COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-50000376-0000 DATE: 20240205

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and - Shelly-Ann James

Counsel: Brady Donohue and Chikeziri Igwe, for the Crown Norman Panzica and Jessyca Greenwood, for Ms. James

HEARD: October 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 2023

M.D. Forestell J.

Reasons for judgment

Overview and Issues

[1] In the early morning hours of July 23, 2021, Shelly-Ann James killed her mother, Claudette James, by stabbing her multiple times in the area of the head, neck, chest and abdomen. Shelly-Ann James is charged with the second degree murder of her mother. Ms. James has pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial proceeded before me, without a jury.

[2] Much of the evidence in this case was admitted by way of agreed statements of fact. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Ms. James killed her mother by stabbing her multiple times [1]. The evidence also supports the conclusion that Ms. James, at the time, intended to cause the death. The nature of the attack provides strong support for an intention to kill. In addition, Ms. James called 911 immediately after stabbing her mother and told the 911 operator that she had just murdered someone [2]. She continued to tell the police that she had killed her mother during and after her arrest [3].

[3] The issue in this case is whether Ms. James is criminally responsible for the murder of her mother.

[4] For an accused person to be found not criminally responsible, the party advancing the issue must establish on a balance of probabilities that the person had a mental disorder and that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable either of appreciating the nature and quality of the conduct in question or of knowing that the conduct was wrong [4].

[5] The concept of ‘wrongfulness includes legal and moral wrongfulness.

[6] In this case, there is no real issue that the evidence supports the following findings on a balance of probabilities:

• that Ms. James had a mental disorder at the time that she killed her mother;
• that she was, at that time, experiencing symptoms of her psychotic illness;
• that she was, at that time, capable of appreciating the nature and quality of her conduct; and,
• that she was, at that time, capable of knowing that her conduct was legally wrong.

[7] The narrow issue upon which the parties disagree is whether Ms. James has established on a balance of probabilities that her mental disorder rendered her incapable of knowing that her conduct was morally wrong.

[8] In these reasons, I begin by summarizing the evidence before moving to the legal principles and the application of those principles to the facts in this case.

Evidence

Background of Ms. James

[9] Ms. James’s personal history is set out in some detail in the reports of the two expert forensic psychiatrists who testified: Dr. Pearce and Dr. Iosif. There is no dispute about the biographical details in the reports. Ms. James is 39 years old. She was 36 years old in July of 2021. She has one sibling and five half siblings. Her mother was 63 years old at the time of her death.

[10] Ms. James lived all of her life with her mother with the exception of a brief period of time, around 2010, when Ms. James was homeless. Ms. James completed high school. She had a job at Home Depot for about two years when she was in her teens but otherwise has not worked.

[11] Ms. James has two sons. She was involved in a relationship with Marvin Phillips, the father of her children, for about two to three years from the time that Ms. James was 21 years old until she was 23 years old although they did not live together. Their eldest child, Jaleel, was born in 2007 and their younger son, Sheldon, was born in 2008.

[12] Ms. James lost custody of her sons after she became very ill in 2008. Marvin Phillips had custody and Ms. James’s mother had access to the children. Ms. James was able to have access to her children when her mother was with her.

[13] Ms. James’s brother, Willie James, testified that Ms. James and her mother had a normal relationship when Ms. James was young. The relationship became more difficult when Ms. James was in her teens. Once Ms. James had her children, the relationship became even more difficult. He testified that Ms. James argued with her mother about the fact that Marvin Phillips had custody. Willie James testified that Ms. James, over the years, had expressed a desire to have custody of her sons. Mr. James also testified that Ms. James’s mother pushed for increased access to Ms. James’s sons and had spoken of applying for custody of the boys to be awarded to her and her daughter. He said that their mother always defended Ms. James.

Shelly-Ann James’s History of Psychiatric Illness before July 2021

[14] The evidence of both psychiatrists, supported by the evidence of Willie James, and the evidence of Marvin Phillips, is that Ms. James has a long history of mental illness.

[15] Medical records disclose that Ms. James first exhibited symptoms of mental illness when she was around age 13 years. She saw a psychiatrist but stopped attending after a few visits. She saw another psychiatrist at age 19 but again stopped attending after two visits. Ms. James began seeing a psychiatrist again in 2006 at age 22 years. At that time, she reported that she felt there was something around her in the dark- possibly evil or good spirits. She felt others could read her thoughts and expressed concerns about being followed and hearing voices.

[16] Marvin Phillips testified that when he and Ms. James were dating around 2005 or 2006, Ms. James would say that people had installed cameras in her apartment. Over time, she began to refer to an entity she called ‘Jigsaw’. Mr. Phillips did not understand what or who Jigsaw was. He testified that Jigsaw seemed to be either a person or a God.

[17] In 2008, when Ms. James was 35 weeks pregnant, she was brought to the hospital by her mother. She was expressing thoughts of hurting herself. She spent one month in the hospital at that time.

[18] About six weeks later, Ms. James was assessed at CAMH in the emergency department. Her 16-month-old son and newborn baby had been removed from her care by child welfare authorities. She and her partner, Marvin Phillips, had broken up in January of 2008 before the baby was born. At the time of the assessment, she reported that Marvin Phillips was sleeping with her friends and finding out information about her. She was concerned for her safety. The assessment concluded that she was not experiencing delusions or hallucinations but that she might be paranoid.

[19] Ms. James was admitted to the Humber River Regional Hospital in March of 2009 as a result of exhibiting agitation and a mood disturbance. About three months later, Ms. James was admitted to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) for an assessment of her fitness to stand trial. At that time, she was facing criminal charges after assaulting and stabbing Marvin Phillip in two separate incidents. On her admission to Ontario Shores, she endorsed several psychotic symptoms and was treated with Olanzapine, an anti-psychotic medication. She responded to the medication. Ms. James was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

[20] Psychological testing was conducted during Ms. James’s admission to Ontario Shores in 2009 and it supported the conclusion that she was exaggerating her psychotic symptoms. Dr. DeFreitas, a forensic psychiatrist, opined that Ms. James was likely criminally responsible for the first assault on her partner. Even with the testing that indicated an exaggeration of symptoms, Dr. DeFreitas concluded that Ms. James was sufficiently ill and psychotic at the time of the second incident to qualify for a finding of not criminally responsible. At the time of the offences, Ms. James’s mother and Mr. Phillips both reported that Ms. James had been experiencing severe paranoia. Ms. James believed that her home was being bugged and that there were cameras in her residence. She expressed the belief that a witch doctor had placed a spell on her and on her sons, and that Mr. Phillips had done things to her and was spying on her. Mr. Phillips reported that Ms. James had asked him if he remembered a ‘matrix’ and asked him about the significance of a specific number. She reported hearing voices.

[21] Lack of criminal responsibility was not raised at the court proceedings in 2009. Ms. James was convicted and served a sentence.

[22] In 2010 Ms. James was again admitted to the hospital for one month. She was brought to the hospital by police after getting upset because she had been told by “some other reality” that her son was dead. In that admission, she endorsed delusions of reference and auditory and visual hallucinations.

[23] Ms. James was brought to the hospital by police, pursuant to a Form 2, in May of 2013. It was reported that she had not taken her prescribed anti-psychotic medication for over a year. She was delusional and claimed that her father was a rapist. She had become increasingly aggressive and had been throwing things in the apartment she shared with her mother. Ms. James told the psychiatrist that the items purchased at the grocery store had toxins in them.

[24] Through the summer of 2013, Ms. James was admitted to Humber River Hospital three times. Two of the admissions resulted from 911 calls by Ms. James’s mother reporting threats by Ms. James directed at her mother and at her children. She was reported to be thought disordered, paranoid and grandiose. She reported having been physically abused by her father and sexually abused by a cousin. She also reported having music stolen from her. She had stopped taking her medication which at that point included an anti-psychotic medication and a mood stabilizing medication. During that admission Ms. James agreed to take risperidone, an anti-psychotic medication.

