Court Information
Court: Ontario Court of Justice
Date: August 3, 2017
Court File No.: Brampton 16-247
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— AND —
Stephen Campbell
Before: Justice I. Jaffe
Heard on: May 31, June 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14, 2017
Reasons for Judgment released on: August 3, 2017
Counsel
C. Waite — counsel for the Crown
L. Sabsay — for the defendant Stephen Campbell
Reasons for Judgment
JAFFE J.:
Overview
[1] On January 6, 2016, Stephen Campbell attempted to kill his co-worker Andrew Maikoo. Both men were weight and load agents at Air Canada, and at approximately 9:48 p.m. on January 6th, Mr. Campbell walked into work, approached Mr. Maikoo (who was sitting at his desk) and in front of a number of co-workers, stabbed Mr. Maikoo repeatedly in the back and neck. That Mr. Campbell attempted to kill Mr. Maikoo is not in issue. Rather, the issue in this case, is whether at the time of the attempted murder, Mr. Campbell was suffering from a mental illness which rendered him incapable of knowing what he was doing was wrong.
[2] The Crown argues that Mr. Campbell knew full well what he was doing was wrong. He was not suffering from a mental illness and even if he was, he was still capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions. Mr. Campbell on the other hand, argues that at the time of the stabbing, he was suffering from a mental disorder and lacked the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. As such, Mr. Campbell should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Section 16 of the Criminal Code
[3] Section 16 of the Code, provides the statutory backdrop against which the evidence in this case must be assessed. The section provides as follows:
16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
[4] Section 16 provides two instances where a mental disorder would exempt an accused from criminal responsibility: if it rendered the accused incapable of understanding what he was doing, or if it rendered the accused incapable of understanding that the act was wrong. It is the second branch of s.16 which is engaged in this case.
[5] The term "knowing that the act was wrong" has received judicial interpretation over the years, most notably by the Supreme Court in R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, and R. v. Landry, [1991] 1 SCR 99, which confirmed that the term includes an appreciation that an act was morally wrong. In other words, even if an accused appreciates the legally wrongfulness of his acts, if his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing it was morally wrong, he will be exempt from criminal responsibility.
[6] A few years later, the Court in R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, had another opportunity to further define the meaning of "knowing that the act was wrong". In Oommen, the Court confirmed that a s. 16 inquiry must not focus on an accused's general capacity to know right from wrong, but on whether an accused's mental disorder rendered him unable to make a rational choice about whether or not to act. The Court explained the central question as follows at para. 26:
The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental disfunctions; as the following passages indicate these include at a minimum the states to which the psychiatrists testified in this case -- delusions which make the accused perceive an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing.
[7] The Court in Oommen also made it clear at para. 30, that a s. 16 inquiry is not determined by whether or not an accused's delusions provided the accused with what would, in reality, be a legal defence:
It was suggested that Mr. Oommen could be exempted from criminal responsibility only if he could make out the defence of self-defence. I do not agree. There is no suggestion in the authorities that the accused must establish that his delusion permits him to raise a specific defence, such as self-defence. The issue is whether the accused possessed the capacity present in the ordinary person to know that the act in question was wrong having regard to the everyday standards of the ordinary person. It is not necessary additionally to show that the defence of self-defence would also apply. Indeed, to posit such a requirement is to require the defence to prove two logically inconsistent propositions: first, that the accused was by reason of mental disorder unable to make the choice which a reasonable person would make; and second, that the accused acted reasonably in repelling an imminent attack. The difficulty is avoided, however, when it is recognized that s. 16 is not merely a vehicle for bringing particular defences before the court; it is an independent condition of criminal responsibility, as this Court affirmed in Chaulk and as the wording of the amended section makes clear. It may be that the nature of the delusion is to create a subjective impression in the accused's mind that he must defend himself or himself be killed, akin to that present when the defence of self-defence is raised, but that is incidental. Thus the question is not whether, assuming the delusions to be true, a reasonable person would have seen a threat to life and a need for death-threatening force. Rather, the real question is whether the accused should be exempted from criminal responsibility because a mental disorder at the time of the act deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and hence rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of the act. [emphasis added]
[8] What is clear from these cases is that an accused's mere subjective belief that what he was doing was right – even if that belief was the product of a disordered mind - will not exempt him from criminal responsibility as long as he retained an ability to know the act was wrong by societal standards: R. v. Ross, 2009 ONCA 149, at para. 27. R. v. Campione, 2015 ONCA 67, at para. 30. In Campione, albeit in the context of jury instructions, the Court framed the central question as follows, at paras. 39 and 41:
The ultimate issue for the jurors to determine was whether-in spite of her delusions and any honest belief in the justifiability of her actions- the appellant had the capacity to know that those actions were contrary to society's moral standards.
In short, a subjective, but honest belief of the justifiability of the acts-however unreasonable that belief may be – is not sufficient, alone, to ground an NCR defence, because an individual accused's personal sense of justifiability is not sufficient. The inquiry goes further. The accused person's mental disorder must also render him or her incapable of knowing that the acts in question are morally wrong as measured against societal standards, and therefore incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards.
The Evidence
[9] The trial unfolded in a somewhat unorthodox manner, primarily to accommodate the schedules of the two forensic psychiatrists. At the outset of the trial, various documents were filed on consent of both parties. Specifically, the victim's medical records from his initial hospitalization (exhibit #2), and a total of nine witness statements and transcripts of witness interviews (exhibits #3-11). All nine witnesses either worked directly with Mr. Campbell, or were otherwise employed by Air Canada. Also filed on consent, were the discovery transcripts of five other former co-workers (exhibit #12).
[10] The first witness to testify was P.C. Leah Black of the Peel Regional Police Service. P.C. Black was called by the Crown and testified about her meeting with Mr. Campbell at his home on January 2, 2016. It was through the officer that various police occurrence reports and emails were filed (contained in a single volume and marked as exhibit #3).
[11] Though the Crown had not completed its case, it was agreed by both parties that Mr. Campbell would testify next, so as to accommodate the two doctors who were only available later in the week. Mr. Campbell testified over the course of four days.
[12] Next to testify was Dr. William Komer, a forensic psychiatrist called by the Crown. Finally, Dr. Julian Gojer, also a forensic psychiatrist, testified for Mr. Campbell. The curriculum vitae and written reports of both doctors were filed as exhibits.
Agreed Facts
[13] A synopsis of facts was read into the record at the outset of the trial, in the nature of an agreed statement of facts. The synopsis itself was subsequently filed as an exhibit. It has been agreed that Mr. Maikoo (the victim) and Mr. Campbell were co-workers at Air Canada and worked at 989 Ironbridge Road in Brampton. On January 6, 2016 at approximately 9:48 p.m., Mr. Maikoo was at his work station and Mr. Campbell approached him from behind. Mr. Campbell proceeded to stab Mr. Maikoo repeatedly in the neck and head. Mr. Campbell was tackled by two co-workers who were unable to restrain him. Mr. Campbell walked out of the premises, entered his car and drove directly to 12 Division of Halton Regional Police Service in Milton. Mr. Maikoo was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital with serious injuries.
