CITATION: R. v. Cooney & Hamber, 2026 ONSC 2646

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-0074

DATE: 2026-05-05

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Brandy Cooney and Becky Hamber

Ms. M. MacKenzie and Ms. K. Frew, for the Crown

Ms. K Edward for Ms. Cooney

Mr. M. MacGregor and Mr. N. Sheiban for Ms. Hamber

HEARD: September 15-18, 22-26, 29, October 1, 6-9, 20-24, 27-21, November 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 28, December 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15, 2025, January 12-14, 19, 22, 23, and March 23 & 27, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Contents

I. An Overview.. 2

II. The Indictment 3

III. The Trial and the Positions of the Crown and the Defence. 4

IV. The Issues. 15

V. The Presumption of Innocence and the Basic Legal Principles. 15

Presumption of Innocence. 15

The Burden and the Standard of Proof. 16

The Evidence of Witnesses, including the Accused, and the W.(D.) Instruction. 17

VI. The Essential Elements of the Offences. 19

Unlawful Confinement, section 279(2) CCC.. 19

The Excuse of Necessity, section 8(3) CCC.. 19

Assault with a Weapon, section 267(a) CCC.. 20

Failure to provide the Necessaries of Life, section 215(2)(a)(i) CCC.. 20

Constructive First Degree Murder, section 231(5) CCC.. 22

VII. A Summary of the Trial Evidence. 25

VIII. This Court Rejects the Evidence of the Accused. 25

IX. The Case Has Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 52

The Electronic Evidence. 52

The Evidence of J. 55

The Evidence of the Medical Professionals Who Treated L.. 58

The Expert Evidence of Drs. Cory and Pickup. 62

Count 1 – The Unlawful Confinement of J. 68

Count 2 – The Assault of J With a Weapon. 68

Count 3 – The Failure to Provide to J the Necessaries of Life. 69

Count 4 – The Constructive First Degree Murder of L.. 70

X. Conclusion. 81

Conlan J.

I. An Overview

[1] The accused persons, Brandy Cooney (“Ms. Cooney”) and Becky Hamber (“Ms. Hamber”), spouses of each other, lived in Burlington, Ontario with two boys, L and his younger brother J.

[2] Ms. Cooney’s father, Ed (“Ed”), also lived at the same home.

[3] Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber were view-to-adopt foster parents; they were in the process of adopting the two Indigenous boys. L and J had already experienced a difficult life. They had been in foster care in Ottawa before moving into the care of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber.

[4] When the boys arrived in Burlington, it was the beginning of a new life for them. And for the accused, too.

[5] A few years later, however, it all ended terribly. On December 21, 2022, the older boy, L, died in a barren room in the basement of the accused’s home. Despite valiant efforts by first responders and medical personnel, both at the home and at the hospital, to resuscitate L, he just slipped away.

[6] At the time of his death, L, the same boy who used to smile for the camera and play outside in front of the home, was cachectic. He was in an emaciated state. The first responders had trouble understanding how the small and razor-thin boy lying on the floor in the basement room was really 12 years old.

[7] L having died in the care of the accused and in circumstances that were thought to be suspicious by the authorities, his younger brother who was left behind, J, was taken away from Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber by the Halton Children’s Aid Society (“Halton CAS”). He was never returned and has had nothing to do with the accused since, although he told his story to this Court.

[8] He spoke for himself but also for his big brother. He described years of abuse in that home in Burlington.

[9] I believe J. I find Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber guilty on all counts.

II. The Indictment

[10] In an Indictment dated May 7, 2024, Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber are jointly charged with four criminal offences.

[11] Counts 1 through 3 relate to the surviving boy, J, while count 4 relates to the boy who passed away, L.

[12] Count 1 is an allegation of unlawful confinement: that, between January 2018 and December 2022, at Burlington, the accused did, without lawful authority, confine J, contrary to section 279(2) of the Criminal Code.

[13] Count 2 is an allegation of assault with a weapon: that, between the same dates and at the same place, the accused did use a weapon, zip ties, in committing an assault upon J, contrary to section 267(a) of the Criminal Code.

[14] Count 3 is an allegation of failing to provide the necessaries of life: that, between the same dates and at the same place, the accused, being foster parents of J who was under 16 years of age at the time, did fail without lawful excuse to provide the necessaries of life to J, who was in destitute or necessitous circumstances at the time, contrary to section 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

[15] Count 4 is an allegation of first degree murder: that, between the same dates and at the same place, the accused did commit first degree murder on the person of L, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code.

III. The Trial and the Positions of the Crown and the Defence

[16] The accused were tried before this Court, without a jury, in Milton, Ontario, between September 15, 2025 and March 23, 2026. Two hundred and nine exhibits were entered. Forty eight witnesses testified: 46 for the Crown and 2, Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber, for the defence.

[17] At the conclusion of the trial, on consent of both accused, the Crown’s similar fact evidence application (intra-Indictment, across the counts) was granted. In addition, again on consent of both accused, the Crown’s hearsay application regarding the out-of-court text messages among the two accused and Ed was granted, meaning that this Court could consider those messages for the truth of their content.

[18] The Crown witnesses included the boys’ former foster mother in Ottawa; therapists and counsellors; neighbours who lived close to the home in Burlington; the boys’ teachers and other personnel from their elementary school; first responders who tried to bring L back to life (paramedics and firefighters); police officers; the emergency room physician who tried to revive L at the hospital; other medical professionals who gave expert opinion evidence at trial; the family physician; L’s treating psychiatrist; Halton CAS workers; and the surviving boy, J.

[19] Despite the length of the trial and the numbers of exhibits entered and witnesses who testified, the issues to be decided by this Court are actually quite streamlined, and the verdicts depend largely on five things: (i) the ante-mortem electronic communications among the accused and Ed which were seized by the police from the accused’s portable devices, along with the other content discovered on those devices; (ii) the evidence of J; (iii) the evidence of those medical professionals who treated L before his death; (iv) the post-mortem findings and opinions of the two expert witnesses; and (v) the evidence of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber.

[20] All counsel did an excellent job in focussing on what really matters. Their closing submissions support that conclusion.

[21] Ms. Edward, counsel for Ms. Cooney, was the first to deliver a closing argument.

[22] In summary, Ms. Edward submitted that whatever was done to J by the accused was done to protect the boy and to keep him safe. If there was any confinement, it was not an unlawful confinement. Although zip ties were used on J, the injuries to the boy were caused by himself. All necessaries of life were provided to J. And the accused never intended to harm or to kill L, Ms. Edward argued.