[25] The next reported admission to hospital was in 2017. Ms. James was again admitted to Humber River Hospital. The records from that admission indicate that Ms. James had been receiving care from a psychiatrist in the community but stopped seeing that psychiatrist in March of 2016. Prior to the 2017 admission she had stopped taking medication and had been deteriorating for two to three months. She presented with disorganized thinking, and paranoid ideation.

[26] The next admission was two years later, in May of 2019. She again presented as thought disordered and paranoid.

[27] In November of 2020, Ms. James was brought to the hospital by police after she pointed a toy gun at a bank teller and asked for money. She had again stopped taking medication and her mother reported that she had been deteriorating over the preceding months. In this admission, she was noted to be thought disordered but calm. She spoke in what was described as a “kind of pseudo-legalese with reference to people breaking debauchery laws.” Ms. James said that she was subject to military rules and regulations under the authority of Mr. and Mrs. Jigsaw. She believed that she was pregnant in spite of a negative pregnancy test. Ms. James received medication but remained disorganized and delusional.

Time Period leading up to the Killing of Claudette James

[28] Ms. James killed her mother on Friday, July 23, 2021, in the apartment they shared. Her sons, Sheldon and Jaleel who were 12 years and 14 years old respectively, were visiting and had been at the apartment for just under two weeks. It had been arranged that they would return to their father two days later.

[29] Jaleel, the eldest son of Ms. James and Mr. Phillips, reported to police that the last visit he had with his mother before the July visit was about six months earlier. During that visit, he had turned off a show that Ms. James was watching because it was inappropriate. Ms. James grabbed him, put him on the ground, and sat on him. She would not get off him and threatened to break his bones. His brother intervened and Ms. James got off him and apologized. Jaleel told the police that his father would not let them go to see Ms. James after that unless her mother was present.

[30] Sometime in late 2020 or early 2021 Ms. James’s mother went to Jamaica for a period of several months.

[31] Mr. Phillips testified that while Ms. James’s mother was away, he did not allow Ms. James to see the children. Ms. James called him often and sometimes called several times in the course of a day, asking to see the children. Mr. Phillips did not allow Ms. James to see the children because her mental state did not seem good to him based on the things that she said to him that did not make sense.

[32] Willie James and his wife, Sophia Kelly, visited Ms. James two or three times in the time period that Ms. James’s mother was away because Claudette James had asked Mr. James to check on his sister. They only stayed two or three minutes each time they visited. Mr. James testified that he believed that his sister was managing on her own. The apartment was not in disarray and Ms. James appeared to be taking care of herself. However, he agreed under cross-examination that when he had visited Ms. James, her eyes were spaced out and her language was all over the place. She seemed annoyed that they were checking on her and did not engage with them.

[33] Dr. Pearce’s report references a police occurrence in March of 2021 in which Ms. James called the police because she had not seen her children in a long time. Police attended at her residence and recorded that Ms. James told them that she was worried about her “sexual estate” and reported concerns about Drake, Snoop Dogg, Beyonce and Puff Daddy placing hidden cameras in her residence and possibly harming her children.

[34] On March 31, 2021, Ms. James called 911 and attended at the Emergency Department of St. Joseph’s Health Care because of back pain. She asked to be admitted for a week. She was discharged.

[35] Ms. James’s mother returned from Jamaica sometime around June of 2021. When she returned, she contacted Mr Phillips and made arrangements for the children to visit. The arrangements were made on speakerphone and Mr. Phillips could hear Ms. James in the background. They agreed that the boys would come to stay with Ms. James and her mother at the beginning of July for two weeks.

[36] During the two-week visit, Jaleel described mostly staying in and playing computer games. They went to Walmart and Burger King once with their mother and grandmother and they went swimming twice with their mother at the pool near the apartment building.

[37] Willie James testified that on the Sunday before the murder he took Shelly-Ann and Claudette James and the boys to Niagara Falls for the day. They all went for a walk in a park and then he and Claudette James and the boys went on a hike. He testified that Shelly-Ann was quiet and seemed calm. He observed no arguments, aggression or other problems between Shelly-Ann and Claudette James.

[38] On the Wednesday of the second week, Jaleel called Mr. Phillips and asked when they would be returning home. Mr. Phillips told Jaleel that he would pick them up on the Sunday. After that conversation, Mr. Phillips communicated with Claudette James to say that he would pick up the boys on the Sunday. Again, he was on speakerphone. He could hear Ms. James in the background. Claudette and Shelly-Ann James said that they wanted longer with the boys. He said that he would pick up the boys and keep them for one or two weeks but then they could go back for another visit.

[39] Jaleel was asked about his mother’s behaviour during the two-week visit leading up to the murder. He told the police that his mother “seemed normal”. He said “the whole two weeks it was pretty good. She wasn’t — she would sometimes get mad and start, like yelling…, I don’t know what she was yelling at, but she wasn’t yelling at any of us. She was just yelling at whatever she would yell at. And um that would happen sometimes, but other than that, uh, it was, it was good.”

[40] Sheldon was also asked about his mother’s behaviour. He was asked, “Has your mom been acting okay?” and he replied, “Not really.” He told the police, “Usually when she’s around us she, she seems fine but like when she’s …sometimes when she’s alone she like starts yelling at people and stuff. Well, not yelling at people but that’s what it seems like ’cause she just starts randomly yelling and seems like she’s talking to someone but I don’t she’s just …”. The officer asked, “like she’s not on the phone or anything? She’s just yelling at someone that you, that you can’t see?” and Sheldon nodded affirmatively. The officer went on to ask if this was normal and Sheldon replied that he did not think so.

[41] When asked, Sheldon told the police that his mother and grandmother argue sometimes. He also said that he could not remember ever seeing them get into a fight. Jaleel also said that his mother and grandmother would argue sometimes but would ‘get over it’. He said it happened once or twice in the two-week visit.

Ms. James’s Words and Actions at and after the Time of the Killing

Sheldon

[42] When Sheldon and Jaleel stayed with Ms. James, Sheldon, Jaleel and Ms. James slept in the same bedroom. There was a bed, a mattress on the floor and a couch. On the night that Ms. James killed her mother, Jaleel had fallen asleep in the bed, Sheldon was still awake on the mattress and Ms. James was on the couch. Sheldon told the police that his mother left the room without saying anything and a few seconds later he heard his grandmother screaming. He went out to see what was happening and he saw his mother with a knife in her hand hitting his grandmother with the sharp part of the knife. Sheldon went to the bedroom and woke Jaleel. He told Jaleel that they needed to leave the apartment. As they were leaving, Ms. James told Sheldon to get out of the house.

[43] Sheldon and Jaleel left the apartment building and found a man in a car outside the building. They asked to use his phone to call for help. The 911 called from Sheldon was received at 2:52 am.

911 Calls from Shelly-Ann James

[44] At 2:42 a.m., a 911 call was made from Shelly-Ann James’s telephone. The line was mostly silent. In the background there is a noise that sounds like sneezing and a voice saying what sounds like “bless, you, bless you, bless you”. The 911 operator tried to call the number back, but no one answered, and the operator was not able to leave a voicemail. At 2:47 a.m., Shelly-Ann James called 911 from the same telephone. She began the call by saying, “Hi, um I just murdered someone, and the police need to come here.” Ms. James went on to tell the operator her name and address and to say that she had stabbed her mother to death with a knife and that she had cut her eyes out. The operator told Ms. James that they were going to get an ambulance and Ms. James asked again that the police be sent. The operator asked, “Okay, what was the argument over?” Ms. James said, “um she did some things, you know…”. Later, the operator asked, “You said she did some things to you. What happened?” Ms. James replied, “yeah, um she hit me.”

[45] In the 911 call Ms. James was able to accurately state her name and address. She misstated her mother’s age as “50 something” (she was 63 years old). When the person from Toronto Ambulance asked if there was serious bleeding, Ms. James replied, “Yeah, make sure that the police are surveilling the area, they’ve got their cameras on. Take care, Marvin’s room.”

[46] In the 12-minute call, Ms. James asked repeatedly (six times) if the police were on their way.