[14] Mr. Campbell's hands were covered in blood as he entered the police station and once inside, Mr. Campbell told officers "I think I just killed my co-worker". At 10:17 p.m., Mr. Campbell was arrested for attempt murder. A knife was located on the floor of Mr. Campbell's vehicle.
Evidence of Stephen Campbell
[15] Stephen Campbell is 50 years old and in January 2016, he had been employed by Air Canada for 17 years. At the time of the incident, Mr. Campbell was working as a load agent in the weight and balance department – a department which is nationally responsible for calculating optimum weights and balances of Air Canada flights.
[16] Mr. Campbell met the victim, Andrew Maikoo in August 2000 when they and four others participated in several days of intense training in Montreal. Initially, the two men got along very well, both at work and socially. That all changed about a year later, when, according to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Maikoo's deteriorating marriage caused his personality to change. Mr. Maikoo became withdrawn, resentful and angry. Mr. Campbell explained how the focus of Mr. Maikoo's resentment at that time was Air Canada. Though Mr. Maikoo was never personally seen putting nails in the company's parking lot, smearing bodily substances on bathroom mirrors, and posting angry letters on the walls, Mr. Campbell was certain it was Mr. Maikoo, and he believed the managers similarly knew it was Mr. Maikoo.
[17] Mr. Campbell recounted how at one point in 2001, Mr. Maikoo shocked everyone at work when he said something to the effect that Air Canada doesn't care until someone throws battery acid in their face. Mr. Campbell claimed that this comment caused Air Canada employees to treat Mr. Maikoo with "kid gloves."
[18] According to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Maikoo's resentful attitude and menacing conduct towards Air Canada continued for years, however in 2005 for the first time, Mr. Maikoo's anger centered on him. As Mr. Maikoo was walking past Mr. Campbell's desk, Mr. Campbell looked at him and said "hi Andrew". Mr. Maikoo angrily stared back and replied "fat bastard". This was a turning point in the men's relationship.
[19] From then on, Mr. Campbell said that Mr. Maikoo created a poisonous work environment. Out of spite for the company, Maikoo was frequently derelict in his duties on the nightshift, causing flight delays. Their deteriorating relationship came to a head on August 26, 2012 when the two men got into a physical altercation.
[20] On that particular day, Mr. Maikoo was responsible for a flight from Vancouver to Calgary which had already been delayed over an hour. Mr. Maikoo ignored repeated calls to this phone. Eventually, when Mr. Maikoo answered his phone, he was quick to assign blame on Mr. Campbell telling the caller "it's Steve's flight". Mr. Campbell walked over to Mr. Maikoo and asked "what did you just say?" When Mr. Maikoo responded by calling Mr. Campbell a "fat bastard", Mr. Campbell "lost his cool" and shook the arm of Mr. Maikoo's chair.
[21] When Mr. Campbell returned to work after calling in sick for a week, he learned that he had been accused of throwing Mr. Maikoo against his desk and threatening bodily harm. Mr. Campbell received a Step 4 Letter of discipline, and was told that he was suspended for 10 days. Mr. Campbell never did serve the suspension and as a result of arbitration the following year, the discipline letter was removed from his record.
[22] Following the August 26th incident, Mr. Maikoo's began "striking out" against Mr. Campbell and he embarked on what can be described as a sustained campaign of harassment against Mr. Campbell. The harassment was confined to the workplace and included pinning on the walls mistakes Mr. Campbell had allegedly made. Mr. Campbell also described how Mr. Maikoo would chew food and spit it out onto Mr. Campbell's desk. Mr. Maikoo would also "sabotage" Mr. Campbell's ability to work, by changing the settings on his computers, monitors and keyboards.
[23] Then the crank phone calls began. Mr. Campbell described how he would receive calls in the middle of the night from an "unknown caller". Some of the calls were hangs up, while on other occasions he would hear voices – the first one of which said "I hate you". On one occasion, the caller said "are you ready to die". Mr. Campbell testified that he reported these threatening calls to the police. Mr. Campbell assumed the calls were coming from Air Canada and because they were coming during times Mr. Maikoo was on night shift, he felt confident they were being made by Mr. Maikoo.
[24] Mr. Campbell said Air Canada was doing nothing about this workplace harassment. In fact, Mr. Campbell believed that Air Canada had a motive to "go after" him. He explained how Air Canada was introducing new software that would render his job obsolete. To fight against this new initiative, Mr. Campbell became a shop steward. Mr. Campbell believed that the fact he was fighting against Air Canada explained why Air Canada permitted the harassment to continue.
[25] Eventually in 2013, with the assistance of Derek Morgan, another shop steward, Mr. Campbell filled out a workplace harassment form and submitted it to the union's human rights committee. An investigation was commenced and in the spring of 2014, it was determined that some of Mr. Campbell's complaints had merit.
[26] The harassment escalated after Air Canada made a positive finding of harassment. It included such things as Mr. Maikoo hurling office furniture at Mr. Campbell. Eventually, the harassment began happening at Mr. Campbell's home. Mr. Campbell explained that Mr. Maikoo flattened his car tires on numerous occasions. Mr. Campbell also routinely discovered nails in his driveway and tires. These instances prompted Mr. Campbell to take daily walks around the perimeter of his home in search of nails and signs of sabotage. On one occasion he discovered dried human feces in a window well, on two other occasions, he found feces on his patio. Mr. Campbell was also convinced that Mr. Maikoo had been throwing rocks at his windows and had ruined his car engine.
[27] In March 2014, the union grieved on Mr. Campbell's behalf that Air Canada had failed to provide Mr. Campbell with a harassment free workplace and failed to provide an update in regards to the harassment investigation that was conducted by Human resources. On March 11, 2014, Kerry Demeda of Air Canada sent a letter to Mr. Campbell in which she advised Mr. Campbell that they had completed the investigation into harassment complaints against Mr. Maikoo. In the letter Mr. Campbell is advised that the investigation concluded that evidence did support allegations of harassment in the workplace as defined in Air Canada's policy but that the investigation did not support a finding of a poisoned work environment. No details were given about the harassment that was found to have existed. [Exhibit 19(F)].
[28] In the Air Canada brief detailing the grievance [Exhibit 19(E)], Air Canada acknowledged that Mr. Campbell's allegations of harassment were founded, and as a result, Mr. Campbell step four letter was removed from his file. Air Canada submitted that Mr. Campbell's grievance should be dismissed as it has dealt with the harassment complaint and the workplace harassment policy was followed, and that Mr. Campbell was not entitled to any financial compensation.
[29] Mr. Campbell explained that by mid-2014, the stress associated with the harassment caused him to become ill and led to numerous visits to Credit Valley Hospital. Mr. Campbell gained weight and stopped going on vacation. Though the harassment abated a bit, it was back in full force in September 2015. At this time, blank faxes were being sent to Mr. Campbell's home. He estimated he received approximately six of them. He called Bell Canada and the police to complain about the faxes. He would see Mr. Maikoo at work, and would know that the harassment would occur later that night.