[23] There was no mens rea for any of these alleged offences, Ms. Edward submitted. There was simply no intention to harm either child.

[24] Overall, on all four counts, this Court should acquit the accused because of a lack of mens rea, and further, on counts 1 and 2 (the unlawful confinement of and the assault with a weapon against J), this Court should also consider the defence of necessity, Ms. Edward submitted.

[25] The system failed these two boys, Ms. Edward argued. The boys were already very troubled when they arrived in Burlington, and the accused did not get the help that they were asking for and which they desperately needed in order to address the very significant and challenging behaviours that the boys were presenting, it was submitted.

[26] In terms of the submission that the system failed these boys, Ms. Edward highlighted that: (i) psychiatrist Dr. Alan Brown’s recommendations, most specifically that L be admitted to the Child and Parent Resource Institute (“CPRI”) in London, Ontario, were never approved by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Ottawa CAS”); (ii) family physician Dr. Graeme Duncan failed to have L immediately hospitalized when he saw the boy in mid-December 2022, not long before L died, which hospitalization may have saved the boy’s life; and (iii) treating psychiatrist Dr. Shelinderjit Dhaliwal failed to do more to help L, particularly when she observed that the situation was “acute” on December 19, 2022, two days before L died.

[27] On the first degree murder allegation, Ms. Edward submitted that the cause and manner of L’s death are a mystery. She argued that: (i) Dr. Emma Cory, who testified at trial as an expert witness in the field of pediatric medicine and as someone who works specifically within the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (“SCAN”) Program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, was unable to say what caused L’s state of severe malnutrition; (ii) Dr. Cory could not exclude rumination as the cause of that severe malnutrition in L; (iii) Dr. Cory could not exclude refeeding syndrome as being what led to L’s electrolyte imbalance, cardiac arrest, and ultimate death; and (iv) Dr. Michael Pickup, Ontario’s Deputy Chief Forensic Pathologist who performed the autopsy on L and who was the second expert witness to testify at trial, could not confirm the cause or the manner of death for L.

[28] Ms. Edward pointed to refeeding syndrome, which it was argued came about after L experienced a very disturbing incident in the care of the accused in November 2022, the month before L died, as being an intervening medical event that likely caused the death of L.

[29] In addition, on the first degree murder allegation, Ms. Edward submitted that the evidence of what happened in the weeks leading up to the death of L is inconsistent with a finding that the accused intended to harm or to kill the boy. For example, the accused did everything that they could to help L when he almost died in their care in November 2022, the month before his death, Ms. Edward argued.

[30] Finally, on counts 1 through 3, Ms. Edward submitted that J’s evidence is not reliable as it is infected with far too many “I don’t remember” and exaggerations.

[31] Before moving on to the closing submissions of counsel for Ms. Hamber, having just mentioned that Ms. Edward commented on the November 2022 incident that L had experienced, this would be a good place to summarize what actually happened during that incident.

[32] What happened to L at the home on November 20, 2022 is very important to this case. We know what happened from a review of the contemporaneous text messages exchanged between the accused on that date. Those text messages give to us a running account of what was going on with L on that date.

[33] L presented with very serious symptoms on November 20, 2022, including but not limited to:

(i) shaking uncontrollably;

(ii) one of his eyes not being able to focus;

(iii) him acting way different than on any other day;

(iv) him needing to move his bowels but not being able to;

(v) him, in the suspicion of the accused, being impacted by toxins in his system;

(vi) him, in the suspicion of the accused, literally starving and being dehydrated;

(vii) him not speaking discernible English;

(viii) the perfect storm of L not sleeping, starving, being dehydrated, and not being able to go to the bathroom;

(ix) shivering uncontrollably;

(x) being cold;

(xi) him, in the suspicion of the accused, being hypothermic;

(xii) appearing to be drunk;

(xiii) his eyes looking high as a kite;

(xiv) him, in the suspicion of the accused, not getting enough blood to his brain;

(xv) being extra gassy;

(xvi) not being able to stand on his own;

(xvii) him, in the suspicion of the accused, either dying or hitting rock bottom; and

(xviii) him, in the worry of the accused, potentially dying suddenly and them going to jail for it.

[34] During that episode, the text messages show that Ms. Cooney (i) tried to warm L up in a bath and (ii) also used a portable heater to try to warm him up.

[35] The text messages also demonstrate that the dire situation continued the next day. L’s eyes were still crooked and not focussed. He was still not able to speak discernible English. The accused wondered whether he had brain damage. His nose was bleeding continuously. He was still in very bad shape.

[36] No medical attention was sought for L, however.

[37] Mr. MacGregor, one of two counsel for Ms. Hamber, was the second to deliver a closing argument.

[38] Having ably recognized the highly problematic character of Exhibit 1, the evidence seized by investigators from the portable electronic devices of the two accused, Mr. MacGregor urged this Court to judge the case based on the deeds of Ms. Hamber – not on her words.

[39] Not guilty of murder because no criminal intent, never mind an intention to kill L; and not guilty of manslaughter because no foreseeability of harm to L – these were the major tenets of Mr. MacGregor’s closing submissions.

[40] Causation was also raised by Mr. MacGregor, however.

[41] What most likely caused L’s death, Mr. MacGregor argued, was rumination and/or regurgitation and then refeeding syndrome, which refeeding syndrome led to an electrolyte imbalance and cardiac arrest.

[42] The collective evidence of the two key witnesses at trial, Dr. Cory and Dr. Pickup, supports that argument, Mr. MacGregor submitted.

[43] Mr. MacGregor argued that: (i) Dr. Pickup could not determine the cause of L’s death; (ii) hypothermia was not even mentioned in Dr. Pickup’s report, yet that is a part of the Crown’s theory on causation; (iii) malnutrition cannot be conclusively linked to L’s death because of the absence of elevated ketone levels in L’s body; (iv) Dr. Cory’s evidence about the unpredictability of refeeding syndrome supports the defence position of a lack of foreseeability of harm to L; (v) Dr. Cory’s evidence, including but not limited to her observation that L. gained considerable weight (14 pounds) between December 13, 2022 (when he was last seen by Dr. Duncan) and the date of his death, December 21, 2022, is consistent with the defence theory of refeeding syndrome; and (vi) Dr. Cory’s evidence helps the accused because she observed that (a) not even Dr. Duncan, the family physician, thought it was obvious that L needed to be immediately hospitalized when he saw the boy not long before his death, and (b) refeeding syndrome is not known to the average person, and (c) refeeding syndrome is very unpredictable.