[47] As the Toronto ambulance operator gave Ms. James instructions on providing first aid to her mother, he asked Ms. James to count with him as she performed CPR. After counting for a period of time with the operator Ms. James asked, “Is this the Care Bears’ countdown?” When the operator said that it was the CPR countdown and asked her to keep counting, Ms. James said, “Thank you officer. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. God.”

Body Worn Camera, In Car Camera, Booking Video and Audio of Seizure of Clothing

[48] The 911 call made by Ms. James ended with the arrival of police at the apartment door. The body worn camera of DC Ryan Samwaru captured Ms. James’s behaviour after the arrival of the police.

[49] Ms. James opened the door to the apartment and said, “Yes. Thanks. I want to be cooperative. I was the victim of rape and domestic abuse, and she was a part of it (pointing back into the apartment, towards her mother).” The police officer said “okay, hold on” and Ms. James continued saying, “So I just committed a murder so you can handcuff me now and take me into police custody.” She said she was “requesting a peaceful reconciliation” and asked if she was going to the police station for investigation. As she was being handcuffed, she said “Thank you so much Mr. and Mrs. God.”

[50] The officer attempted to tell Ms. James that she was under arrest and to caution her. Ms. James interrupted saying, “I know that God is good …and a protector and defender for the innocent, you know….who like go through trauma and don’t really – you know, people have faith in God and justice in God. You know…so I don’t want any violence committed by any person. Because I was the victim of domestic battery and a victim of domestic- of rape…I was a victim of rape and domestic battery like…and then Kelly like hit me on my head and I bled. Like, she gave me a concussion on my head. But I was too scared to tell the police. But I don’t have a mental illness or nothing. I just did it for protective – I did it for protective defence purposes.”

[51] The officer asked Ms. James if had any mental health issues and she denied having any. She said, “no mental health issues. I knew what I was doing. I was doing it to protect myself…It was not out of mental illness. I did it to protect and defend myself.” The officer then asked for her age and some identification. After telling him where to find her identification, she said, “Because I was afraid that she was gonna come in and murder me. I was afraid that she was gonna attack me, you know. Because Kelly came and hit me on the head. I don’t know what this lady was gonna do to me, you know. And the government won’t give me money to get a place of my own and like quarantine my unit or something. So, I’m gonna request to go into solitary confinement, you know…Cause this girl she hit me on the head and my head bled and she just — she married my brother. But, ah, like where did this girl come from? She’s gonna marry my brother and then come in the house and nearly murder somebody, you know. And I don’t know what she did to my brother, it’s Willie, you know and my kids….so, I didn’t do it out of mental illness. I don’t have a mental health problem…So I’m requiring that the police treat me very kindly…Right? Because if the police don’t correct this — this is not the first or the last time something like this will ever happen again.”

[52] Shortly after this explanation, Ms. James began to sing a hymn. The police tried to advise Ms. James of her rights to counsel, and she began to recite Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. As the officer tried to get her to listen to him, she then began to recite a prayer. The officer was able to read her a caution and advise Ms. James of her right to counsel. She then began to sing the song ‘Halo’. A second officer asked her repeatedly to stop singing. He asked her questions about her mother’s name and age and her own name and age which she was able to answer with reasonable accuracy. She told the officer that her children, Jaleel and Sheldon, had been in the apartment and had gone downstairs. She said, “but I wasn’t gonna do that to my kids though”. Ms. James began singing again and was told repeatedly to stop. She said, “Thank you. But God is very good.” When she stopped singing, an officer thanked her and she said,” Thank you so much officer. It’s been such a miracle. I’ve been intimidated by the police a lot but thank you for being my guardian angels. The battle is not mine. The battle is [inaudible]”.

[53] After about a minute and without the police asking any questions, Ms. James said, “Yes” as if in answer to a question. She then went on to say, “There was a lot of rape going on. You know. Very, very bad. You know it was terrible. Very traumatic. But I thank God for the presence of God. I know that I’m surrounded by the Archangels of God and it’s a miracle, you know.” She then began singing again. After she was repeatedly asked to stop singing again by the police she stopped and said, “But Jigsaw is here too. So, I thank Jigsaw a lot. Jigsaw’s cool…Do you guys know who Jigsaw is? Do you know who Jigsaw is officer? Mr. Somwaru, do you know who Jigsaw is?” The officer replied that he did not, and Ms. James went on to say, “Okay yeah, well I’m down with Jigsaw, you know. Thank Jiggy a lot. He’s the Jigga man, you know”.

[54] Just as the police were taking Ms. James to the scout car she asked if they would take her mother to the hospital or the ICU. She also repeated that she thanks Jigsaw a lot.

[55] Ms. James asked for the handcuffs to be loosened when she entered the police car. She was able to tell the transporting officer her correct age and birthdate and was otherwise silent and calm while transported to the station. Upon leaving the police car, she again asked for the handcuffs to be loosened.

[56] During her booking at the police station which began at 3:54 a.m., Ms. James referred to herself as Shelly-Ann James of the Jigsaw administration.

[57] Officers from the forensic identification unit of the Toronto Police Service photographed and seized Ms. James’s clothing at 5:44 a.m. In the audio recording of that interaction Ms. James can be heard to say, “I’m working and cooperating with the Shelly-Ann James and Jigsaw administration.” Ms. James refers to the “chief administrator, God Jigsaw”. She asks the officers; “Do you acknowledge military police supervisor Jigsaw and head of the Supreme Court of Justice universally?” She also says, “I was cautioned by Jigsaw to cooperate with the designated authorities.”

Video Interview

[58] At 7:46 a.m., Detective Rodney Benson and Detective Constable Anne McPherson began a 1.5-hour video recorded interview of Ms. James.

[59] At the outset of the interview, Ms. James was asked her name and said that her name was ‘Shelly-Ann Jaleel Sheldon Phillip James’s. When asked again, she said that her name was ‘Shelly-Ann Elaine Jaleel Sheldon Marble Phillip James’s.

[60] Detective Benson cautioned Ms. James. He then asked her if anyone had pressured or threatened her to confess. She then said that she had been intimidated; that cameras had been placed in her room; and that there were suspicious media releases. She mentioned Drake, Beyonce and Kanye West as persons who were watching her and pressuring her. She said that she was working with the “officer Judge Jigsaw”. She went on to speak of God, spirits and Judge Jigsaw. She said, “when Judge Jigsaw has ruled that there has been disrespectful conduct you know, I will comply with the Jigsaw, I mean God and the Jigsaw administration”.

[61] Detective Benson asked if Ms. James knew the crime that she was charged with, and she correctly identified it as first degree murder. She explained that she had stabbed somebody to death. When she was asked if she remembered what she was trying to accomplish when she stabbed the person, she said, after a long pause, “Oh yeah, I -I just wanted to be um treated respectfully. That was the objective.”

[62] She was asked how she felt about her mother and told the police that they had a strange relationship and had religious differences. Detective Benson asked, “Religious differences, did that make you want to commit this crime and kill your mother?” Ms. James replied, “Correct.” When asked to describe her mother, Ms. James said that she felt that sometimes her mother treated her ‘without dignity’ and could have assisted her more when she had her children.

[63] The officer then asked, “When you stabbed her — What was your intention? What did you think would happen after?” After a long pause, Ms. James said, “I wanted it to be clear that I will not tolerate disrespectful or indignifiable treatment…of my custodial and marital estate by any person, that is what I wanted to make explicitly clear at this time and um altercations happen in life…Those situations you know need to be tried…with you know, um you know based on how you treat somebody…you know um you know um to um and people who are just deliberately defiant, who are adamant at showing no regard, no respect, who challenge people in very very mischievous and disrespectful ways…um uh with the Jigsaw administration – the Shelly Phillip James Jigsaw administration we will execute the police warrant to the full extent of the law and uh this and that might not be the first or last time the police will question me… so I might make repetitive statements but at this time um if there’s any mor information that you would like to understand at this time — do you have any further questions?”