[30] On November 4, 2014, Mr. Campbell emailed his managers at Air Canada, including Rodney Stone. The email had the subject line "Maikoo harassment continues!!!" The email outlined further instances of alleged harassment at the workplace such as Mr. Maiko pushing flights from his block to Mr. Campbell for absolutely no reason. Mr. Campbell also described how his computer had been tampered with and rendered unusable. The email also detailed an incident in which Mr. Maikoo walked past Mr. Campbell's desk and passed wind. The letter ended with Mr. Campbell urging Air Canada to do something about the harassment or "Air Canada will hear about it".
[31] The following day, Mr. Campbell sent another email to Rodney Stone explaining that Mr. Maikoo had been harassing other agents in the office. Mr. Campbell warned that he will be bringing his complaint to the human rights commission. He also warned that he will be "coming after" Air Canada for their "negligence and for subjecting me to these attacks". Mr. Campbell advised that he was in the process of picking a lawyer. [Exhibit 19(J)]
[32] On March 26, 2015, Mr. Campbell reported to the Halton Regional Police Service that sometime during the afternoon, someone let the air out of his rear right tire and glued the valve cap back on to prevent air from being put back in the tire. He complained that there was an ongoing problem at his home with vandalism and he planned on installing video surveillance at his residence. He also reported that his car had been keyed in the driveway and that on other occasions there had been nails found left on the ground behind his tires in his driveway. Mr. Campbell requested random extra patrols in his neighbourhood. [Exhibit 18(B)]
[33] The following day, Mr. Campbell emailed Kerry Demeda at Air Canada, advising her that the harassment was continuing at the workplace, and it had also shifted to his home, with vandalism occurring at his home and to his vehicle. Mr. Campbell advised that he has reported this to Halton Regional Police. [Exhibit 19(J)]
[34] As a result of this harassment and Air Canada's lack of response, Mr. Campbell went to arbitration. On May 21, 2015, Mr. Campbell sent Arbitrator Kaplan a letter outlining some details of harassment and beseeching Arbitrator Kaplan to either remove Mr. Maikoo from the workplace, or award financial compensation to Mr. Campbell in the amount of $69,860. [Exhibit 20]
[35] Mr. Campbell attached to this letter a three-page "Harassment Witness List" listing twelve co-workers and providing brief synopses of how they could substantiate Mr. Campbell's claims of harassment. Five of the individuals listed (Sylvain Dufour, James Daniel, Chez Daborwski, Pierre Dehaises, and Rick Voorthuyzen) provided statements following the incident, transcripts of which were filed as exhibits on the trial.
[36] On June 4, 2015, Arbitrator Kaplan released his decision on the arbitration that took place May 29, 2015. The arbitrator directed Air Canada to meet with Mr. Campbell to discuss his continuing harassment concerns and to take immediate action. No financial award was made. [Exhibit 19(L)]
[37] On July 28, 2015, Mr. Campbell attended Dr. Saxena's office complaining of chest pains for four days which comes and goes. According to Dr. Saxena's notes, Mr. Campbell was unhappy with his job. It is a desk job and he's been there for 17 to 18 years. There was no reference to any harassment in the notes. [Exhibit 19(T)]
[38] Mr. Campbell testified that by October 2015, he started to become "unglued". He began feeling as though he was going to have a nervous breakdown and started hearing what he described as a different version of himself telling him such things as "this guy has got to go". On October 19, 2015 Mr. Campbell complained to Halton Regional Police that he has been threatened over the phone by a co-worker named Andrew Maikoo. He reported that Mr. Maikoo calls his house continually and makes threats with the computer altered voice. He also complained about the blank fax he received on October 13th which he believed was sent from Mr. Maikoo. According to the police report, there was no evidence to substantiate Mr. Campbell's complaints against Mr. Maikoo. [Exhibit 18(C)]
[39] Mr. Campbell explained that he spent his holidays in November 2015 essentially confined to his bed. He also began to see 'aggressive' patterns in his stucco ceiling, such as evil faces and the devil. Mr. Campbell would frequently look out his window, looking for Mr. Maikoo.
[40] Mr. Campbell returned to work in December 2015, however, he was not doing well emotionally. He continued to hear a voice say things such as "there is no way out". The harassment was not bad in the month of December, until December 23rd when Mr. Campbell received a fax from an Iowa company which he was sure was sent by Mr. Maikoo. Mr. Campbell spent Christmas day with his brother and sister, and he testified that while he normally had a good appetite, he could barely eat anything. He did not explain to his siblings the reasons for his deteriorating emotional state.
[41] Mr. Campbell returned to work on December 27th when he and another employee tried to block a vote which would have resulted in longer shifts. Mr. Campbell described how there was a "flurry" of attacks at the end of December to January 1st, 2016 which prompted him to attend at 12 Division of Halton Regional Police Service. He spoke to P.C. Ball and provided the officer with some background information. Mr. Campbell was advised to return in the day, and speak to a day shift officer.
[42] On January 1st, when at work, Mr. Campbell accepted an offer to take an overtime shift. Assuming that Mr. Maikoo overheard this, he felt confident he would be harassed later that day. Sure enough, a call came on his cell phone at approximately 2:34 a.m. Only a few people had Mr. Campbell's cell phone number and now he was convinced, Mr. Maikoo had it. This caused Mr. Campbell to "break down". It was the following morning that P.C. Leah Black attended at Mr. Campbell's residence. He told P.C. Black everything, and gave her the "Iowa fax".
[43] That same day, Mr. Campbell emailed Boyd Richardson with the subject line "Andrew Maikoo is in full swing harassment…" Mr. Campbell advised Mr. Richardson that Mr. Maikoo called him in the middle of the night because he knew that Mr. Campbell was going to be working overtime. Mr. Campbell advised that the police are involved and they will be paying Mr. Maikoo a visit. Mr. Campbell warned that he has had enough of this "crap" and that "all hell's going to break loose very soon". Mr. Campbell warned that if nothing is done "many people will come to regret it". Mr. Campbell ended by saying that he is very angry very stressed out and sick to his stomach. [Exhibit 19(P)] At trial, Mr. Campbell explained that in this email, he was not making physical threats, but rather threatening legal action.
[44] On January 4, 2015, Mr. Stephen Campbell sent another email to Stephanie Haas and Boyd Richardson at Air Canada. Mr. Campbell asked Ms. Haas why Air Canada was protecting Andrew Maikoo. Mr. Campbell complained that the harassment has started up again and has now moved to vandalization of his home and vehicle. Mr. Campbell said that the harassment continues because Air Canada allows it. Mr. Campbell referred to harassing phone calls and faxes. Mr. Campbell asked Air Canada to "do the right thing and remove Andrew Maikoo from weight and balance", and warned that "sooner or later people will have to answer for it". Mr. Campbell said he has sent documentation to various people, including his MP, who will be forwarding it to the Minister of Labour. [Exhibit 19(S)]
[45] The following day, on January 5th, Mr. Campbell attended Dr. Saxena's office. According to the doctor's notes, Mr. Campbell complained of having stress at work and that a co-worker has been harassing him by vandalizing his home and his vehicle for the past four years. He says that the co-worker keeps calling him at night to harass him. He's been unable to sleep and finding it difficult to eat. Mr. Campbell complained of feeling low and tired, and Dr. Saxena made a note that Mr. Campbell was crying throughout the interview. The doctor also noted that Mr. Campbell denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation. Dr. Saxena diagnosed Mr. Campbell as being depressed and recommended that Mr. Campbell be off work from January 5 to January 30, 2016. [Exhibit 19(T)]
[46] Mr. Campbell's evidence concerning his January 5th visit to Dr. Saxena differed from the doctor's notes. In cross-examination, Mr. Campbell explained that his health was falling apart and he had a strong feeling he was about to have a nervous breakdown. Mr. Campbell estimated that his meeting with Dr. Saxena lasted only a minute or two. He did not share with Dr. Saxena having heard voices, but he did tell the doctor that he felt he was going to kill someone.
