Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR24-55AP
Date: 2025-07-22
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Amy Cox
Appearances:
- N. Nolan, for the Respondent Crown
- Michael Davies, for the Appellant
Heard: July 22, 2025
Reasons for Judgment on Summary Conviction Appeal
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Overview
[1] The Appellant was found to be Not Criminally Responsible by way of Mental Disorder (“NCRMD”) by Justice Kinsella on March 21, 2023.
[2] While the Appellant set out several grounds of appeal in her Notice of Appeal, which was filed when she was a self-represented litigant, her factum articulates the following grounds of appeal:
a) that the process leading up to the finding of NCR was fundamentally lacking in procedural fairness; and
b) that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for the NCR finding.
[3] The Respondent Crown accepts that the Appellant was found NCRMD and accepts the documents found in the Appellant’s appeal book except for the Notice of Appeal. However, they note that:
a) Exhibit 3, the April 26, 2022 ROH Report by Dr. Floyd Wood is cut off before the end of the report;
b) There is an absence of an affidavit from the Appellant indicating what her understanding of the process for the NCRMD determination as of the March 21, 2023 hearing date; and
c) There is an absence of an affidavit from trial counsel, Ryan Langevin, as to the procedural steps that Mr. Langevin took to ensure procedural fairness.
[4] Ultimately, the Crown argues that the March 21, 2023 hearing and finding of NCRMD was procedurally fair. While the court could have articulated in greater detail with respect to how the facts as it related to information C-1955 and 22-M58, and the report of Dr. DeLapante met the test in s. 16, this did not render the hearing procedurally unfair. The appeal ought to be dismissed.
[5] For reasons that follow, the appeal is granted, the verdict is set aside, and a new trial is ordered.
Evidence at Trial
[6] The parties attended the court with a joint position as to the end result. There was discussion as to how the arraignment was to be conducted, with the Trial Judge guiding the parties as to the proper procedure.
[7] The Appellant was arraigned, and counsel entered a plea of not guilty but admitted the actus reus of the offences.
[8] The Appellant argues that she interrupted the reading in of the facts on information number 21-C1955 to articulate opposition to some of them. However, the Appellant's counsel acknowledged that if witnesses were called, they would give evidence about the facts and the Appellant would not be in a position to dispute them. The Appellant's counsel clarified that the facts were “substantially admitted. There are some issues, but if the Crown called evidence, [the Appellant] would not be in a position to dispute that.”
[9] On the reading of the facts on information number 998-22-M58, the Appellant interrupted once regarding a civil suit. Nevertheless, the Appellant’s counsel took the same position as above regarding the facts.
[10] On both informations, the Trial Judge determined that the actus reus to the offences were made out.
[11] The Trial Judge then referenced the two experts' reports, correctly identifying the April 26, 2022 report regarding fitness and the October 2, 2022 report which was broader in scope. Appellant’s counsel was not seeking to cross-examine the authors of```yaml
citation: "R. v. Cox, 2025 ONSC 4316" parties: "His Majesty the King v. Amy Cox" party_moving: "Amy Cox" party_responding: "His Majesty the King" court: "Ontario Superior Court of Justice" court_abbreviation: "ONSC" jurisdiction: "Ontario" case_type: "appeal" date_judgement: "2025-07-22" date_heard: "2025-07-22" applicant:
- "Amy Cox" applicant_counsel:
- "Michael Davies" respondent:
- "His Majesty the King" respondent_counsel:
- "N. Nolan"
judge: "Hélène C. Desormeau"
year: 2025
decision_number: 4316
file_number: "CR24-55AP"
source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4316/2025onsc4316.html"
cited_cases:
legislation:
- title: "Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/" case_law:
- title: "R. v. Anderson, 2021 ONCA 333" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca333/2021onca333.html"
- title: "R. v. Quenneville, 2010 ONCA 223" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca223/2010onca223.html"
- title: "R. v. Laming, 2022 ONCA 370, para 20, paras 63-64" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca370/2022onca370.html"