[44] In Mr. MacGregor’s submission, if Dr. Duncan did not foresee the risk of refeeding syndrome for L, then how could the accused have foreseen it? If Dr. Duncan missed the urgency of the situation in mid-December 2022, then how can we expect that the accused should have recognized the urgency?

[45] With regard to the first degree murder allegation, on the causation issue specifically, during the closing submissions by Mr. MacGregor this Court expressed the view that, if L died from cardiac arrest brought on by an imbalance in his electrolytes, the Crown need only prove that the said imbalance was caused by L’s severe malnutrition which, in turn, the accused were responsible for. Mr. MacGregor agreed with that.

[46] On the biggest issue of intent, though, regarding the first degree murder allegation, Mr. MacGregor hammered, in closing submissions, at the notion that Ms. Hamber’s actions were totally inconsistent with any intention to harm or kill L.

[47] On that point, it was submitted by Mr. MacGregor that: (i) Ms. Hamber was constantly following-up with the medical professionals about the need for L to be admitted to an eating disorder clinic; (ii) Ms. Hamber was always trying to remedy what she perceived to be a lack of proper information-sharing between Drs. Dhaliwal and Duncan; and (iii) Ms. Hamber called a doctor for action for L the very day before the boy died.

[48] In terms of L’s treating physicians, Mr. MacGregor praised Drs. Brown and Duncan in his closing submissions and reserved his harshest criticism for Dr. Dhaliwal.

[49] The latter was just plain a bad witness, it was submitted. She missed the urgency of L’s situation. She failed to treat the boy’s eating disorder. She failed to fully appreciate that it was a mental disorder. She failed to bring to it the urgency that was described by Dr. Brown. She was largely ignorant of refeeding syndrome, rumination, and the concept of an imbalance in electrolytes. She was evasive in her testimony, and vague, and uncertain, and not credible or reliable, and she was prone to “passing the buck”, Mr. MacGregor argued. This Court should reject Dr. Dhaliwal’s evidence that she repeatedly told the accused to bring L to the emergency department of the hospital, Mr. MacGregor submitted.

[50] In closing submissions by Mr. MacGregor, this Court questioned why it matters whether the actions or inactions of someone else, including a medical professional, also contributed to L’s death, even if that is true. That would not defeat the causation element required for murder, this Court suggested aloud. Mr. MacGregor agreed but stated that the point goes to the issue of criminal intent.

[51] It was the issue of mens rea, a lack thereof, that Mr. MacGregor returned to time and time again in his closing submissions. Ms. Hamber had no intention to harm or to kill L No intention to starve him. No intention to deprive him of food. No intention to restrict his food. No intention to malnourish him, it was argued.

[52] On the issue of criminal intent, look at Ms. Hamber’s communications with the Halton CAS, for example, Mr. MacGregor submitted – they are totally inconsistent with any criminal intent, he argued. Specific examples were referenced by counsel and are found at tab 9 of the bound document filed by counsel for Ms. Hamber as part of their closing argument. The same can be said for Ms. Hamber’s communications with service providers, like ROCK, Mr. MacGregor further argued. Again, specific examples were referenced by counsel and are found at tab 10 of that same bound document. The same can be said for internal Halton CAS records created by workers like Alison Brown, Mr. MacGregor argued further. Once again, specific examples were referenced by counsel and are found at tab 12 of that same bound document.

[53] At the end of the first day of his closing submissions, Mr. MacGregor encapsulated the overall argument on the first degree murder allegation by saying that the Crown has not proven intent. The Crown cannot get to first degree murder through either planning or deliberation or through the route of a constructive first degree murder, it was argued. Counsel also submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused to harm or to kill L; why kill your source of income, it was asked rhetorically. Perhaps the accused should have brought L to the hospital when he had the serious episode at home in November 2022, and perhaps not doing so amounted to a failure by the accused to provide to L the necessaries of life, counsel acknowledged, but that failure was separated in time and by intervening medical events from L’s death on December 21, 2022, and thus, this is not a case of either murder or of unlawful act manslaughter, Mr. MacGregor submitted.

[54] On the second day of his closing submissions, Mr. MacGregor targeted specific problems with the Crown’s case.

[55] He argued that the Crown’s theory about hypothermia depends on the evidence of firefighter Scott Lamb about the toboggan that he supposedly saw inside the basement room where L died, which toboggan was allegedly used by the accused to transport L between the said room in the basement and a source of water to place the boy in to try to warm him up (similar to what happened during the troubling incident with L at home in November 2022), but the evidence of Mr. Lamb should be rejected because of several discrepancies in it, counsel submitted.

[56] As well, counsel argued that the Crown failed to call many key witnesses at trial, including the main Halton CAS workers who dealt with the family.

[57] Further, Mr. MacGregor submitted that the entire Crown theory of the accused being uncaring and abusive foster parents is inconsistent with the case notes of Halton CAS worker Alison Brown, and specific examples were referenced and can be found at tabs 12 and 13 of the bound book of documents filed by counsel for Ms. Hamber to aid with the closing submissions.

[58] Also, counsel argued that the Halton CAS was well aware of and approved of the behaviour management techniques being employed by the accused at home in order to deal with both of the boys, including the use of restraints, and again specific references were given to the materials filed.

[59] The concluding remarks of Mr. MacGregor were that: (i) the actions of the accused in seeking medical help for L in December 2022, including the very day before his death, show a lack of any criminal intent on the part of Ms. Hamber; (ii) J’s own evidence at trial supports the defence theory about L having some sort of an eating disorder (page 88 of the transcript of J’s January 11, 2023 police statement, where J speaks about L’s regurgitation); (iii) the Crown’s isolation theory (that the accused deliberately isolated the boys in order to hide the abuse that was occurring) makes no sense on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial; (iv) the texts between the accused are terrible but do not show an intention to harm or to kill L; (v) the parenting techniques employed by the accused, like the use of restraints on the boys, though abnormal, were to help protect the children; (vi) this Court can completely reject the evidence of Ms. Hamber but still acquit her because of a lack of mens rea; (vii) the November 2022 incident at home with L is troubling and could permit this Court to find a failure on the part of the accused to provide L with the necessaries of life (specifically, required medical attention), but the chain of causation required for any form of homicide was broken between then and the date of L’s death; and (viii) the post-offence conduct evidence being relied upon by the Crown is weak.