[47] That same day, Mr. Campbell emailed Fred Hospes (Boyd Richardson's boss in the union). In the email Mr. Campbell sought his assistance in getting Mr. Maikoo removed. He reported that Mr. Maikoo continues to harass him at home and at work (vandalizing his home and car) and that the vandalizing has ramped up over the Christmas period. He said the "entire situation is going south" and that he is basically reaching out to anyone and everyone who might be able to help him. [Exhibit 19(W)]
[48] In cross-examination, Mr. Campbell estimated that he heard the voice in his head approximately four times around Christmas. He never shared with his siblings, their families, his best friend Michael Wilson, P.C. Black, or Dr. Saxena, the fact that he was hearing voices.
The Day of the Stabbing
[49] The morning of January 6, 2016, started off with Mr. Campbell sending an email to Rodney Stone at Air Canada. In the email he complained that Andrew Maikoo has stepped up his harassment over the last few months, especially over Christmas. Mr. Campbell warned that if Air Canada continues to turn a blind eye to the sky, "it will come back to haunt". Mr. Campbell ended by saying he wants Andrew Maikoo moved somewhere else. [Exhibit 19(X)] At trial, Mr. Campbell testified that he was threatening legal action, not violence. Sooner or later, he was going to "win", maybe even financially, and then someone at Air Canada would be fired.
[50] Mr. Campbell then had what he described as a positive meeting with his labour lawyer David Cote, at his office in downtown Toronto. Mr. Campbell left the lawyer's officer around 11:30 a.m., and attended a music store on Spadina Avenue. After eating lunch at Apache Burger near Kipling Subway, Mr. Campbell made his way home, arriving at about 2:30 p.m. Mr. Campbell fell asleep for about an hour and when he awoke, he saw the previously described images in the ceiling.
[51] After seeing who he believed was a co-worker stopped in the middle of his street watching him, he went to his home-office to see if he had received any replies to his emails. There were no replies. The lack of response to his calls for help left Mr. Campbell in an "emotionally bad shape". Later that afternoon, as he was walking to the bathroom, he heard a voice in his head say "tonight's the night". At that moment he knew he was on his way to work to kill Andrew Maikoo. A minute later, Mr. Campbell says he was on his way to work.
[52] Mr. Campbell testified that he felt he had no choice. While killing Andrew Maikoo is not something he would have done "in a million years", there was no debating it. In cross-examination, Mr. Campbell denied that his plan was to go into work to change a few shifts. He explained that was the plan the previous night after James Daniel had sent a "petty email" to him.
[53] Mr. Campbell vaguely recalled getting dressed and seeing the likeness of a devil's face in a water stain on a cardboard box near the stairs. When Mr. Campbell entered his garage, he saw the an empty box of KillX bug repellant, and perceived the words "Kill" jump out at him as though they were two or three feet high. Though he does not recall entering his vehicle, he recalls being in it. As he turned on his car, the song "To Live or Let Die" was playing on the radio. Mr. Campbell took this as a sign that what he was about to do was right.
[54] Mr. Campbell testified that his next memory was driving along Derry Road and then entering the parking lot at work. He does not recall getting out the vehicle, removing a knife from his glove box, entering the front door or acknowledging the security officer. Mr. Campbell claims to have a vague memory of attending at the washroom to wash his face as he had become accustomed to doing. Mr. Campbell does not recall exiting the washroom, but recalls that upon seeing Mr. Maikoo sitting at his work station he had a "bad reaction". As Mr. Campbell entered the room, he broke down even further. He said that he had no thought about whether or not he wanted to do what he was about to do. It was just "on".
[55] On his way towards Mr. Maikoo, Mr. Campbell recalls passing two of his co-workers. Mr. Campbell has a vague recollection of approaching Mr. Maikoo from the side. He then recalls trying to stab Mr. Maikoo, but missing. He said he does not remember stabbing Mr. Maikoo any other times, though he seemed to recall stabbing him high on his head when the knife went through Mr. Maikoo's skull. Mr. Campbell questioned whether that was a genuine recollection or imagined. He recalls at one point, he moved to Mr. Maikoo's front, and pulled his head back. Mr. Campbell then recalls descending the stairs and as he approached a fire exit, the voice in his head said "you may as well" as though giving him permission to exit from the fire exit.
[56] Two of Mr. Campbell's co-workers (Asaad Ibrahim and Daniel Cale), described Mr. Campbell as having a "deer in the headlights" look about him as he walked away following the stabbing. Another co-worker, Geoffrey Clark, described Mr. Campbell as having a "blank stare" about him while a fourth co-worker James McEwan, described him as looking like a robot.
[57] Mr. Campbell entered his car and drove off. He recalls hearing the voice in his head say "you did it Steve, you did it" as though congratulating him. As he was making his way home, Mr. Campbell said he got scared of reprisals from Mr. Maikoo's supporters. At this point in time, he believed Mr. Maikoo was dead. Frightened and wanting a safe haven, he attended 12 Division at Milton Police. As Mr. Campbell made his way up to the station's door, he realized, for the first time, that his hands were covered with blood.
[58] Now in the front foyer of the police station, Mr. Campbell told the officers who were present "there is something really wrong here, I just killed someone". An officer drew his gun and Mr. Campbell assured him there was no reason to fear him. After asking if Mr. Campbell was suffering from mental health issues, he handcuffed Mr. Campbell and walked him to the rear of the station. It was during his processing at the station that he heard for the first time that Mr. Maikoo had not died.
[59] It was upon his detention in Maplehurst that Mr. Campbell met Dr. Clancy who he said, was being blocked access to him by the jail guards. Mr. Campbell interpreted the actions of the guards as being protective of him.
[60] When asked in cross-examination whether he thinks he did anything wrong, Mr. Campbell replied "At this point, I really want to be clear. I don't feel I did anything wrong. The guy here on the stand is not the guy who did it, that act, that night. So until they put me six feet under, I will never say I did anything wrong. That's not denial, that's not convenience I don't feel like I did anything. I know my person attacked Andrew that night. But I would never say I did anything wrong."
[61] It is important to note at this juncture, that there is no evidence in support of most of Mr. Campbell's complaints of harassment by Mr. Maikoo.