[64] Detective Benson asked, “Did you understand that by stabbing your mom you were going to injure her?” Ms. James said that she understood. He then asked, “Did you know it was wrong to stab her? Ms. James replied, “I knew it was hazardous.” He asked, “Did you know it was against the law?” Ms. James did not answer and after a long pause said, “Pardon me?” The officer then rephrased the question slightly asking, “Did you know that it’s against the law to stab somebody?” Ms. James said, “yes”. The officer asked if she had expected to get away with the stabbing and Ms. James said she had not. When asked if she thought she might get caught she said that was why she called for the police to come. Detective Benson asked if there had been other times when Ms. James had thought about hurting her mother. Ms. James then spoke about thinking that if she was caught, she might be subject to the death penalty or the torture penalty that Judge Jigsaw would administer.

[65] Detective Benson asked if Ms. James would have stabbed her mother if there had been a police officer in uniform standing beside her. She said, “I would strongly reconsider if Judge Jigsaw issued a caution…if the judge spoke to me and you know I was in reasonable conscience or a reasonable understanding um I would have to be very thankful for the presence of God…So I, no, I possibly would not have, or probably.”

[66] Detective Benson said, “You wouldn’t have done it if there had been a police officer there?” Ms. James said, “Possibly no.” Ms. James denied that anyone had told her to do it. Detective Benson then asked, “When you did this, did you know that society would condemn it? They would consider it wrong?” Ms. James said, “Yes.”

[67] The officer went on to ask Ms. James if she had ever had any mental health problems or experienced hallucinations or other symptoms. Ms. James denied ever having any mental health problems. She denied ever having been told that she had mental health issues. After a series of probing questions concerning any history of mental illness, the officer asked Ms. James what had happened that night. Ms. James said: “Oh um well to be truthful, in all honesty plus honour, I did it to execute protective defence which is distinctively clear and separate from what could be speculated as mischievous or unlawful conduct or monopoly causing jeopardy to someone’s spiritual estate…Right? So I did it to execute protective defence for me and for the purposes of my children…you know if my children were gonna be threatened of you know they’ve been living at their father’s house…so I was kinda like threatened or like bullied um or intimidated into and out of keeping my children so I gave away custody but I was vulnerable at the time…and I felt and believed that I was being exploited by some of the people in office at the legal institutions or the courthouses…”.

[68] Ms. James then went on to talk about the court proceedings and the fact that officials at the courts had told her that she needed to show a material change to get custody. She said, among other things: “So, I’m like ‘okay I need my – it’s in the best interests of the children that they stay with their father. They make their own decisions and that relationship between me and my children — who I gave birth to biologically — that the relationship between me as a mother and Jaleel and Sheldon and Marble that – that relationship was not important and at the — required material change and that even if I wanted to make a statement about some important things you know, things about a relationship between you know, parent and child they were saying, you can’t just submit a document like that, you need monetary proof.”

[69] After a series of questions about Ms. James’s address and her children and after a break for Ms. James to go to the bathroom, the officer asked her to explain protective defence. She told him that it meant that she was not the instigator. “The instigator is somebody who was a bully. They’re not the victim and an instigator is somebody who is hurting or damaging somebody…. Without a conscious requirement or necessity of life to do so without a legitimate police warrant to do so. That is what a bully is and they’re not a victim. They’re an instigator. So, there was something that they thought it was fun to hurt somebody.” When Ms. James was asked if her mother had hurt her and if her mother was the instigator, she began to cry.

[70] Detective Benson left that topic and asked about Ms. James’s children and where they were when Ms. James stabbed her mother. She told him that they were in the bedroom and then said, “ oh you know I just — I just didn’t want the CAS to- to come and take my kids.” She explained that the children had been taken from her in 2009. She said that she was bullied and told the police that Mr. Phillips could have been more supportive. She was asked about her relationship with her mother and said, after a long pause, “I pray that God will find it in heart to being — forgive me for the things that I have done and find it — that God can find it possible to forgive Ms. Claudette for some of the things that happened in our mother-daughter relationship.” When asked what Ms. Claudette had done that required forgiveness, Ms. James was unable to answer and said she was ‘speechless’. When asked what she had done that required forgiveness she said, “I think that I should just try to behave myself.”

[71] Ms. James was asked if she remembered what she had done. She accurately described repeatedly stabbing her mother in the facial area. She also said that she had stabbed her in her vagina which was not accurate.

[72] Detective Benson asked what she was trying to accomplish when she stabbed her mother in the head and Ms. James said, “Protective defence”. Detective Benson asked “protective defence of what? Ms. James replied, “I was afraid she was gonna kill me.” Detective Benson asked how her mother would have killed her and she said, “I don’t know, like my brother Willie…Rodney James like you now – I thank God for God’s presence and it’s a very humbling experience for me but it’s still like a good experience for me.”

[73] Detective Benson asked what was a good experience, and Ms. James said, “Just you know my brother has a wife named Kelly and she came into the house and there’s a scar on my forehead and I had the boys were coming to the house every now and then when she took something and she hit me in the head and piece of my skull fell out. She broke my head open. And I started bleeding, it started gushing. I’m like even if we got into like a fight, she took it too far. I think she concealed a weapon. she hid a weapon like um if you put a knife underneath tissue paper. And like or you know and and like a blade, like exacto knife blade like a razor blade and stabbed me in the head with it. I’m like ‘why did you do that?’ and my brother married her from off the street. I’m like ‘what was she doing in the house’?”

[74] When Detective Benson asked when this happened, Ms. James said “2017 or 2018 or 2019”. She went on to say that since that time she had been fainting and sleeping. Ms. James continued and said, “Right? So when Ms. Claudette did something like that now, you know, it’s — protective self-defence, you know? If I tell the police, what are they gonna do? I have concerns. Was [inaudible] kids? Did Kelly lick or like stab Jaleel and Sheldon? What’s your name? Sophia Kelly Oviva or something like that…What was she gonna do? You know I felt so helpless…and it was humiliating and embarrassing… and the only reason why I can even say this with confidence is because God is here with me and to me that is beyond a miracle. Like I would not be able to – to even like feel like a precious human being.”

[75] Shortly after this, Detective Benson asked why Ms. James took the knife and she replied, “uh yeah, I was just -and- and then Marvin said he was gonna take the kids on Sunday …So I just — that — that was it for me. I’m like, ‘you take the kids now’. I did it uh, as an affirmation of faith that if the children went back to his place and I heard on CP24 or on CNN that children [inaudible] and that the police arrived on the scene after the children were brutally murdered with gang paraphernalia and gang affiliated tools… and the police can arrive – the police don’t know that – the police only arrive on the scene after somebody gets viciously beat to death. So, my kids go back down to his place ,and I hear they’re dead on CP24 or uh – or um you know OMNI news you know…”.

[76] Ms. James then answered questions about how often she saw her children and how access was arranged. She spoke of the fact that access was arranged through her mother and that Marvin does not speak to her. Her answers to these questions were fairly rational and coherent.

[77] Ms. James again said that she did not want her kids taken from her and began again to speak of Kelly saying that she lived in terror when Kelly was in the apartment. She said, “I feel like just you know, that – it’s been a very traumatic experience for me, but I think that — in all honesty — I think that God is very good, and I think that Jigsaw – Judge Jigsaw is you know a judge…you know, so I’m very appreciative and I feel – I feel alright.” Detective Benson asked what the traumatic experience was, and Ms. James said, “I don’t know, it’s just — just like, ‘did I do that?’”. Detective Benson asked, “Did you do what?”, and Ms. James said, “Many many many many things.” When Detective Benson pressed her to say a specific thing, Ms. James said, “I think that God and Jigsaw have been a constant friend indeed.” Detective Benson asked Ms. James to describe Jigsaw and Ms. James said, “He’s a judge”. She said that he was a human and she then said that Jigsaw was female. Detective Benson asked if Ms. James had ever spoken to Jigsaw and she told him that she did not believe that they had ever spoken. When asked how Jigsaw was a constant friend if they had never spoken, she said, “There’s the Bible, there’s God.”