[60] Crown counsel, Ms. Frew and Ms. MacKenzie, delivered the third closing argument at trial. Ms. Frew focussed on two things: (i) an overview of how this Court should perceive the accused to be, and (ii) counts 1 through 3, involving J Ms. MacKenzie focussed on the allegation of the first degree murder of L.

[61] Ms. Frew submitted that these mothers want to blame everyone else, yet they controlled everything. They isolated the two boys. And why? Because the boys were so difficult to manage? If the accused are correct that these boys came to Burlington with unmanageable behaviours already ingrained in them and which necessitated extreme measures like physical restraints at home, then why was the former foster mother in Ottawa not forced to employ any of these extreme measures in her home?

[62] Ms. Frew queried, if L had an eating disorder as alleged by the accused, then why was there no mention of this alleged rumination to any medical professional until August 2022, well after the accused say that it began?

[63] Ms. Frew queried further, if the boys were so terribly difficult to manage at home, and if L actually had some eating disorder, then why did the accused refuse so many outside professional services that were made available to them, like Momentum, Canoe Therapy, Eagle’s Nest, Radius, and Danielle’s Place?

[64] Ms. Frew submitted that counts 1-3 do not even depend on this Court accepting the evidence of J, however, this Court should accept that evidence because J, whose evidence must be assessed in the context of child evidence, was both a credible and a reliable witness.

[65] During closing submissions, this Court asked the Crown to focus on the essential elements of the offences alleged in counts 1-3, and in that regard the following submissions were made by Ms. Frew: (i) on count 1, the unlawful confinement of J, (a) zip ties were used to restrain him in his onesie and in his wetsuit and inside his tent in his bedroom, and he was also locked inside his bedroom for lengthy periods of time, and (b) there was no lawful authority for any of those forms of J’s confinement, even if this Court accepts much of the evidence of the accused about J’s alleged extreme problem behaviours, and (c) section 43 of the Criminal Code is not applicable here, and (d) the defence of necessity is not applicable here; (ii) on count 2, the assault with a weapon against J, (a) zip ties were used by the accused to confine J within his wetsuit by having the bottoms of the wetsuit strapped with zip ties around his bare feet, and (b) in that context, the zip ties were being used as a weapon, and (c) the result was that J’s feet were scarred by the zip ties, and (d) this was done without J’s consent, which lack of consent was well known to the accused, and (e) neither section 43 of the Criminal Code nor the defence of necessity is applicable here; and (iii) on count 3, the failure to provide the necessaries of life to J, the accused deliberately denied to J adequate food, and free access to a bathroom, and medical care for the serious injuries to his feet, and the accused also denied to J basic care and companionship (even with his own brother, L) by socially isolating J and locking him inside his bedroom for lengthy periods of time.

[66] On count 3, the Crown also filed a written summary of the law as it relates to section 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

[67] On the first degree murder allegation, count 4, Ms. MacKenzie argued that we know the following. L was severely malnourished at the time of his death – the evidence of Drs. Cory and Pickup. The severe malnourishment was because of insufficient calories (not enough food) – the evidence of Drs. Cory and Pickup.

[68] Ms. MacKenzie argued that L’s insufficient caloric intake must have been due to the intentional actions of the accused. They had always been hyper-aware of L’s weight; they even complained about him having gained some weight while admitted to the Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatient Service (“CAPIS”) at Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. There is no other explanation for L’s dramatic weight loss and his emaciated state at the time of his death. He was never diagnosed with any eating disorder. There is no evidence that binge-eating disorder, if L had that, can lead to rumination syndrome; in fact, the evidence of Dr. Cory suggests otherwise. And there is zero evidence of rumination syndrome for L but for the bald assertions of the two accused, and they are incredible witnesses, Ms. MacKenzie submitted.

[69] Where is the evidence of L purging his food, that is, actually vomiting the food out of his body, Ms. MacKenzie queried. Without that, merely bringing up his food and then re-chewing and swallowing it again would not cause weight loss, it was argued by Ms. MacKenzie, relying upon the evidence of Dr. Cory.

[70] This whole notion of rumination was made-up by the accused, the Crown argues, to explain L’s dramatic weight loss and to fend-off concerns being raised by the Halton CAS, specifically Alison Brown.

[71] If L truly had rumination syndrome or real symptoms of some other eating disorder, then the accused would not have turned down Danielle’s Place in October 2022, just two months before L passed away, the Crown argues. That professional service is specifically for the treatment of eating disorders.

[72] Ms. MacKenzie outlined the alleged factual and legal pathway to conviction for first degree murder.

[73] The following argument was advanced by Crown counsel. This is a constructive first degree murder case, where planning and deliberation are not required. L needed emergency medical care during the troubling incident that occurred at home in November 2022. The accused failed to get him that care, thereby failing to provide L with the necessaries of life. That is the unlawful act – failure to provide to L the necessaries of life. The accused withheld that episode from the medical professionals, including Drs. Dhaliwal and Duncan. They did so because they were intentionally starving L; they were intentionally harming L, and they knew or ought to have known that their actions would cause the death of L. In fact, after the troubling incident at home in November 2022, the accused knew that L would likely die from their treatment of him, but they continued with that same treatment of him. They intended for L to die. They were waiting for the inevitable, that is the death of L, and the inevitable happened. L died from a cardiac arrest caused by severe malnourishment and resulting hypothermia. When he died, L was being unlawfully confined by the accused. That is the specified offence/the underlying crime of domination – unlawful confinement. The unlawful confinement itself did not cause L’s death, but it correlated with the failure to provide to L the necessaries of life, including urgent medical care and adequate food. There is no evidence of refeeding syndrome. But, even if L died from a cardiac arrest brought on by an electrolyte imbalance that was caused by refeeding syndrome, it makes no difference to the result – the accused are still guilty of constructive first degree murder because they caused L’s severe malnourishment and failed to get him urgent medical care.

[74] That is the argument of the Crown as it pertains to how this Court can find the accused guilty of the first degree murder of L.

[75] At the conclusion of the Crown’s closing address, defence counsel replied very briefly. Two points are worth mentioning, both made by Mr. MacGregor.

[76] First, he reiterated that the only real issue in this case is that of intent. That applies to every offence before the Court. On count 4 specifically, the only real question is whether this was an intentional killing of L.