The Psychiatric Evidence
[62] On March 17, 2016, the Court made an order to have Mr. Campbell psychiatrically assessed and he was admitted to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care the following day. On April 12, 2016, the assessment order was extended for another thirty days.
[63] Dr. Komer conducted the court-ordered assessment of Mr. Campbell, and testified for the Crown at his trial. Dr. Komer's May 24th, 2016 report was also filed as an exhibit. I find that where the report makes reference to information supplied by Mr. Campbell, it reads like a virtual transcript of Mr. Campbell's trial evidence. This leads me to conclude that with the odd minor exception (for instance Dr. Komer's reference to Hibachi Burger as opposed to Apache Burger), the reported details of Dr. Komer's conversations with Mr. Campbell are accurate.
[64] Having met with Mr. Campbell five or six times over the course of his two-month stay at Waypoint, Dr. Komer concluded that while Mr. Campbell exhibited depressive symptoms associated to harassment, he questioned whether Mr. Campbell's depression was in the nature of a major depression. Dr. Komer's uncertainty in this regard was rooted in behaviour he believed was inconsistent with a major depression. Though Mr. Campbell had reported being depressed for about 1 ½ years, the fact that Mr. Campbell was going on vacations, meeting with his lawyer and sending emails, contraindicated a diagnosis of major depression, which is typically characterized by a loss of interest in activities and concentration.
[65] Moreover, neither Mr. Campbell's brother nor sister noticed any signs of depression, though Mr. Campbell's brother noticed that his house was uncharacteristically disarrayed. Dr. Komer found that it is less likely Mr. Campbell had a major depressive disorder, if his family members did not observe anything.
[66] Attempting to ascertain whether a mental disorder prompted Mr. Campbell to leave home and travel to work on January 6th, Dr. Komer asked Mr. Campbell why he left home. Mr. Campbell explained to the doctor that he left for work in order to make shift changes in response to an email he received from his employer. Mr. Campbell made no mention of voices or hallucinations as being the reason he left for work. In fact, Mr. Campbell told the doctor that he did not even know if Mr. Maikoo was at the office at the time, and had no intent to harm him when he left for work. In cross-examination, Dr. Komer was asked if his opinion would change if he heard that Mr. Campbell left the house for the purpose of killing Mr. Maikoo after hearing the voices (as he testified in court). Dr. Komer acknowledged that would change his opinion.
[67] Dr. Komer's apparent skepticism in Mr. Campbell's account, also seems to be based on Mr. Campbell's spotty recollection of the events immediately surrounding the stabbing. In fact, Dr. Komer testified that it made no logical sense that Mr. Campbell remembered some things about the stabbing, but not others. For instance, the fact that Mr. Campbell cannot remember most of the stabs, but is certain he did not have Mr. Maikoo in a headlock, makes no logical or clinical sense.
[68] In a similar vein, the fact that Mr. Campbell only vaguely recalled attending the office bathroom to wash his face, but recalled why he was washing his face (i.e. to conceal the fact that he had been crying), raised some concern for the doctor. Dr. Komer opined that if someone is having trouble processing information (as Mr. Campbell claimed to be experiencing), remembering the intention behind an action is more difficult than remembering the physical act.
[69] To the doctor, Mr. Campbell's inability to recall some significant events but not others, was self-serving. In fact, it was Dr. Komer's opinion that some of Mr. Campbell's reports concerning the offence were done for impression management to "minimize his responsibility for his actions and to further a Not Criminally Responsible defence".
[70] Dr. Komer allowed for the possibility that Mr. Campbell did have a delusional disorder, persecutory type (of the nature found by Dr. Gojer). However the diagnosis of this disorder was complicated by the fact there was collateral substantiation for some of Mr. Campbell's persecutory beliefs about Mr. Maikoo. Dr. Komer described a delusion order as being characterized by fixed false beliefs that are unshakable. In short, a delusion disorder is marked by longstanding beliefs with no basis in reality. However, in a situation where some of the beliefs are substantiated, the diagnosis becomes trickier.
[71] Dr. Komer testified that brief periods of hallucinations and depression can accompany a delusional disorder and while Mr. Campbell reported some short lived auditory hallucinations, there was inconsistency in how Mr. Campbell reported, and interpreted, these voices to the doctor. Dr. Komer also testified that while some patients do not report hallucinations, he found it odd that Mr. Campbell made no mention of hearing voices to his doctor, even though he specifically attended his doctor's office out of concern for his mental health.
[72] In any event, even if Mr. Campbell was suffering from a delusional disorder and associated depression, Dr. Komer ultimately found no indication that Mr. Campbell was experiencing an active psychosis at the time of the stabbing "that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of his actions or knowing their wrongfulness" [p.17 of his report]
[73] In cross-examination, Dr. Komer agreed that if it turned out that Mr. Campbell's belief that there was a conspiracy against him by Air Canada and Mr. Maikoo was without any basis, his belief could be characterized as delusional. The doctor conceded that falsely believing that Mr. Maikoo was repeatedly sending faxes, or leaving feces at his home, or damaging his car, amounts to delusional beliefs. The doctor also conceded that assuming Mr. Campbell believed the guards at Maplehurst were protecting him from Dr. Clancy, these too would be delusional beliefs.
[74] Dr. Komer was cross-examined on the fact that his report made no mention of Mr. Campbell's family history of mental illness (i.e. his mother and father). The doctor acknowledged that a family history increases the odds of a mental illness.
[75] When asked to conjure up a reason why Mr. Campbell would have killed Mr. Maikoo, but for a mental illness, Dr. Komer replied that someone with a delusional disorder can still get angry, and there are equally non-psychotic motivations for a psychotic person to want to hurt and kill someone.
Dr. Gojer
[76] Dr. Gojer first came into contact with Mr. Campbell when he conducted his initial assessment on February 19, 2016. It became clear to Dr. Gojer during this initial meeting that Mr. Campbell was experiencing thoughts or beliefs that could be classified as delusions. Dr. Gojer believed that Mr. Campbell was suffering from a delusion disorder paranoid subtype, and recommended an in-hospital assessment. Dr. Gojer met with Mr. Campbell again on September 3 and 4, 2016 for approximately four hours. Dr. Gojer's initial opinion that Mr. Campbell suffered from a delusional disorder was confirmed with his subsequent assessment. Dr. Gojer's February 2017 report was filed as exhibit at trial.
[77] In rendering his written opinion, Dr. Gojer relied on (and made reference to), a multitude of sources including many of the witness statements and items of correspondence filed as exhibits at trial. Dr. Gojer also relied on the contents of a lengthy "story" handwritten by Mr. Campbell on February 18, 2016. As with Dr. Komer's report, I find that the information supplied to Dr. Gojer, with few exceptions, closely mirrors Mr. Campbell's in-court testimony. As such, I am confident that Dr. Gojer accurately recorded his conversations with Mr. Campbell.