[78] Detective Benson asked again why Ms. James decided to stab Ms. Claudette that night. Ms. James again said, “protective defence.” And when asked what that was, Ms. James said that Marvin was going to come and pick up the kids. When Detective Benson asked why Ms. James stabbed her mother in the vagina, she began to cry. He asked why she was crying and what she was feeling. Ms. James said, “I just you now, um it’s just you know, um I was angry with myself.” When asked to explain why she was angry with herself, Ms. James said, “You know, um you know, I felt that I — I should have been more uh – I wanted to express or make a statement about motherhood and fatherhood, right? So, you know, to bring children – I feel like a child myself sometimes – to bring children into this universe. All the dangers and the [inaudible] it was very difficult for me to understand why — why they wanted to do this to me…just because I had to live, you know.” The detective asked, “How did you make a statement?” Ms. James continued, saying, “Like you know why — why do you wanna — why like, why do you want to damage my existence?” The detective asked if Ms. James was asking him the question or speaking ‘existentially’. Ms. James continued saying, “Yeah, like why would you do that to somebody’s existence? You’re just not considering how you’re affecting somebody else’s life…. you’re in a vulnerable situation…you know there’s a lot of citizens here, a lot of citizenships here… Why would you do that to your neighbour? You’re not considering their future, how it could affect them, how it could impact from – for – from all time…Their future, their past, their present like, why would you do that to somebody’s existence?”

[79] When the officer tried to redirect the statement to what happened with her mother, Ms. James asked if she had passed away and when told that she had passed away, asked if the police were informed. The following exchange then occurred:

Benson: That’s why you’re here at the police station. James: Ah no, but do they mean like she passed away? Benson: Well you told me that you stabbed her. James: Okay, but what would – do they mean that she passed away? Like what what is that in …? Benson: She’s, she’s dead. She died. JAMES: Oh – died? Benson: Yes. Do you understand that Ms. Claudette is dead? James: Um – like – what – what – what do the police mean by like dead? Is, is that like a mystery to the police that she is dead? Benson: No. Is it a mystery to you that she’s dead? James: Um no Benson: Why isn’t it a mystery to you? Do you understand what I mean when I say that she’s dead? James: Yeah? Benson: What does it mean? James: You know, um, [long pause] she’s no longer living. Benson: Can she come back? James: Shrugs – I guess only God can judge me. Benson: Do you know how she died? James: [long pause] from stab wounds. Benson: How did she get those stab wounds? James: I inflicted her with those stab wounds. Benson: Do you remember when you inflicted those stab wounds? James: Last night or tonight. Benson: Tonight? Do you remember why you inflicted those stab wounds? James: Protective self-defence for me Jaleel, Sheldon, Marble, my children and my husband too. Benson: What was the threat against yourself, your husband and your children? James: Um Benson: Who’s your husband? James: We’re estranged. Benson: Is that Marvin? [Ms. James shakes her head.] Okay. Who’s your husband? James: We have not been formally or officially introduced as yet. So, I’m still remaining hopeful and thankful, appreciative, you know. Benson: um-hm James: And, and, and very like you know I feel [inaudible]. Benson: What was the threat against you and your children? James: I’m sorry, it’s still traumatic to me the incident. So, it’s still traumatic to me what I saw. Benson: What did you see? James: Hm? Benson: What do you mean? What do you mean it’s still traumatic? James: I don’t know. It’s just a traumatic experience, you know. Um, to to to treat human life in such a manner without even giving a care or giving a damn about doing that to somebody you know… Benson: What do you mean by that? James: I don’t know, just not really giving a damn about you know or care about – like just so casually how you how you can do that to a human life. Benson: How who can do what to a human life? James: Take you out of the land of the living. Benson: um-hm James: God is mighty. God is almighty. Benson: Sure is. James: That – that when the police say she is dead… Benson: um hm? James: Like what do they mean by that? Like is she she she no longer living? Benson: She is no longer living. James: How is that even possible? James: That someone can you know like… Benson: You just old me that you inflicted some stab wounds. James: Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I wanna know like what – what do the police know about like someone who’s no – like she’s not …I don’t know.

[80] At this point the police said that they would end the interview and get Ms. James some food. She said, “Yeah and Jaleel and Sheldon too. But are the police gonna – are the police questioning me? Detective Benson said yes. Ms. James responded, “God. Man.” She made hand gestures as she said those words and looked intently at the camera in the upper corner of the room.

[81] The interview ended.

Evidence of Ms. James’s Mental State after her Arrest and Incarceration

[82] Ms. James was admitted to the Vanier Centre for Women (“Vanier”) on July 25, 2021. Dr. Iosif refers to the Vanier notes in her report. On July 25th the notes indicate that Ms. James was not psychotic and was organized and oriented. She said that she wanted “to be a good person”. There were no concerns with her mental state noted in the Vanier records until August 28th. On August 28th she was observed to be sitting on her bed talking and screaming to herself and staring at the wall. Similar observations were made on August 31st. on September 1st it was noted that she was hearing voices and reported hearing spirits. On September 3rd the records from Vanier indicate disorganization, pseudo philosophical thinking, vague persecutorial delusions and perceptual disturbances. On September 27th she attacked a staff member and told the staff member that she would kill him.

[83] Dr. Pearce first interviewed Ms. James on December 2, 2021, while Ms. James was in segregation at Vanier. Dr. Pearce testified that because there was no video suite available, the interview had to be conducted with a staff member holding a phone or laptop in the cell. Ms. James was very ill at the time. She was very labile and disorganized. She was distracted by internal stimuli. He did not spend long in this interview because of the circumstances.

[84] From December 13 to 30, 2021 Ms. James was admitted to Ontario Shores from Vanier under the Mental Health Act. She endorsed delusional beliefs about “being puppeteered”. She believed that someone could control her body. She believed that staff were harming her by “not providing the necessities of life as well as by sexual assault and tampering with her food”. She endorsed auditory hallucinations.

[85] Ms. James also asked what evidence was needed for her to be found NCR. Ms. James was given antipsychotic medication and valproic acid. She improved and was returned to Vanier.

[86] Ms. James was assessed for fitness to stand trial on January 7, 2022 by Dr. Eid. She reported hearing the voice of God but denied command hallucinations. She endorsed religious delusions and paranoia about gangsters trying to harm and harass her.

[87] Ms. James stopped taking medication while back at Vanier and was described as being very aggressive and threatening even after she had restarted the medication. She was said to be experiencing command hallucinations to harm others. She was readmitted to Ontario Shores on May 20, 2021. Upon admission, she was noted to be very disorganized and reported hearing voices. She asked to see her mother. She was reported to be extremely paranoid and agitated and was said to be experiencing auditory hallucinations to harm others or herself. She was paranoid and did not feel safe. She often refused to leave her room. She was also religiously preoccupied. Eventually she agreed to take clozapine and her mental state improved.

[88] Dr. Pearce again interviewed Ms. James on May 31 and June 24, 2022 at Ontario Shores.

[89] On May 31st, Dr. Pearce observed that Ms. James’s thought form was vague and disjointed and thought blocking was evident at times. She endorsed a variety of delusional beliefs and also reported that she had heard voices in the past. He did not observe that she was responding to internal stimuli at the time of the interview.

[90] Dr. Pearce asked Ms. James about the index offence in the interview. Ms. James told him that she had murdered her mother but that her mother was still alive. She said that at the time of the offence she was being raped by a man and a woman who had come from her dreams. She believed that her mother was responsible for the rape. She told Dr. Pearce that she did not plan to harm her mother and the killing was “not premeditated”. She had trouble recalling what she and her mother and sons had done the day before the offence. She told Dr. Pearce that she was suffering from “bipolar and split personality. Something happens in a parallel universe and it happens to me too. They blend…I was in mental dimensions.” When Dr. Pearce asked Ms. James if she knew at the time that what she was doing was wrong she replied, “I knew it was wrong but felt like she was criminalized. I think she’s an innocent person and I want to plead. If I have to go to jail, I’ll go.”