[77] Second, the Crown’s alleged pathway to conviction on count 4, constructive first degree murder of L, is muddied because, here, the unlawful confinement and the failure to provide the necessaries of life are not distinct offences, as required by law. They are subsumed within each other. Thus, there can be no finding of guilt on count 4.

IV. The Issues

[78] I agree with defence counsel that the two major issues in this case are (i) intent and (ii) causation.

[79] As the case was argued, the first issue of intent applies to all four counts, and the second issue of causation applies to count 4.

[80] There is one further issue to be addressed – the defence of necessity. That was raised only by counsel for Ms. Cooney and only with regard to counts 1 and 2.

V. The Presumption of Innocence and the Basic Legal Principles

Presumption of Innocence

[81] Each of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[82] That presumption of innocence applies to each accused individually and to each alleged offence individually. In other words, just because one accused is found guilty of something does not mean that both accused must be found guilty of that something. And just because one accused is found guilty of something does not mean that the said accused must be found guilty of everything.

[83] The presumption of innocence remains throughout the trial and during this Court’s assessment of the case, and it is defeated only if and when the Crown proves each and every essential element of the offence in question beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Burden and the Standard of Proof

[84] The obligation to prove the guilt of each accused rests with the Crown. That burden of proof never shifts to either accused. Neither accused had any obligation to testify at trial or to present any evidence at trial or to prove anything.

[85] Unless the Crown has proven each and every essential element of the offence in question beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty of the offence charged.

[86] A reasonable doubt is not one that is imaginary, far-fetched, or frivolous, and not one that is based on sympathy or prejudice. Based on reason and common sense, it arises logically from the evidence or the absence of evidence.

[87] Proof of probable or likely guilt is not enough – that falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An accused who is found to be probably or likely guilty must be acquitted.

[88] Although proof to an absolute certainty is not required, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on the civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

[89] If, after considering all of the evidence and the lack of evidence, this Court is sure that the accused committed the offence in question, then I should find that accused guilty of it. Otherwise, that accused should be acquitted.

[90] In a case that is entirely or largely circumstantial, it is a serious omission for the trier of fact to not specifically recognize that a reasonable doubt may arise from a lack of evidence. R. v. Anderson, 2003 31748 (ON CA), at para. 36.

The Evidence of Witnesses, including the Accused, and the W.(D.) Instruction

[91] This Court may accept all, some, or none of any witness’ evidence, including each of the accused. There are many factors that may be considered in determining what weight, if any, to give to a witness’ evidence, but those factors include whether the witness has been inconsistent in their evidence, and whether the witness has made a lot of mistakes in their evidence, and whether the witness has a reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side than the other. The degree to which this Court relies upon the evidence of any particular witness, including the accused, does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify, one way or another. Of course, this Court must consider not only the testimony of the witnesses but also the exhibit evidence that has been filed.

[92] In our case, both accused testified. The evidence of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber, as it relates to the specifics of the four charges against them, may be summarized as follows.

[93] On the unlawful confinement offence, they each admitted that there were times when J was confined, whether through the use of restraints or because he was locked inside his bedroom (with the lock on the outside of the bedroom door). That was done, however, in order to protect the child and to manage his very, very challenging behaviours.

[94] On the assault with a weapon offence, they each admitted that zip-ties were used on J’s feet and that, unintentionally, those zip-ties caused injuries to J’s feet. It was an isolated incident. It was done to help the child in that it was an attempt to prevent J from picking at and hurting himself.

[95] On the failure to provide the necessaries of life offence, they each maintained that J was provided with everything that he needed, including adequate food and medical attention, although their evidence about getting medical attention for the cuts on J’s feet (see the photograph marked Exhibit 160) was problematic in that neither accused gave any evidence about seeking any medical attention for that. For example, in direct examination, Ms. Hamber testified that the cuts on J’s feet shown in the said photograph were, indeed, caused by the zip-ties that were placed by the accused around J’s feet. That was in August 2022. The only medical attention that either accused testified about regarding the cuts on J’s feet was with regard to a visit to McMaster Hospital in December 2022, four months later (see the photograph marked Exhibit 161).

[96] On the first degree murder offence, the accused denied that they intended to harm or to kill L. They denied, further, that they did anything, or failed to do something, that caused L to die. They described L as being a boy with severe behavioural and mental health difficulties. They described L as being a child with some sort of undiagnosed eating disorder that caused him to bring up his food and then either expel it out of his body or, more often, re-chew and re-swallow it. They described this eating disorder as being something called rumination syndrome. They explained to the Court that they did everything in their power to try to get L the help that he needed, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. Ultimately, and tragically, as they explained, L died one evening while inside his bedroom. He was found unresponsive by Ms. Cooney, who tried to revive him through CPR. It was not successful.

[97] It is fair to say that the evidence of each accused, if accepted, constitutes a complete defence to the first degree murder allegation (count 4), and thus, the classic instruction set out in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 would be appropriate.

[98] It is less clear to me whether the same could be said for counts 1 through 3. In any event, I am prepared to say that each accused’s evidence may be fairly summarized as including a denial of any form of a guilty mind, mens rea, and thus, I will self-instruct the same way for all four counts, a decision that undoubtedly inures to the benefit of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber.

[99] On that basis, with regard to each and every count on the Indictment, if I believe the evidence of the accused, I must find her not guilty. Even if I do not believe the evidence of the accused, however, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about her guilt, I must find her not guilty. Even if I completely reject the evidence of the accused in that I neither accept it nor am left in a reasonable doubt in light of it, a finding of guilt is still not the inevitable result. In that circumstance, I must still acquit the accused unless, on the basis of all of the evidence at trial, including the absence of evidence, I am satisfied of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[100] Of course, the W.(D.) instruction is not a sacred formula. The point is that this Court does not need to believe the defence evidence on the vital issues; it is enough that, in the context of all of the evidence, including the absence of evidence, the conflicting evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.

VI. The Essential Elements of the Offences

Unlawful Confinement, section 279(2) CCC

[101] For each offence and for each accused, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of that offence.

[102] On count 1, unlawful confinement, the Crown must prove the following:

(i) that the accused intentionally confined J; and

(ii) that the said confinement of J was without lawful authority.

[103] On item (ii), this Court will also consider section 43 of the Criminal Code, although neither accused raised that issue (only the Crown raised it).

The Excuse of Necessity, section 8(3) CCC

[104] On count 1, I will also consider what counsel for Ms. Cooney has raised as a potential excuse for the crime – necessity. In that regard, I will consider the three elements in the excuse of necessity:

(i) imminent danger or peril;

(ii) no reasonable alternative to what the accused did; and

(iii) a proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided.