[78] Ultimately, Dr. Gojer concluded that Mr. Campbell was suffering (and continues to suffer) from a delusional disorder persecutory subtype and a major depression, both of which were in play on January 6th, 2016. Mr. Campbell's severely compromised mental health precluded him from exercising rational choice or from knowing right from wrong at the time of the offence. Dr. Gojer concluded that it was more likely than not, that Mr. Campbell has a s. 16(1) defence, and is not criminal responsible for the offence on account of mental disorder.
[79] Dr. Gojer does not share Dr. Komer's opinion that substantiation for some of Mr. Campbell's beliefs about being harassed, complicates the diagnosis. To the contrary, it tells us how the delusions originated. They were rooted in actual occurrences and were then blown out of proportion. Nor was Dr. Gojer troubled by the fact that Mr. Campbell did not share his feelings of depression with his family or that he continued to travel. The doctor noted that Mr. Campbell was a private man and did not want to involve his family. It is not unusual for symptoms of depression to elude family members, because people can be stoic while suffering depression. As for the travelling, Dr. Gojer explained that people who are depressed want to get away, so the fact that Mr. Campbell was taking holidays, does not detract from a diagnosis of a major depression.
[80] Dr. Gojer noted that Mr. Campbell had "absolutely no insight into his disorder" and in fact, does believe he has a delusion disorder. Dr. Gojer explained that someone with no insight, is more challenging to treat. Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Campbell continues to pose a threat, because he could "latch" on to someone else and have similar delusions. These types of disorders are difficult to treat because they are enduring and they do not respond well to counselling or medications
[81] Dr. Gojer testified that his opinion that Mr. Campbell was NCR, was based on his conclusion that Mr. Campbell's ability to reason with himself was significantly impaired. Dr. Gojer's opinion was confirmed by the fact that Mr. Campbell's family reported that the offence was totally out of character. Also confirming his opinion, was the fact that Mr. Campbell committed the stabbing in plain view of a number of co-workers and was observed walking away from the scene like a robot. In cross-examination, Dr. Gojer explained that the robot description suggests Mr. Campbell was not "with it" and was disconnected to his surroundings.
[82] Dr. Gojer was of the view that Mr. Campbell's delusion disorder in fact pre-dated his delusions concerning Mr. Maikoo and were evidenced in his litigation against his homebuilder. According to Mr. Campbell's brother, Mr. Campbell found over 300 things wrong with his new home and sued the builder, and almost everyone who did work for him. Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Campbell's litigious ideas were part of his paranoid process. As well, the brothers recounting of Mr. Campbell's home being unusually messy, and Mr. Campbell keeping a baseball bat by his bed, were further indications that confirmed Dr. Gojer's ultimate diagnosis.
[83] When asked in cross-examination whether he was aware that Mr. Campbell had expressed a belief that he was NCR, Dr. Gojer replied that many people after speaking with their lawyer, decide to go with a NCR defence. However, the doctor does not believe that Mr. Campbell feels he has a mental disorder.
[84] During cross-examination, Dr. Gojer likened Mr. Campbell's situation with the Oommen case in that like Mr. Oommen, Mr. Campbell felt that the victim of the attack was systematically destroying him. In fact, Dr. Gojer was of the view that Mr. Campbell's situation was more serious than Mr. Oommen's, because Mr. Campbell was also suffering from depression. Dr. Gojer defended his comparison to the Oommen case by insisting that Mr. Campbell was in fear for his life.
[85] Also in cross-examination, Dr. Gojer said that he did not share Dr. Komer's concern about the inconsistencies in Mr. Campbell's accounts. In fact, a perfectly 'neat' consistent account, would raise suspicions more than inconsistencies. Nor did he share Dr. Komer's concern stemming from Mr. Campbell's inability to recall some details surrounding the stabbing. Dr. Gojer was of the view that an accused's amnesia at the time of homicide offences is a common phenomenon.
The Arguments
[86] On behalf of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Sabsay argues that at the exact moment Mr. Campbell was stabbing Mr. Maiko, his belief in Mr. Maikoo's persecution of him, and his associated depression, reached a crescendo. In these circumstances, Mr. Campbell did not have the capacity to know that what he was doing, was wrong.
[87] Mr. Sabsay accurately submits that a NCR finding does not depend on there having been an imminent threat to the accused at the time of the offence, nor does it have to be shown that according to the delusional beliefs of an accused, a substantive defence (such as self defence) was available. In support of this argument, Mr. Sabsay relies on Oommen in which the victim was posing no imminent threat to Mr. Oommen at the time he killed her.
[88] As well, in Oommen, there was no evidence that the deceased was not part of the conspiracy imagined by Mr. Oommen. Similarly in this case, there is no evidence to support the extent and intensity of Mr. Campbell's allegations against Mr. Maikoo. Mr. Sabsay argues that the Crown could not prove motive based on the level of harassment that did occur, and therefore, the motive would be based mostly on imagined harassment.
[89] Mr. Sabsay emphasizes the circumstances of the stabbing which he argues support a NCR finding. The fact that Mr. Campbell stabbed Mr. Maikoo in front of numerous co-workers strongly supports a finding that Mr. Campbell did not know what he was doing was wrong.
[90] The fact that Mr. Campbell believed the harassment occurred is evidence of a mental disorder, and so too is the fact that he believed others had witnessed the harassment. Mr. Sabsay points to the lengthy witness list attached to exhibit 20 (the May 21st letter to Arbitrator Kaplan) as evincing strong indications of delusional beliefs.
[91] Mr. Sabsay takes issue with Dr. Komer's opinion that Mr. Campbell's memory lapses are attempts to minimize his responsibility. Mr. Sabsay argues that Mr. Campbell could not have left more indications of his role in the stabbing, and he certainly did not seek to minimize his involvement. It was also argued that if Mr. Campbell was interested in cultivating self-serving evidence, why did he resist speaking to Dr. Clancy at Maplehurst, and see him as the enemy? He must have known a psychiatrist would be necessary to advance a NCR defence.
[92] Mr. Sabsay submits that what we saw in Mr. Campbell's testimony is evidence of the unshakable nature of his delusional beliefs. And even if Mr. Campbell did suffer some harassment, it does not detract from a finding that Mr. Campbell was delusional. Attributing everything that goes wrong in one's life to a single person or group, is evidence of a mental disorder.
[93] For the Crown, Mr. Waite urges the Court to review the statements of Mr. Campbell's co-workers, and note the fact that with the exception of August 2012 incident, they did not witness any conflict between the two men. By all outward accounts, they were able to co-exist. Dr. Gojer explained how with a delusional disorder, the afflicted person can behave normally when removed from the source of the problem. Dr. Gojer also testified that the reason Mr. Campbell was not manifesting symptoms before the offence, was because he was removed from the problem However, Mr. Campbell was frequently in the close proximity to the source of the problem with no apparent difficulty.
[94] Mr. Waite argues that Mr. Campbell's courtroom accounts of the harassment and symptoms were exaggerated. Neither sibling reported observing any significant change in Mr. Campbell. And while Mr. Campbell testified that he complained many times to the police, we have seen only three police reports. As well, he testified to more examples of harassment than were detailed in his various reports and correspondence.