- title: "R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, para 17" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc51/2008scc51.html"
- title: "R. v. Kankis, 2012 ONSC 378, para 1" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc378/2012onsc378.html"
- title: "R. v. Capano, 2014 ONCA 599, paras 45-52" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2014/2014onca599/2014onca599.html"
- title: "R. v. Ivins, 2024 ONCA 408, paras 6-7" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca408/2024onca408.html" summary: > The appellant, Amy Cox, appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) made by Justice Kinsella. The appeal focused on alleged procedural unfairness in the NCRMD process and the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons. The Superior Court found that, although there was evidence to support the NCRMD finding, the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons explaining why the evidence justified the verdict. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered. interesting_citations_summary: > The decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the requirement for trial judges to provide sufficient reasons when making an NCRMD finding, especially where the consequences may involve significant deprivations of liberty. The court relied on recent appellate guidance, including R. v. Laming and R. v. Ivins, emphasizing that reasons must go beyond mere agreement with a joint proposal and must explain the application of the legal test to the evidence. keywords:
- Amy Cox
- NCRMD
- Not Criminally Responsible
- Procedural fairness
- Reasons for judgment
- Criminal Code s. 16
- Ontario Review Board
- Summary conviction appeal
- R. v. Laming
- R. v. Ivins areas_of_law:
- Criminal Law
Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR24-55AP
Date: 2025-07-22
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Amy Cox
Appearances:
- N. Nolan, for the Respondent Crown
- Michael Davies, for the Appellant
Heard: July 22, 2025
Reasons for Judgment on Summary Conviction Appeal
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Overview
[1] The Appellant was found to be Not Criminally Responsible by way of Mental Disorder (“NCRMD”) by Justice Kinsella on March 21, 2023.
[2] While the Appellant set out several grounds of appeal in her Notice of Appeal, which was filed when she was a self-represented litigant, her factum articulates the following grounds of appeal:
a) that the process leading up to the finding of NCR was fundamentally lacking in procedural fairness; and
b) that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for the NCR finding.
[3] The Respondent Crown accepts that the Appellant was found NCRMD and accepts the documents found in the Appellant’s appeal book except for the Notice of Appeal. However, they note that:
a) Exhibit 3, the April 26, 2022 ROH Report by Dr. Floyd Wood is cut off before the end of the report;
b) There is an absence of an affidavit from the Appellant indicating what her understanding of the process for the NCRMD determination as of the March 21, 2023 hearing date; and
c) There is an absence of an affidavit from trial counsel, Ryan Langevin, as to the procedural steps that Mr. Langevin took to ensure procedural fairness.
[4] Ultimately, the Crown argues that the March 21, 2023 hearing and finding of NCRMD was procedurally fair. While the court could have articulated in greater detail with respect to how the facts as it related to information C-1955 and 22-M58, and the report of Dr. DeLapante met the test in s. 16, this did not render the hearing procedurally unfair. The appeal ought to be dismissed.
[5] For reasons that follow, the appeal is granted, the verdict is set aside, and a new trial is ordered.
Evidence at Trial
[6] The parties attended the court with a joint position as to the end result. There was discussion as to how the arraignment was to be conducted, with the Trial Judge guiding the parties as to the proper procedure.
[7] The Appellant was arraigned, and counsel entered a plea of not guilty but admitted the actus reus of the offences.
[8] The Appellant argues that she interrupted the reading in of the facts on information number 21-C1955 to articulate opposition to some of them. However, the Appellant's counsel acknowledged that if witnesses were called, they would give evidence about the facts and the Appellant would not be in a position to dispute them. The Appellant's counsel clarified that the facts were “substantially admitted. There are some issues, but if the Crown called evidence, [the Appellant] would not be in a position to dispute that.”