[105] If any of those three elements does not apply, then the accused is not excused from criminal liability on the basis of necessity.

[106] It is not the burden of the accused to prove that what she did was involuntary because it was necessary. Instead, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what the accused did was voluntary and the result of free choice. If I have a reasonable doubt about each of the elements outlined above, then I must find the accused not guilty.

[107] In other words, I must ask first, was the accused in imminent danger and peril? If I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer is “no”, then that is the end of the inquiry – necessity does not excuse the accused from criminal liability. If I have a reasonable doubt on that question, then I must go further to the second question. The second question is, was there no reasonable legal alternative to what the accused did? If I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a reasonable legal alternative, then that is the end of the inquiry – necessity does not excuse the accused from criminal liability. If I have a reasonable doubt on that question, then I must go further to the third and final question. The third and final question is, was the harm caused less serious than the harm she tried to avoid? If I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the harm caused was equally or more serious than the harm she tried to avoid, then necessity does not excuse the accused from criminal liability. If I have a reasonable doubt on that question, then I must find the accused not guilty as the excuse of necessity would have been established.

Assault with a Weapon, section 267(a) CCC

[108] On count 2, assault with a weapon, the Crown must prove the following:

(i) that the accused intentionally applied force to J;

(ii) that J did not consent to the force that the accused intentionally applied;

(iii) that the accused knew that J did not consent; and

(iv) that a weapon, zip ties, was involved in the assault.

[109] On this offence, as with count 1, this Court will also consider section 43 of the Criminal Code, although neither accused raised that issue (only the Crown raised it).

[110] Further, on this offence, as with count 1, this Court will also consider the excuse of necessity, an argument raised by counsel for Ms. Cooney.

Failure to provide the Necessaries of Life, section 215(2)(a)(i) CCC

[111] On count 3, failure to provide the necessaries of life, this Court will not consider either section 43 of the Criminal Code or the excuse of necessity as neither was raised by any counsel at trial.

[112] The Crown must prove the following:

(i) that the accused was J’s foster parent;

(ii) that J was a child under 16 years of age at the time;

(iii) that the accused had a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to J;

(iv) that the accused failed to provide the necessaries of life to J;

(v) that the accused had no lawful excuse for that failure; and

(vi) that J was in destitute or necessitous circumstances at the time.

[113] It should be noted that the offence charged here is not the same as that found in section 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. In the latter section, the Crown must prove something additional – that the accused’s failure to provide the necessaries of life to the alleged victim endangered the alleged victim’s life or caused or was likely to cause the health of the alleged victim to be endangered permanently.

[114] That additional item is not required to be proven in our case. It is unnecessary, in our case, for this Court to conclude that J’s life was endangered or that his health was in fact or was likely to be endangered permanently as a result of the accused’s failure to provide to him the necessaries of life.

[115] The Crown in our case must prove, however, and this is in addition to the other essential elements of the offence enumerated above, that the conduct of the accused represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person where it was objectively foreseeable that J was in destitute or necessitous circumstances and, further, there was some foreseeable risk of harm. R. v. Cassie-Berube, [2024] O.J. No. 698 (ON SC), at para. 78; R. v. C.O., 2022 ONCA 103, at paras. 45, 64, and 65.

[116] On that very last point, foreseeable risk of harm, it could be worded as follows, taken from Watt’s jury instruction, Final 215, but amending it to replace the concept of endangerment with that of harm: the Crown must prove that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that failure to provide the necessaries would risk harm to J.

[117] Section 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code “addresses the situation in which the [accused’s] failure to perform their duties under s. 215(1)(a) puts the child to whom the duty is owed at risk of harm because of the child’s dire circumstances (destitute or necessitous)”. The terms “destitute” and “necessitous” are not defined in the Criminal Code but are commonly defined as “lacking necessaries of life, needy”. R. v. S.J., 2015 ONCA 97, at paras. 64 and 66.

[118] It has been held that destitute and necessitous circumstances include those in which the child’s health or safety was at risk and the child was in need of protection. Cassie-Berube, at para. 81; C.O., at para. 64.

[119] “Necessaries of life” is a term to be interpreted fairly generously. It includes obvious things like food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention, but it has also been found to include things like the protection of a child from harm. S.J., at paras. 50-51.

Constructive First Degree Murder, section 231(5) CCC

[120] On count 4, constructive first degree murder, for what I hope are obvious reasons, this Court will not be considering either section 43 of the Criminal Code or the excuse of necessity.

[121] The Crown must prove the following:

(i) that the accused caused the death of L;

(ii) that the accused caused the death of L unlawfully, here – by failing to provide to L the necessaries of life;

(iii) that the accused had the state of mind required for murder, that is, that the accused either (a) meant to kill L or (b) meant to cause bodily harm to L that the accused knew was likely to kill L and was reckless as to whether L died or not;

(iv) that the accused committed an underlying crime of domination, here – the unlawful confinement of L;

(v) that the unlawful confinement of L and the murder of L were part of the same series of events; and

(vi) that the accused was an active participant in the killing of L.

[122] With regard to item (i), causation has a factual component and a legal component. Factual causation is concerned with the question of how the victim came to his or her death, in a medical, mechanical, or physical sense, and with the contribution of the accused to that result. Legal causation is concerned with the question of whether the accused should be held responsible in law for the victim’s death. R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, at paras. 44-45.

[123] “Where, as here, the Crown relies on s. 235(1) of the Code, the [trier of fact] must first find that the accused is guilty of murder before moving on to a consideration of whether the accused’s participation in the underlying offence and in the killing of the victim was so direct and substantial that a conviction for first degree murder is appropriate”. Nette, at para. 50.

[124] There is only one standard of causation for all homicide offences in Canadian criminal law. How that standard is expressed, however, may vary depending on the circumstances of the case. It should not always be expressed as one of “substantial cause” (the Harbottle language), and it should not always be expressed as one of “beyond de minimis” (the classic Smithers language). Nette, at para. 66.

[125] The causation standard expressed in Smithers v. The Queen, 1977 7 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506 is still valid and applicable to all forms of homicide. Instead of using the Latin expression “beyond de minimis”, however, it may be preferable to frame the causation test in positive terms using a phrase such as “significant contributing cause”. Nette, at para. 71.