[95] Mr. Waite submits that the first time Mr. Campbell claimed to have left the house because of the voices, was in court. He argues that despite Mr. Campbell's claims to the contrary, he told both doctors that he went to work to change shifts. Mr. Waite suggests that Mr. Campbell did not in fact, hear any voices, but if he did, the last voice he heard did not tell him to kill anyone. Mr. Waite submits there is no better way to invite a NCR finding than to tell people you heard voices instructing you to kill.
[96] Mr. Waite finds support for his argument in Mr. Campbell's January 5nd visit to Dr. Saxena during which Mr. Campbell made no mention of the voices he had been hearing that were directing him to kill Mr. Maikoo. Mr. Campbell recognized them as symptoms of stress but did not tell the doctor he visited for his stress.
[97] Mr. Waite cites Mr. Campbell's evidence that he told Dr. Saxena on January 5th that he might kill someone, as another example of Mr. Campbell's self-serving agenda. Mr. Waite argues that it defies common sense and medical practice, that Dr. Saxena would not have made note of that comment, had it actually been made.
[98] Mr. Waite submits that the main reason for the difference in medical opinions, is that Dr. Komer did not entirely believe Mr. Campbell, and Dr. Gojer did. Whereas Dr. Komer thought of Mr. Campbell as a moving target, who gave inconsistent self-serving information, Dr. Gojer had no concerns about malingering or impression management. This in turn led to two completely different opinions.
Assessment of the Evidence
[99] I agree with the Crown that the vastly different psychiatric opinions can be explained by the fact that Dr. Gojer had faith in the accuracy of Mr. Campbell's information, whereas Dr. Komer did not. This explanation for the difference in opinions makes sense because with the exception of minimal information from siblings and co-workers, almost all of the information imparted to both doctors was generated by Mr. Campbell himself.
[100] It follows that the medical opinion most likely to find traction with this Court, will be informed by my own assessment of Mr. Campbell's credibility and the reliability of his evidence. Set out below are some of the reasons why I doubt the reliability of Mr. Campbell's evidence, and in turn doubt the reliability of Dr. Gojer's opinion.
[101] Mr. Campbell testified that he recalled only stabbing at Mr. Maikoo initially, and missing. He claimed to have no recollection of any subsequent stabs with the exception of one other stab which he believes may be imagined. Yet, upon entering the police station, he immediately advised the officers that he thinks he just killed his co-worker. Why would he think he killed Mr. Maikoo, if he could barely recall stabbing him?
[102] Similarly, at one point in his cross examination, Mr. Campbell was asked if he remembered seeing Mr. Maikoo before or right after the attack. At one point in his answer, Mr. Campbell described an image he had of Mr. Maikoo as "guy lying over a chair with his throat ripped open and blood pouring out of him, so if it was real, and all those stabs that I also remember in his head, I find it hard to believe that that guy survived." The Crown asked what he meant by "all those stabs" that he remembers. Mr. Campbell replied "did I just say that?…ok, um, all the stabs I remember in his head, I'm not saying I remember every one. I remember um, partially one or two and then going to the front."
[103] Mr. Campbell testified that on January 6th, as soon as he heard the inner voice tell him "tonight's the night" he knew he was on his way to work, to kill Andrew Maikoo. Changing shifts was not on his agenda. Killing Mr. Maikoo was. However, I am confident that Mr. Campbell had previously reported to both Dr. Komer and Dr. Gojer that he was planning to go to work to get his shifts covered. In fact, in his conversation with Dr. Komer, Mr. Campbell denied that he left home because of a voice.
[104] Mr. Campbell was questioned about the discrepancy between what he said in court, and what the doctors noted in their reports. Mr. Campbell maintained that to the extent the doctors noted that he was going to work on January 6th to get his shifts changed, they were wrong. However, in his handwritten letter, excerpted in Dr. Gojer's report, Mr. Campbell wrote that he was going to go into work to sort out the scheduling. Mr. Campbell also wrote "at no time did I imagine I would do anything. If I thought there was even a chance of doing anything I would of went directly to the hospital. In fact, I had no idea Maikoo was on shift." Mr. Campbell's own words, directly contradict what he said in court about hearing the voice, and being left with no choice but to kill Andrew Maikoo.
[105] Though Mr. Campbell claimed to have told Dr. Saxena on January 5th that he felt he might, or could kill someone, there is no mention of that comment in Dr. Saxena's notes. In fact, to the contrary, Dr. Saxena expressly noted the fact that Mr. Campbell expressed no homicidal ideations. I conclude from this that Mr. Campbell did not in fact tell his doctor anything about killing anyone.
[106] Though Mr. Campbell specifically visited Dr. Saxena on January 5th because he had a strong feeling he was about to have a nervous breakdown, he made no mention of the voices he had been hearing in his head since October. In cross-examination, Mr. Campbell testified the voices in his head made him think he was getting ill, and getting worse. Had Mr. Campbell in fact been experiencing these unusual symptoms of stress, I would think he would have mentioned them to the very person from whom he was seeking help.
[107] Mr. Campbell testified that when he attended at the Halton Regional Police station following the stabbing he was seeking a safe haven. He explained that at the time, he was not thinking of whether what he had just done was right or wrong, but in cross-examination, he did insist that what he did, was not his fault. Yet when the police handcuffed and placed him under arrest, he did not protest. He seemed to fully understand why he was being arrested.
[108] While an understanding of legal wrongfulness does not defeat a finding of NCR, there was no reaction from Mr. Campbell at the police station that would signal a sense of moral justification for his actions or confusion about the reason for his arrest. To be clear, my finding in this regard does not encroach on Mr. Campbell's right to remain silent upon his detention. Rather I am focused on the absence of any physical reaction consistent with someone who was genuinely seeking safety, but who finds himself in handcuffs.
[109] It is clear from Dr. Gojer's evidence and his report, that Dr. Gojer's opinion was, in part, based on his belief that Mr. Campbell "feared for his life". It was on that basis, that Dr. Gojer was confident in his comparison with the Oommen case. However, while Mr. Campbell documented on numerous occasions the harassment he believed was being perpetrated by Mr. Maikoo, he never expressed a fear for his life. It could be inferred that the vandalism he reported which involved his car tires and engine, put his life at risk or that Mr. Maikoo was ruining his life with the harassment. However, Mr. Campbell never overtly expressed a fear. A sense of imminent fear is not a pre-condition to a finding of NCR. However, it is another foundational piece in Dr. Gojer's ultimate opinion that I find is missing.
[110] Dr. Gojer was of the opinion that Mr. Campbell's litigiousness towards his homebuilder, was an indication of the long standing nature of his delusional disorder. However, the evidence at trial was that Mr. Campbell gained financially from his law suits. In his report, Dr. Gojer mentions that Mr. Campbell bought a house in 2000 and when he threatened to sue the builder, the builder bought it back for $110,000 more than what he paid for it. Again in 2007, Mr. Campbell purchased a house, and once again having threatened to sue the builder, Mr. Campbell was compensated $45,000. The fact that Mr. Campbell's litigiousness resulted in hefty financial awards, makes it difficult to conclude that it was a bi-product of a mental illness.