[9] On the reading of the facts on information number 998-22-M58, the Appellant interrupted once regarding a civil suit. Nevertheless, the Appellant’s counsel took the same position as above regarding the facts.
[10] On both informations, the Trial Judge determined that the actus reus to the offences were made out.
[11] The Trial Judge then referenced the two experts' reports, correctly identifying the April 26, 2022 report regarding fitness and the October 2, 2022 report which was broader in scope. Appellant’s counsel was not seeking to cross-examine the authors of the reports, and conceded there was no issue regarding the expertise of the authors.
[12] At submissions, counsel offered the following:
MS. SOUCY: So, Your Honour, we do have a joint recommendation for Your Honour. We’re asking that we proceed with a consent NCR finding and a referral to the ORB.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LANGEVIN: That’s a joint position, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right, then.
[13] The Trial Judge then ruled as follows:
I’m satisfied, then, based on the facts before me, which include the facts that were read in, as well as the reports, which I have read in some detail, and I’m not going to summarize here, that both of the prongs in section 16(1) have been made out. In other words, that Miss Cox, at the time of these offences, was suffering from a mental disorder, and, (2), that that mental disorder rendered her incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. It’s actually the latter part that is the knowing that it was wrong. And, so, I will make a finding that she is not criminally responsible for all of these offences. I will not make a disposition. In my view, that should properly be done by the Ontario Review Board, who has the expertise to do so, and, so, pursuant to section 672.47, I will make no disposition and, instead, find the Review Board shall, as soon as practicable, hold a hearing and make a disposition for Miss Cox.
Procedural Deficiencies and Lack of Reasons
Appellant’s Argument
[14] The Appellant submits that there were procedural deficiencies in the plea and the NCR proceedings that rendered the process fundamentally unfair and caused a miscarriage of justice. These included but were not limited to the defence being unfamiliar with the process of making a joint recommendation of NCRMD; the Appellant’s interjections in relation to the facts proposed; the lack of plea inquiry or inquiry as to the Appellant understanding the process or ramifications of the joint position; and the lack of wholesome submissions by both Crown and Defence.
[15] Ultimately, it was argued that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies had an impact on the fairness of the proceedings.
[16] The Appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to provide a sufficient basis for the finding that the requirements of s. 16 of the Criminal Code were met and therefore the verdict was unreasonable.
Crown’s Argument
[17] The Respondent submits the court should consider:
(i) whether a plea inquiry was required in the case before the court;
(ii) whether the absence of a plea inquiry resulted in a miscarriage of justice; and
(iii) whether there is a sufficient record before the court on which to make a positive finding that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
[18] The Respondent relies on R. v. Anderson, 2021 ONCA 333 which articulates that a comprehensive plea inquiry is not required, and necessity requires a contextual analysis that will depend on the facts of the case.
[19] Here, it was advanced that:
a. The Appellant was supported by counsel and that counsel was her original counsel and not a stand-in or associate of her counsel, distinguishing the facts from Laming;
b. There was an NCR assessment that amply supports the finding that the Appellant did not know the wrongfulness of her actions due to untreated schizophrenia;
c. There is no evidence before the court that the Appellant did not understand the procedure;
d. The facts as read into the record support a finding of guilt (as it relates to the actus reus);
e. The court ensured that the procedure described in R. v. Quenneville, 2010 ONCA 223, 207 C.R.R. (2d) 360.
[20] The Crown submitted that at pages 29 to 31 of Dr. DeLaplante’s October 2, 2022 NCR assessment report, they reviewed both prongs of the analysis in s.16(1) of the Criminal Code, and determined that both occurrences were the result of the Appellant experiencing untreated schizophrenia. As it relates to both occurrences, Dr. DeLaplante found that the Appellant did not know the wrongfulness of her actions, and found support in the synopsis of the occurrences, as well as the Appellant’s explanation for the occurrences.
