmed that Ms. Belk understood the consequences of admitting to the criminal act. Despite the joint submission for an NCR finding and the supportive expert opinion, I confirmed with all parties that the NCR verdict cannot be automatic and is fundamentally a judicial determination. I further confirmed with Ms. Belk that she understood the prospect that, upon an NCR finding, she would likely remain detained and potentially under the undefined and indeterminate supervision of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).
23Ms. Belk was instructed to plead not guilty upon arraignment for “Attempted Murder”. The Crown read in agreed upon facts that Ms. Belk stabbed her husband. With the assistance of instructed counsel, Ms. Belk accepted she committed the act of stabbing her husband.
24Counsel then jointly submitted that I find she committed the criminal act, but that I render a verdict that Ms. Belk was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, pursuant to s.672.34 of the Criminal Code. The report of the assessing forensic psychiatrist was received in evidence on consent, and both sides waived the right to examine the expert. I provided summary reasons imposing the NCR verdict, with these reasons to follow.
B. The Defence of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) Via Mental Disorder:
25The s.16 Criminal Code defence of NCR (“Not Criminally Responsible”) provides a defence for a person who committed a criminal act or omission while suffering from a mental disorder. To avail oneself of the defence, it must be established on the balance of probabilities that the mental disorder rendered the person “incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong”.3
26“Wrong” in this context means not only legally wrong, but “morally” wrong. For example, a person may know that an act is illegal, but the disorder may render them incapable of knowing the act is morally wrong by societal standards. Such a proven impairment would establish the NCR defence.4
27The “inquiry focuses not on general capacity to know right from wrong, but rather on the ability to know that a particular act was wrong in the circumstances. The accused must possess the intellectual ability to know right from wrong in an abstract sense. But he or she must also possess the ability to apply that knowledge in a rational way to the alleged criminal act.”5
C. NCR – Application of the Law to the Evidence:
28All accept that Ms. Belk was suffering from the symptoms of a mental disorder at the time she stabbed her husband. It must be determined whether the disorder prevented her from knowing her actions were wrong or from appreciating the nature and quality of her actions.
29Ms. Belk reported during the assessment that she may not have understood her actions or their consequences. The evidentiary record lends some support to this self-report. One fact may serve to undermine the proposition that she did not “appreciate the nature and quality” of the act of stabbing her husband. When Mr. Belk implored her during the incident to explain what she was doing by stabbing him, she responsively answered: “I’m killing you”. This may signal that she may have understood on some level that by stabbing him, she was doing just as she explained. I need not resolve this.
30I accept the force of the unchallenged expert psychiatric opinion that Ms. Belk, by virtue of a mental disorder, did not appreciate that her act was morally wrong. Firstly, she met the diagnostic criteria for “Major Neurocognitive Disorder (moderate severity)”, due to multiple etiologies (Alzheimer’s disease, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Vascular Disease). There was a palpable absence of any personality disorder or aggressive traits. The assessors determined that there was no evidence of malingering, and that her confusion and memory deficits, displayed both during the incident and the assessment, were clearly symptoms of disorder.
31Secondly, Ms. Belk persuasively reported to the assessors that she was confused and felt she was in a sleep-like state at the time of the incident. She reported that she had a “horrifying nightmare and I said I needed to stab somebody”. She heard “metallic”, mechanical, or robotic voices compelling her to do so. These voices seemed to be telling her to either kill “someone” or the “evil one”. Ms. Belk described feeling compelled to follow the commands of this voice, without a coherent understanding of her actions or their consequences.
32She then grabbed knives. “Russ must have made a noise. I automatically stabbed him, thinking he was part of the metallic voices.” She did not recognize the person she was stabbing as her husband.
33Ms. Belk recalled feeling frightened by the noise. When she was asked about the metallic voices, she replied that she only recalled that she “had to stab whatever was making that noise”. In doing so, she thought she was doing something “helpful” in the moment.
34At the time of the forensic assessment, she had a clearer understanding of what she had done. She still had “vague flashes” of the incident, and that it was like watching a slow-motion picture. She recalled feeling as if it could not be her committing the acts.
35In the context of these facts, reports, and observations, the following conclusion by the forensic assessor is unassailable from a legal perspective:
“At the time of the alleged offence, because of the cognitive impairments and disorientation she was experiencing, Ms. Belk was unable to rationally perceive her situation, and therefore unable to engage in rational choice regarding her actions. She was, therefore, unable to recognize her actions as wrong, according to the everyday standards of the ordinary person.”
V. Conclusion:
36Ms. Belk stabbed her husband in a confused state informed by the symptoms of a Major Neurocognitive Disorder. In committing the criminal act, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.
37As a result, I must find on the balance of probabilities that Ms. Belk was not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offence due to the symptoms of a mental disorder prevailing upon her at the time.
38Accordingly, pursuant to s.672.47 of the Criminal Code, I decline to impose a disposition, and defer that function to the Ontario Review Board. Pursuant to that provision, a disposition hearing is to be held within 45 days.
39My thanks to counsel.
Released: May 12, 2025
Signed: Justice A. A. Ghosh
Footnotes
- R. v. Simpson-Fry, 2022 ONCA 108, paras. 9-12
- R. v. Anderson, 2021 ONCA 333, para. 53
- Criminal Code, s.16 – The NCR “defence of mental disorder”
- R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, para. 21; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, paras. 97-101
- Oommen, para. 21; R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203, paras. 230-33; R. v. Worrie, 2022 ONCA 471