[111] I agree with the Crown that Mr. Campbell's in-court accounting of harassment was more extensive than previously reported in his correspondence. For instance, while the letter to Arbitrator Kaplan [exhibit 20] details instances of harassment at Mr. Campbell's home [such as crank phone calls in the middle of the night and vandalization to his car], the letter makes no mention of having discovered human feces in his window well and patio.
[112] Dr. Gojer opined that Mr. Campbell has absolutely no insight into his mental disorder. This lack of insight renders a delusional disorder more difficult to treat. However, in the excerpt of his handwritten letter dated February 18th, summarized in Dr. Gojer's report, Mr. Campbell said this:
"As I sit here in the psychiatric of Maplehurst Correctional Facility, I think of the 4.5 years Andrew Maikoo has been attacking me and I know the effect it has had on me. Slowly but surely my mental health began to deteriorate…the Crown can say I have strong motive. I don't feel that way. What they call motive I call the process that broke me down causing me to suffer from stress (easy to prove), depression (easy to prove) and a much more serious illness".
[113] Mr. Campbell's comment that he was suffering from stress, depression and "a much more serious illness", suggests either an insight into his mental disorder, or a desire to have one diagnosed. Either way, his comments undermine Dr. Gojer's opinion.
[114] Mr. Campbell's insight, or desire, was also evident when he explained in cross-examination that he "knows what should happen" in terms of the outcome of these proceedings. And when asked at trial whether Mr. Campbell had expressed to him the result he desired from his psychiatric assessment, Dr. Komer replied that Mr. Campbell thought he was not criminally responsible. Dr. Komer kept this in mind when conducting the assessment.
Did Mr. Campbell suffer from a mental disorder?
[115] While the above itemization of factors leaves me to question the reliability of Mr. Campbell's evidence in many respects, it cannot be ignored that over the course of years, Mr. Campbell went to great lengths to bring to the attention of his employer, the police, his union, and the arbitrator, instances of harassment for which there was little or no evidence. This fact alone could support a finding that Mr. Campbell may have been suffering from a delusional disorder.
[116] In my view, the fact that there was some collateral substantiation for Mr. Campbell's beliefs does not necessarily negate a finding that he has a mental disorder, though it might help inform the extent of the disorder.
[117] The fact that Mr. Campbell was seeking financial compensation from Air Canada for his suffering, gives rise to a concern that, as with his homebuilder litigation, his efforts were motivated by the possibility of financial reward as opposed to mental illness. However, I note that in his correspondence, Mr. Campbell's primary requests were to have Mr. Maikoo removed from the workplace. Financial compensation appears to have been a request in the alternative.
[118] The difficulty with this case is that all of the evidence of a mental disorder, including the correspondence, is generated by Mr. Campbell himself. The reports of depression and hallucinations are all self-reported by the person who has the most at stake in these proceedings. Unlike the accused in Oommen, Blanchard, and Tucker - each of whom had been hospitalized on prior occasions for their psychoses – Mr. Campbell has no documented history of serious mental illness. And unlike the accused in Blanchard, no one noticed any significant change in Mr. Campbell's behaviour or emotional state. I do not consider his brother's observations regarding the cleanliness of Mr. Campbell's home to fall within that category of observations, especially in light of evidence that Mr. Campbell was renovating parts of his house.
[119] I do not share the defence's characterization of the witness list attached to Mr. Campbell's letter to Arbitrator Kaplan as evidence of a significant mental disorder. My comparison of the witness list to the witness statements filed as exhibits, revealed that at least three of the witnesses listed might have offered some confirmatory evidence for Mr. Campbell. Moreover, there are some individuals listed in the letter for whom no statements were filed, so we do not know whether or not they would support Mr. Campbell's claims of harassment.
[120] However, having considered both medical reports, and the evidence of Mr. Campbell, I find that Mr. Campbell probably had a mental disorder that involved his belief that Mr. Maikoo was persistently harassing him at home and at work. His frustration that Air Canada was doing nothing in response to this harassment was not so much a delusion (in reality Air Canada was not doing much because there was hardly any harassment), but it was connected to his delusions of harassment.
[121] As well, the notes of Dr. Saxena relating to Mr. Campbell's January 5th visit, support my finding that Mr. Campbell was also suffering from depression at the time of the offence.
Did Mr. Campbell's mental disorder render him incapable of knowing that the act of stabbing Mr. Maikoo was wrong?
[122] Though the voices in Mr. Campbell's head were fleeting, I find that they are central to a finding of NCR in this case. The voices bridge the gap between Mr. Campbell's delusions of harassment, and Mr. Campbell's actions towards Mr. Maikoo on January 6th. According to Mr. Campbell's evidence, up until the January 6th voice was heard, he was able to deal with his harassment beliefs through proper channels. The voices encouraged Mr. Campbell to kill Mr. Maikoo, and upon hearing "tonight's the night" on January 6th, Mr. Campbell essentially 'snapped' and had no choice but to kill him.
[123] However, for reasons already articulated, I doubt the legitimacy of these voices. This in turn, leads me to question the reliability of Mr. Campbell's evidence concerning his state of mind at the time of the stabbing.
[124] I agree that the fact that Mr. Campbell stabbed Mr. Maikoo in front of his co-workers, could be a sign of mental illness that consumed the attacker's ability to rationally process choices: Blanchard, a para. 112. On the other hand, there are many brazen or disturbing acts of murder which are not motivated by a mental disorder, and which are equally difficult to rationalize according to society's moral standards. Even acts of murder which are motivated by mental illness, will not exempt the murderer from criminal liability as long as they retain the capacity to know right from wrong, and make rational choices with respect to the act.
[125] As well, the observations of Mr. Campbell as a deer in the headlights, or of appearing robotic following the stabbing, could be a sign that he was disconnected from his surroundings. However, his actions in leaving the office, exiting the building, driving his car, and ultimately driving to the police station, suggest that Mr. Campbell was in fact connected to his surroundings and to the reality of what had just occurred.
[126] I find Mr. Campbell's own words, written a month and half after the offence to be insightful. In his February 18th letter, Mr. Campbell wrote that "at no time did I imagine I would do anything. If thought there was even a chance of doing anything I would of went directly to the hospital." According to Mr. Campbell, this was his mental state very shortly before the stabbing. In other words, he had a very good understanding of the moral wrongfulness of hurting Mr. Maikoo.
[127] I have not been convinced on a balance of probabilities, that by the time Mr. Campbell was stabbing Mr. Maikoo a short while later, he had lost his capacity to determine whether the act of stabbing Mr. Maikoo was right or wrong, or to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not.
[128] As a result of his delusions, Mr. Campbell may have felt justified in stabbing Mr. Maikoo, and that justification may have been based on his delusions, but as confirmed by the Court of Appeal at para. 41 of Campione, an accused person's sense of justification is not sufficient to ground a finding of NCR. Despite his delusions concerning Mr. Maikoo's harassment, I believe Mr. Campbell retained an ability to know right from wrong, and that he was capable of applying that knowledge in a rational way, to the offence. As such, I find Mr. Campbell guilty as charged.
Released: August 3, 2017
Justice Iona M. Jaffe