[91] By the time that Dr. Pearce interviewed Ms. James on June 24, 2022, Ms. James’s thought form was more organized. However, when Dr. Pearce asked about the offence, Ms. James asked how her mother was doing and if she could be resuscitated. She wanted to pay for her mother to be on life support and eventually to be resuscitated. When asked why she assaulted her mother, Ms. James said that she was not in the right frame of mind. She said, “I tried to stay in the right frame of mind, but I buckled.” She then began talking about Air Force One and said, “It needs to be anchored. It is like Tetris, a universal law.” She could not remember if she argued with her mother before the attack. She said, “I committed a crime against someone who didn’t deserve it.” She also said, “I need to get a pardon for what I’ve done so I can attend to her medically and spiritually. I believe she can be resuscitated.”

[92] Dr. Iosif conducted a court-ordered assessment of Ms. James. She first met with Ms. James via video conference from Vanier on May 9, 2022. Ms. James described to Dr. Iosif that when she was hospitalized at age 22, she was ‘in and out of psychosis’ and thought that she was being held at gunpoint. She said, “I’m uncomfortable talking about who but I was held at gunpoint three times this year.” When she said this, she was smiling. Ms. James then said that the person who held her at gunpoint was famous and that the gun shattered her tooth and that it was “in a dream”.

[93] When Dr. Iosif asked Ms. James about recent psychotic symptoms, Ms. James said that she had strange dreams of people getting murdered. She also said that she believed that the dreams were real: “The person shattered my tooth and indented the side of my head from the gunshot wound in my dream.”

[94] When asked about hearing voices, Ms. James said, “I don’t know how to explain it…it’s a celebrity male and female.” She also reported that the voices were threatening violence and one threatened to stab her to death. Dr. Iosif asked if she did anything to protect herself and Ms. James said that she did not know how to do so. She said, “[the voices] said they would stab me to death…it kinda influenced my actions…the incident that occurred…I thought the person was going to murder me…in the dream…I was sleepwalking when it occurred.” Dr. Iosif asked how she could identify that she was sleepwalking, and Ms. James replied, “I felt it…that’s what I experienced. I was not in control of my body… somebody was moving my hands and I couldn’t get out of it. I think it was Air Force One. I felt like I was being used like a puppet, like Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy or Pinocchio.”

[95] Ms. James asked the doctor, “If I tell you the truth will you give me NCR? I’m not sure if I committed the crime or not…it’s very sensitive information. I was stuck in a dream.”

[96] Ms. James told Dr. Iosif that Air Force One told her that they were watching everything and that she believed that they were protecting her. She urged Dr. Iosif to look up the celebrity’s name and referred to Drake and the CD, “Take Care”. She said that she saw Drake in her dreams and that Rhianna had stolen her identity.

[97] At the outset of the second interview by Dr. Iosif on May 23, 2022, Ms. James said, “I want to know your opinion of my case. This is highly sensitive information so I might decline to answer your questions since I’m not going to be found NCR…you said you had a problem with what I was saying.” Ms. James refused to participate further in the interview.

[98] On June 15, 2022, Dr. Percy Wright attended at Vanier to conduct psychological testing. Ms. James was initially hesitant to participate, but eventually agreed. She completed some portions, but then stopped making an effort. Three times she said that she did not want to proceed and then changed her mind. Eventually she insisted that the testing end.

Opinions of the Psychiatrists

[99] Dr. Pearce and Dr. Iosif were both qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of forensic psychiatry. Both are very experienced, knowledgeable, and well-respected forensic psychiatrists. The opinions of the two doctors were consistent in many respects. They agreed that Ms. James had been experiencing the symptoms of a psychotic illness, namely schizophrenia, since her early to mid-twenties. They agreed that there was a long history of Ms. James’s illness being untreated. They agreed that Ms. James had experienced psychotic symptoms during the course of her illness, and these included perceptual anomalies, delusions, disorganized thinking, and disorganized behaviour.

[100] Dr. Iosif and Dr. Pearce noted that Ms. James expressed recurring delusional themes or preoccupations. Ms. James had referred to “Jigsaw” or “Judge Jigsaw” for many years. She was preoccupied with rape, abuse, surveillance and celebrities. She was religiously preoccupied. She referred to Jigsaw and God interchangeably.

[101] They agreed that at the time that Ms. James killed her mother, she was experiencing symptoms of her psychotic illness. She expressed delusional ideas and displayed disorganized thinking and speech. Drs. Pearce and Iosif were of the opinion that Ms. James’s mental illness did not render her incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of her acts; nor did it render her incapable of knowing that her actions were legally wrong.

[102] Both doctors treated Ms. James’s self-report of her motivation and thinking at the time of the offence with caution and gave it little weight. Ms. James’s 2009 psychological testing showed that she exaggerated her psychotic symptoms. In addition, Ms. James expressed to both doctors a desire to be found NCR. These factors led both doctors to rely primarily on the record of Ms. James’s words and conduct proximate to the offence rather than her later report of her thoughts.

[103] Both doctors agreed that Ms. James was exhibiting psychotic symptoms at various points in her 911 call and in her interactions with the police. They disagreed on the extent to which she was also expressing rational thinking.

[104] They both opined that she was not feigning or exaggerating symptoms during the time of the 911 call and throughout her dealings with the police after the killing.

[105] The opinions of the doctors diverged on the issue of whether Ms. James’s psychotic illness rendered her incapable of knowing that her actions were morally wrong.

[106] In her report, Dr. Iosif noted that in the police interview, Ms. James repeatedly expressed her distress at not having more access to her sons and that Ms. James provided this as a motive for the offence. Dr. Iosif noted that Ms. James said that Marvin only spoke to her mother and did not take her calls. Dr. Iosif concluded that Ms. James felt disrespected and angry. Dr. Iosif also noted in her report that Ms. James told police in the interview that stabbing her mother was ‘hazardous’ and that if a police officer had been present, she would not have done it. She said in the interview that she knew that society would condemn her actions. Ms. James said that she prayed that God would forgive her for the things she had done. These statements, in Dr. Iosif’s view, support the conclusion that Ms. James knew that stabbing her mother was wrong.

[107] In her report, Dr. Iosif wrote:

[Ms. James] stabbed her mother because she was upset about having no agency over her children who were going to be again, imminently taken away from her for an indeterminate period; she proceeded to do so despite knowing the legal consequences and despite knowing that her actions would be condemned by society, even if she believed that her behaviour was somehow justified. She asked God to forgive her for her actions. This argument does not exclude the certainty of Ms. James’s major mental illness, nor the possibility that her choice may have been motivated in part by psychotic symptoms or reasons. As such from a psychiatric perspective a Section 16 Defence, Not Criminally Responsible by reason of mental disorder is not supported for Ms. James.

[108] In her testimony Dr. Iosif said that the evidence on the issue of whether Ms. James was capable of knowing the moral wrongfulness of her actions was mixed. Dr. Iosif acknowledged that there was evidence of a delusional motivation for Ms. James’s actions, but Dr. Iosif was of the view that there was also a non-delusional motivation expressed by Ms. James. Dr. Iosif described Ms. James as speaking in the police interview almost as if she has two voices. She sometimes spoke logically and coherently and at other times her thought form was scrambled and delusional. Dr. Iosif said that in her view, it was important “to try to listen to these two voices, almost separately, and give them weight separately because each of them shows a different side of this person”.

[109] Dr. Iosif went on to say:

If one starts with the side that is obviously psychotic and tries to follow a little bit, about what is being said and what Ms. James offers as possible reasons for her crime then I think that one is left with the impression that perhaps she thought that she was somehow being threatened by her mother in one way or another. …But the other side of the interview, actually I find a lot more edifying because Ms. James answers very relevant questions in what I thought were very relevant ways….

The opinion of Dr. Iosif was that the rational motivation for the offence was bottled-up anger and resentment related to the fact that Ms. James felt excluded from the care of her children by her mother. Dr. Iosif suggested that the offence could have been grounded in Ms. James’s feeling that she had not been heard by her mother with respect to the children and that her rights were somehow violated by the custodial arrangement.