[126] In the case of constructive first degree murder under section 231(5) of the Criminal Code, however, R. v. Harbottle, 1993 71 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306 requires additional instructions. In such a case, the terminology of “substantial cause” should be used; “the accused’s actions must have been an essential, substantial and integral part of the killing of the victim”. Nette, at para. 73.

[127] This discussion is all somewhat academic on the facts of our case, though, in my opinion. Our case is not like Smithers in that it is not a thin-skull victim case. Our case is also not like Harbottle, involving multiple parties and arguably different degrees of participation among those multiple parties. And our case is also not at all like R. v. Hallett, [1969] S.A.S.R. 141, the landmark Australian case where the victim drowned from the rising tide of the water after being beaten and left unconscious on the beach by the accused.

[128] As Justice Arbour so helpfully observed in the majority opinion in Nette, at para. 74, causation is rarely an issue in murder offences and usually arises in cases with factual circumstances similar to those in Smithers, Harbottle, or Hallett.

[129] In any event, so as to frame the causation issue in as advantageous a manner possible from the perspective of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber, this Court will self-instruct that, with regard to the first essential element of the section 231(5) offence as described above, it must be found that whatever each of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber did was a “substantial cause” of L’s death.

[130] With regard to item (v), the unlawful confinement of L by the accused and the murder (the killing) of L by the accused must involve two distinct acts. They cannot be one and the same. Having said that, they must be closely connected with one another; they must be part of the same series of events; they must both be part of a single ongoing transaction.

[131] Constructive first degree murder can sometimes be confusing. In addition to resorting to very helpful guides, like Watt’s jury instruction at Final 231-D, and looking at the leading jurisprudence, in particular the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Harbottle and R. v. Sundman, 2022 SCC 31, it is helpful to step back and actually read through section 231(5) of the Criminal Code itself.

[132] Just reading that section tells us a lot. It tells us that there are different types of first degree murder – in this particular subsection (there are others as well), (i) a murder that is planned and deliberate (not our case) and (ii), our case, a murder when the death is caused while committing or attempting to commit a specified offence – something expressly referred to in clauses (a) through (f) of section 231(5). Clause (e) includes “forcible [or unlawful] confinement”.

[133] That specified offence – the something expressly referred to in clauses (a) through (f) of section 231(5), here the unlawful confinement of L, is sometimes referred to as the underlying crime of domination or the underlying offence – it all means the same thing.

[134] In my opinion, it would be preferable for judges and lawyers to always refer to whatever is applicable in clauses (a) through (f) of section 231(5) as the “underlying crime of domination”. I think that expression is most consistent with the jurisprudence from Canada’s highest court. And I think, further, that the said expression best explains the rationale for why we have constructive first degree murder. We have that offence because Parliament decided that there are some circumstances where a murder that would otherwise not be first degree murder is elevated to first degree murder because of the contemporaneity between, and the seriousness of having both, a murder and another specified crime, whether attempted or completed.

[135] In summary, as the Supreme Court of Canada held in both Harbottle and Sundman, constructive first degree murder requires these five things:

(i) underlying crime of domination (here, the unlawful confinement of L);

(ii) murder (here, the actus reus is the failure to provide to L the necessaries of life, plus we cannot forget the required mens rea or state of mind for murder);

(iii) substantial cause;

(iv) no intervening act; and

(v) same transaction.

VII. A Summary of the Trial Evidence

[136] There are two charts appended to these reasons for judgment. They, of course, form part of the reasons for judgment, but I have dealt with the evidence in this manner to make the decision an easier read and because, as stated above, the case really turns on five things: (i) the ante-mortem electronic communications among the accused and Ed which were seized by the police from the accused’s portable devices, along with the other content discovered on those devices; (ii) the evidence of J; (iii) the evidence of those medical professionals who treated L before his death; (iv) the post-mortem findings and opinions of the two expert witnesses; and (v) the evidence of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber. Those five things are dealt with below.

[137] Appendix “A” is a summary of the viva voce testimony heard at trial, and Appendix “B” is a summary of the exhibit evidence received at trial.

VIII. This Court Rejects the Evidence of the Accused

[138] I do not believe the evidence of the accused. I am not left in a state of reasonable doubt by anything testified to by the accused, whether alone or in conjunction with any other evidence adduced at trial.

[139] Those conclusions apply to each of the two accused. Those conclusions apply to each of the four counts.

[140] These are some of the problems with the evidence of the accused. Overall, I found each of the accused’s evidence at trial to be replete with contradictions, inconsistencies, and things lacking in basic common sense.

[141] First, on the issue of the boys’ Indigeneity, the evidence of both Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber was not credible.

[142] When Ms. Cooney was asked why they contacted an Indigenous worker after J was apprehended from them, she stated that the worker had been supportive of them in the past and, when probed further, admitted that the worker’s focus was on Indigenous children (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, page 12). The boys had that worker “because they’re Indigenous”, she stated, although she went on to say that there was some confusion regarding the Indigeneity of the boys (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, page 78).

[143] Exhibits 183A and 183B are one of the videos, and the transcript of that video, that Ms. Hamber made of herself after being arrested. In that video, she speaks about a conspiracy theory and there never having been any proof that the boys were in fact Indigenous.

[144] This Court would ask, rhetorically of course, if this was a grand conspiracy by the child welfare agencies to market the boys as being Indigenous when they in fact were not, and the accused knew that they were not, then why did the accused turn first, in their time of greatest need after J was taken from them, to the assistance of a worker who they knew worked only with children who were in fact Indigenous? With respect, it makes no sense.

[145] Second, on the issue of internet searches made after L’s death, Ms. Cooney testified that she searched things like “murder” and “manslaughter” because she was anxious and was living in the “what if” game; she was spiraling downward and questioned what if they were told by the authorities that it was murder (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, page 22).

[146] This Court will never be convinced that a parent who loses a child to the effects of some disease or accident or eating disorder, as alleged by these accused, would choose to spend her time grieving that unbearable loss by searching on the internet terminology about homicide. That is especially so when that same parent, Ms. Cooney, is busy looking up on the internet how to erase footage on cameras.

[147] No, I find that a parent who chooses to do that is one who has good reason to be concerned about what homicide is and about getting rid of damning camera footage that would give credence to there having been a homicide. That is the only reasonable inference to be drawn.

[148] Ms. Cooney testified that the internet searches about erasing camera footage was because they had videos of the boys doing bad things, like having temper tantrums, and she did not want to remember them that way. She also testified that she researched how to recover deleted camera footage just in case she accidentally deleted a fun video of the boys (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, pages 22-23).