[21] On March 21, 2023, Justice Kinsella made it clear at page 20 of the hearing transcript, that she had read the report and relied on its findings to find that the Appellant was NCRMD.
[22] Ultimately, the court could have articulated in greater detail with respect to how the facts as it related to information C-1955 and 22-M58, and the report of Dr. DeLapante met the test in s. 16(1), however, this did not render the hearing procedurally unfair.
Analysis
[23] The Appellant conceded that the plea inquiry is not mandatory but preferable before acting on an accused’s person consent to NCRMD. This is established in the case law, and is specifically noted in R. v. Laming, 2022 ONCA 370 at paragraph 20. The case law also establishes that whether the inquiry should be taken depends on the circumstances of each case.
[24] Here, there is a lack of evidence from the Appellant regarding her knowledge of the procedure and consequences. I find that while the circumstances as a whole were not perfect, I am not persuaded that the lack of inquiry was fatal.
[25] It is noteworthy that the Trial Judge properly articulated the requirements as found in Quenneville regarding arraigning the Appellant on the charges. I am of the view that this establishes her knowledge of the relevant caselaw on the issue of NCRMD.
[26] The Trial Judge also made clear that she had reviewed the two experts' reports before her and was satisfied with the evidence contained in those reports to allow her to make her Ruling. The Trial Judge also addressed the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code in arriving at her conclusion. It is clear she is aware of both the law and case law.
[27] As noted in the jurisprudence, trial reasons will be sufficient if, read in context, they show why the judge decided as he or she did. The object is not to show how the judge arrived at his or her conclusion, in a “watch me think” fashion. It is rather to show why the judge made that decision: R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, at para. 17.
[28] Justice Trotter (as he then was) in R. v. Kankis, 2012 ONSC 378 noted that the implications of being found unfit to stand trial or NCR are very dramatic. “A person in this position may still be subject to various deprivations of liberty for the rest of his or her life. That is why procedural fairness must be jealously guarded and strictly enforced in this context.”
[29] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ivins, 2024 ONCA 408 set out:
…In these circumstances, reasons for finding an accused person NCRMD must go beyond merely agreeing to a joint proposal. At a minimum, a trial judge is required to articulate the test under s. 16 of the Criminal Code and explain why the evidence before the court justified the NCRMD verdict: R. v. Laming, 2022 ONCA 370, 413 C.C.C. (3d) 409, at paras. 63-64; R. v. Capano, 2014 ONCA 599, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 135, at paras. 45-52. The appellant was entitled to know in more detail why he was found NCRMD.
…However, we wish to emphasize, once again, that, given the potential consequences of being found NCRMD—including detention in secure hospital settings that involve serious deprivations of liberty, and the possibility of lifelong supervision under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code—procedural fairness must be jealously guarded and strictly enforced in this context.
[emphasis added]
[30] As noted above, here, the Trial Judge stated:
…I’m not going to summarize here, that both of the prongs in section 16(1) have been made out. In other words, that Miss Cox, at the time of these offences, was suffering from a mental disorder, and, (2), that that mental disorder rendered her incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. It’s actually the latter part that is the knowing that it was wrong. And, so, I will make a finding that she is not criminally responsible for all of these offences. I will not make a disposition.
[31] Similar to the conclusion in Kankis, I am of the view that there was cogent evidence before the Trial Judge that Ms. Cox was suffering from a serious mental disorder at the time of the offences. Moreover, the NCRMD finding was supportable on the evidence.
[32] However, despite the matter being advanced as a joint position, the Trial Judge should have explained in greater detail why the evidence before the court justified the NCRMD verdict so that the Appellant could know why they were found NCRMD.
[33] Due to the absence of said details, procedural fairness dictates that there must be a new trial.
[34] Given this determination, I am of the view that any other issues raised by the Appellant require no further comments.
Disposition
[35] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the verdict is set aside, and a new trial is ordered.
The Honourable Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Released: July 22, 2025