[110] With respect to the 911 call, Dr. Iosif made similar observations saying, “I think it was a similar mixture of the two voices we are hearing. Ms. James was, in some ways very to the point; very organized; very much able to give the information that was requested of her in succinct and organized and correct fashion. On the other hand, she again puts out the notion that her mother had done something …or tried to hurt her in some way. And so again we have someone who is organized and perhaps also offering some delusional ideas.”

[111] Dr. Iosif testified that Ms. James appeared to be more dysregulated in the interactions with police captured on the body worn camera, but Dr. Iosif thought that the dysregulation could be attributed to the release of adrenaline and the agitation provoked by the offence and her arrest. Dr. Iosif opined that Ms. James’s singing in the hallway could be a coping mechanism and was not necessarily indicative of psychotic symptoms.

[112] Dr. Iosif also examined the information about Ms. James’s conduct in the time leading up to the index offence. She noted that there was no indication that Ms. James was afraid of her mother or took steps to protect herself from her mother. Dr. Iosif explained that delusions are fixed false beliefs that develop over time and do not appear suddenly. Dr. Iosif pointed out that Ms. James and her mother and brother and children had a pleasant, uneventful outing to Niagara Falls five days before the offence. The absence of any behaviour showing a fear of her mother supported the conclusion that Ms. James’s motivation for the killing was not grounded in a delusional belief that her mother was a threat to her.

[113] Another factor in Dr. Iosif’s conclusion, that Ms. James was likely capable of knowing that her actions were morally wrong, was that Dr. Iosif believed that Ms. James had been functioning fairly well in the community in the months leading up to the offence. Ms. James had been keeping house and preparing her own food. There had been no hospital admissions.

[114] Dr. Iosif agreed that there was evidence to support the conclusion that Ms. James, as a result of the symptoms of her psychotic illness, believed that she and her children were going to be harmed or killed by her mother and that Ms. James was motivated to act for this reason. She agreed that if this were the case, it would support the conclusion that Ms. James was likely incapable of knowing that her actions were morally wrong. She went on to say, “It could be, but it could also be the other thing. I’m admitting that it could be one of the two, but…overall, when I completed this assessment and I weighed the two possibilities, I’m more persuaded by the first than the second.”

[115] Dr. Pearce, like Dr. Iosif, explained that psychotic symptoms can wax and wane and that this was true for Ms. James. He also considered Ms. James’s conduct in the time leading up to the offence. He noted that Ms. James had been observed by her sons to be talking or yelling while by herself in the days before the offence. When she committed the offence, there was no reality-based precipitating event. Ms. James simply got up from the couch in the bedroom, got a knife and went to the living room and stabbed her mother to death. The attack itself had bizarre features in that Ms. James cut out her mother’s eye. Dr. Pearce was of the opinion that Ms. James’s behaviour, as recorded on the body worn camera, showed a person who was very sick, very disturbed mentally. She was singing in the hallway and talking about an incident from years ago.

[116] Dr. Pearce described the delusional beliefs held by Ms. James in July 2021 as religious preoccupation or false beliefs about “Mr. and Mrs. God”, a fixed belief about someone named “Jigsaw”, paranoid beliefs that she was being raped, abused, or tortured, and a belief that she was being surveilled. She also had a preoccupation with celebrities.

[117] Dr. Pearce observed that during the 911 call, Ms. James exhibited symptoms of her illness, including false beliefs, when she referred to ‘Take Care – Marvin’s room’ after asking if the police were surveilling the area. Ms. James asked about the “Care Bears countdown” and Dr. Pearce felt that this was evidence of disorganized thinking and behaviour.

[118] In the video from the body worn camera, Dr. Pearce observed that there were pauses that could represent perceptual anomalies but could also be attributed to disorganized thinking.

[119] Dr. Pearce agreed that there were many instances in the video of Ms. James’s interactions with police when she exercised rational choices and behaved in a rational fashion. However, he testified that people with schizophrenia who are very severely psychotic will engage in very rational behaviours and if you observe them for only a brief period of time, you would not know that they were experiencing any symptoms. For this reason, Dr. Pearce expressed the opinion that it was necessary to look at the whole picture of Ms. James’s presentation and words and not to parse out fragments of the video evidence. Ms. James shows moments of lucidity in her interactions following the offence, but then moves to explanations for her actions that include that she was a victim of rape and abuse and that she was in danger of being murdered.

[120] Dr. Pearce could see no evidence of a rational or reality-based motivation for the killing. He considered her references to being disrespected and her frustration over not seeing her children, but he was of the opinion that when read in the context of the whole interview these statements were not expressing a motive for the offence. When Ms. James spoke of the offence, she said that she was the victim of abuse and rape and that she was in danger. Dr. Pearce was of the view that Ms. James was confused, delusional and disorganized at the time of the killing as evidenced by her conduct in the days before the killing, and by her presentation immediately after the killing. In his opinion, Ms. James was not able to turn her mind to the moral wrongfulness of her actions at the time. She could not think about how others would view her actions. She was driven by psychotic symptoms.

[121] Dr. Pearce considered the portion of Ms. James’s interview by the police in which she said that she knew that society would condemn what she did. Dr. Pearce did not give much weight to the answer. He observed that Ms. James had just said that she possibly would not have stabbed her mother if Judge Jigsaw had issued a caution and when asked if she knew it was wrong, said that she knew it was “hazardous”. At times Ms. James seemed unaware that she was being interviewed by the police. Dr. Pearce did not think that Ms. James was well enough to answer the question that was put to her concerning society’s condemnation of her actions.

Legal Principles

[122] To be exempt from criminal responsibility, it must be proven on a balance of probabilities that at the time of the act or omission, the person had a mental disorder, and that the mental disorder rendered the person either incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or that it rendered them incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong.

[123] The evidence in this case proves that Ms. James had a mental disorder, namely schizophrenia, at the time that she committed the offence. Both psychiatrists reached this conclusion and there is a substantial body of evidence from Ms. James’s admissions before and after the offence to support the diagnosis.

[124] Ms. James does not assert, nor does the evidence support a finding that Ms. James did not appreciate the nature and quality of the act. Her words and actions after the offence demonstrated her understanding that she killed her mother.

[125] As I said at the outset of these reasons, the only issue is whether Ms. James’s mental illness made her incapable of knowing that her actions were wrong.

[126] Wrongfulness has been held to mean legal wrongfulness and moral wrongfulness. [5]

[127] In R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507 [6], the Supreme Court of Canada considered the meaning of “wrongfulness” in the context of section 16 of the Code and held 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; … 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.

[128] Delusions or other psychotic symptoms do not necessarily deprive a person of the capacity to know the moral wrongfulness of their acts. In R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589 [7], Doherty J.A. wrote as follows:

In my view, Oommen, as interpreted in the judgments of this court, holds that an accused who has the capacity to know that society regards his actions as morally wrong and proceeds to commit those acts cannot be said to lack the capacity to know right from wrong. As a result, he is not NCR, even if he believed that he had no choice but to act, or that his acts were justified. However, an accused who, through the distorted lens of his mental illness, sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to know that his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence.

[129] As I have already outlined, Dr. Iosif and Dr. Pearce reached different conclusions on whether Ms. James’s mental illness deprived her of the capacity to know the moral wrongfulness of her act. As the trier of fact, I may accept some, all or none of any witness’s evidence. In weighing the expert psychiatric opinion evidence, I must examine the factual foundations for the opinions. I am “entitled to accord less weight to the opinion where it is not based on facts proved at trial and/or where it is based upon factual assumptions with which [I] disagree”. [8]

Findings of Fact and Application of the Principles to the Facts

[130] Dr. Iosif relied upon Ms. James’s interview at the police station to conclude that Ms. James was expressing distress at not having access to her sons and that Ms. James provided this as a reason for the offence. My interpretation of the interview differs from that of Dr. Iosif. While Ms. James speaks of not seeing her sons enough, I do not find that she offers this as a reason for the offence.

[131] Ms. James first refers to the fact that the children lived with their father in the context of explaining that she acted in ‘protective defence’ of herself and her children and she went on to say, ‘if my children were gonna be threatened…you know they’ve been living at their father’s house”. [9] She spoke of her relationship with Jaleel, Sheldon and “Marble”. She spoke of Marble as her third child although she had only two children.

[132] Ms. James went on to speak of her efforts to change the custody arrangements and to speak of “military police”. I do not find that this reference to custody arrangements was an expression of resentment or anger about the custody arrangements. Instead, Ms. James was describing, in a disjointed and disorganized way, a belief that she and her children were somehow threatened.

[133] Later, the police directly asked Ms. James why she stabbed her mother and Ms. James said that it was because Marvin was going to take the kids. Ms. James immediately went on to talk of hearing on CP24 or CNN that her children had been brutally murdered with gang paraphernalia. [10] When the officer tried to clarify, Ms. James said, “I’m just thinking if anything happens to the children under his supervision.” While this utterance was in response to a question about her motivation, it is not coherent or logical and appears to be related to Ms. James’s fear that she and her children were facing some kind of threat to their lives.

[134] Ms. James, when asked about the custody arrangement and how often she saw the children, was able to answer in a fairly coherent and rational way. She expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangement. She complained that Marvin rarely picked up the phone when she called. Following a lengthy answer about the arrangement and the courts, Detective Benson tried to bring the discussion back to Ms. James’s motivation and asked what her mother did to make Ms. James decide to stab her. Ms. James said that her mother had spoken to Marvin and he was going to pick up the children. Read in isolation, this statement could be interpreted to mean that Ms. James killed her mother because she was upset that the children would be returned to their father. However, viewed in the context of the statement by Ms. James just moments earlier, about her children being brutally murdered while under the supervision of their father, I do not interpret the utterance as an explanation that her motivation was anger at the custody arrangement. Ms. James goes on, after this utterance, to talk of not wanting her children to be taken by CAS as they were taken in 1984 and then she speaks of Kelly, who had hit her and she goes on to speak of Judge Jigsaw. It is, in my view, not possible to impose a rational and logical meaning to this part of Ms. James’s statement.

[135] Another reference in the statement to the custody arrangement occurs when the officer again asks Ms. James why she stabbed her mother. Ms. James again says, “protective defence”. When she is asked to explain the meaning of protective defence Ms. James says that Marvin was going to come and pick up the kids. She begins to cry and when asked why she cried she says, “I was angry with myself”. She then speaks about making a statement about motherhood and fatherhood. She says, “I don’t understand why they wanted to do this to me…damage my existence…”. Like the previous reference, this part of the statement has to be considered in the context of the whole statement. I do not interpret this as a rational and logical statement, that her motivation for killing her mother was that she was angry about the custody arrangement. This portion of the statement is simply not coherent.

[136] Dr. Iosif relied on Ms. James’s answer to Detective Benson’s question, “Would you have stabbed your mom if there had been a police officer in uniform standing beside you?” Dr. Iosif, in her report writes that Ms. James said that she “would not have done it”. Ms. James did not say that she would not have done it if a police officer was beside her. She said, “I would strongly reconsider if Judge Jigsaw issued a caution…the judge spoke to me and you know, I was in reasonable conscience or a reasonable understanding. Um — I would have to very thankful in the presence of God.” Detective Benson said, “Okay.” Ms. James went on to say, “So no, I possibly would not have or probably.” Detective Benson asked again, “You wouldn’t have done it if there had been a police officer there? and Ms. James said, “possibly no”. My interpretation of this answer differs from that of Dr. Iosif. Ms. James’s answer was disorganized and illogical. By the end it remains unclear whether the presence of a police officer would have made any difference to Ms. James’s actions.

[137] Dr. Iosif relied upon Ms. James saying in the interview that she prayed that God would forgive her for the things that she had done and forgive her mother “for some of the things that have happened in our mother-daughter relationship” as supportive of the conclusion that Ms. James knew the wrongfulness of her actions. I reach a different conclusion. Ms. James said this after she was asked about her relationship with her mother. She did not say this in the context of explaining her act of stabbing her mother.

[138] Dr. Iosif also relied upon Ms. James’s answer to the question, “When you did this, did you know that society would condemn it? They would consider it wrong?” To this question Ms. James replied, “Yes.” I agree that the answer given by Ms. James to this question goes directly to the issue of her knowledge of the moral wrongfulness of her actions. Viewed in isolation, the answer provides support for the conclusion that Ms. James knew the moral wrongfulness of her actions.

[139] I have considered this statement in my assessment of Ms. James’s mental state and her capacity to know the wrongfulness of her actions. I have looked at the question and answer in the context of the statement as a whole. I note that Ms. James was not asked how society would view committing the act for ‘protective defence’. I have also considered that this is a one-word answer to one question in the course of a 1.5-hour interview. Because of these facts, I have given less weight to this question and answer.

[140] In forming her opinion, Dr. Iosif relied on the fact that Ms. James had been functioning reasonably well in the months leading up to the offence. I have considered the evidence of Ms. James conduct in the days, weeks and months leading up to the offence. Ms. James was alone for most the six months leading up to the offence. Her mother had just returned from Jamaica in the weeks before the offence. There is little evidence of Ms. James’s mental state in the months that her mother was away. The brief visits by Willie James during which Ms. James did not engage with him do not support the conclusion that she was doing well. Her isolation during this time leaves little information about her mental state. I find that there is an absence of evidence rather than evidence that Ms. James was doing well during the months that her mother was away.

[141] The evidence of her sons that Ms. James yelled at entities while alone but managed to appear normal when she was with others provides evidence that she was experiencing symptoms of her psychotic illness in the two weeks before the offence.

[142] Considering the totality of the evidence, I have reached different factual conclusions than those relied upon by Dr. Iosif for her opinion. I do not find that Ms. James was probably motivated to stab her mother for the reality-based reason that she was upset about having no agency over her children. Nor do I find that Ms. James did so knowing that her actions would be condemned by society. I find that there was no discernible rational or logical motive expressed by Ms. James or disclosed by the evidence.

[143] I find that Ms. James’s numerous statements that she acted in ‘protective defence’ or ‘protective self-defence’ and her statements that she and her children were in danger of being harmed or killed support the conclusion that Ms. James likely acted in response to a delusional belief that she and her children were going to be harmed or killed by her mother. Her words in the 911 call support the conclusion that she was disorganized and delusional. I find that Ms. James’s conduct and words from her first interaction with the police through to the end of her interview refer to her belief that she and her children were in danger.

[144] I accept that Ms. James was rational and coherent at various points in her interactions with the police. I find however, that the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion that at the time that Ms. James killed her mother she was not rational, and she was not capable of knowing that her acts were morally wrong.

[145] I accept the opinion of Dr. Pearce that Ms. James was delusional and disorganized at the time of the killing and in her interactions with the police immediately afterwards. I accept and agree with the opinion of Dr. Pearce that Ms. James was likely unable, at the time of the killing, to turn her mind to the wrongfulness of her actions or to consider how an ordinary person would view the wrongfulness of her actions because of her extensive symptom burden.

Verdict

[146] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Ms. James, on account of her mental disorder, lacked the capacity to assess the wrongness of her conduct against societal norms and therefore lacked the capacity to know her act was wrong. I find Ms. James to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Forestell J. Released: February 5, 2024

Footnotes:

[1] See report of Dr. Tyler B.M. Hickey, pathologist [2] See 911 call, Exhibit [3] See Body Worn Camera of PC Somwaru Exhibit 5; Video Statement Exhibit 19 [4] Criminal Code, s.16 [5] R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, at pp. 1354-1355 [6] R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507 [7] R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589, at para 24, leave to appeal refused [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 70 [8] R. v. Molodowic, 2000 SCC 16, at para. 7 [9] Pages 36-38 of the transcript of the interview [10] Pages 62-63