[149] That evidence makes absolutely no sense, on many different levels. I think that it is very unlikely that someone would search how to recover erased camera footage before anything has actually been erased. If the accused had videos of the boys doing bad things, then why did they never share any of those videos with the many professionals and service providers who they were complaining to? Finally, if the concern was to get rid of things that were negative because the accused did not want to remember the boys that way, then why did they then decide to keep negative things, like the very troubling videos that we watched in the courtroom of L crying to the camera about being hungry and L going up and down the stairs?

[150] Third, we have the names that the accused used for the boys, as evidenced by their electronic communications sent and received before L died (Exhibit 1).

[151] During her examination-in-chief, names that Ms. Cooney used to refer to L were put to her. These included: “douche”, “barfer”, “fuck face”, “loser”, “they”, “moron”, “twat”, and “it”. When asked why she used these names, she claimed that she has an issue with “frustration language” and that she was not calling the child that, but his behaviour (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, pages 23-24).

[152] That explanation makes no sense. Using the insulting label “moron” is very different, for example, than saying that what L did was moronic or stupid.

[153] During her cross-examination by the other defence team, counsel put to Ms. Cooney different phrases that she used to refer to individuals. She was asked by counsel if that is the type of language that she uses to identify someone. Her response was that she would not refer to the person using those terms but would use those terms to describe a behaviour of theirs (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 4).

[154] I do not understand it. It is absurd. For example, stating “tomorrow shall be fun with her dumbass though” does not point to describing a behaviour. If it is the behaviour that is being referred to in such a vulgar manner, and not the person, then why not say “that was a dumb thing for her to do”, for example?

[155] No, I find that these disgusting labels for the children were habitually used by both accused because they hated the boys. They loathed them. They deeply resented them having come into their lives and not having turned out to be what was expected.

[156] In the beginning of her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney agreed that there is nothing positive that she said about L in the thousands of text messages tendered during the trial. However, she also said that she loved the boys, and that was reflected in the way she spoke to them, cared for them, interacted with them, and talked about them most of the time (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, pages 22-24).

[157] That is not true, however. The way in which she talked about the boys, in private with her own spouse, was almost universally negative.

[158] Fourth, there is the issue of the coat restraint device that was employed by the accused.

[159] During her examination-in-chief, Ms. Cooney was asked if she wrapped J in a coat backwards, with something tied around it – she said no (trial transcript, December 8, 2025, page 43), which was contrary to what J said during his testimony.

[160] It would seem to me that, on this point, the evidence of J is more believable than that of Ms. Cooney because we know from Ms. Cooney’s evidence that a jacket or a coat was, in fact, used by the accused as a way to physically restrain J Ms. Cooney agreed during cross-examination by the other defence team and by the Crown that sometimes they used a jacket – the jacket was closed up front, probably zipped up at the front, such that the boys’ arms were not in the sleeves – the sleeves would be affixed behind (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 15).

[161] If one is serious about ensuring that the child is restrained within the jacket, then it makes sense to me that one would secure the arms at the rear by tying something around the jacket, just as J described.

[162] Fifth, there is the issue of the wetsuits. During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney stated that she hated the choices the boys were making. When asked by the Crown if that included urinating in zip-tied wetsuits, Ms. Cooney agreed (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 25).

[163] This Court would ask, how is it a choice to urinate in a wetsuit that one is secured in for so much time that one has to go to the bathroom but cannot because of the secured wetsuit?

[164] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney agreed that the boys would sometimes be sleeping overnight in wetsuits that were zip-tied (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 94). It would seem to me that, in those instances, it would not be their “choice” to urinate in their wetsuits.

[165] Sixth, one of the text messages put to Ms. Cooney in her cross-examination by the Crown was “Call Singleton and tell him venla[faxine] now.” The Crown put to her that she asked Ms. Hamber to call the psychiatrist and get one of the boys more venlafaxine right away – Ms. Cooney said, “if it was required”. However, Ms. Cooney agreed that the “if required” part was not in the text messages, and she also said that it could have been that they were low on the medication and needed a refill.

[166] But this seems to be incredible given the context of the messages and the messages that preceded that one text; those earlier messages talked about the hole that one of the boys made in his tent (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 32). So, in that context, it does not make sense for Ms. Cooney to all of a sudden in that text exchange say to call Dr. Paul Singleton merely because they were running low on the medication and needed a refill.

[167] No, I find that the demand by Ms. Cooney for Ms. Hamber to call the psychiatrist to get more medication was to discipline the boy for damaging his tent.

[168] Seventh, there is the issue of the boys’ nighttime routine.

[169] During cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney said that the children would be sent to their rooms between 5 and 7 p.m. to decompress for the day; they would not be actually sleeping, though. She also said that they would gather together and read a story before saying goodnight.

[170] This seems to be inconsistent with Ms. Cooney’s other evidence that she and Ms. Hamber would have dinner after putting the boys in their bedrooms. The Crown said to Ms. Cooney, “but you weren’t reading the stories because you were having dinner with Ms. Hamber after you put the boys in their rooms”, and Ms. Cooney agreed with that.

[171] Further, Ms. Cooney said that the boys would go into their rooms between 5 and 7 p.m. to decompress, yet at a later point during her cross-examination Ms. Cooney stated that the boys, around that same time of day, would be upstairs with the women telling them their “memories” of life in the prior foster home. That would appear to be an internal inconsistency regarding what time the boys were usually in their rooms and how their evenings would normally play out inside the home.

[172] The references on this issue are page 27 of the December 10, 2025 trial transcript and page 56 of the December 9, 2025 trial transcript.

[173] Eighth, we have the issue of the boys’ waking up in the morning routine.

[174] There are text messages that suggest that Ms. Hamber would not get the children up until around noon. Ms. Cooney was claiming at trial that Ms. Hamber did get them up in the morning for breakfast and activities, usually around 9 a.m., although no text messages reflected that. But one of the messages says that Ms. Hamber had not gotten them up (it was, at that time, 11 or 11:30 a.m.), and that she could deal with them, and then Ms. Cooney tells Ms. Hamber to leave the boys for her to wake up when she gets home (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 60).

[175] That exchange between the accused certainly does not appear to suggest that Ms. Hamber usually woke the boys up for breakfast and activities around 9 a.m.

[176] Ninth, there is the issue of the alleged damage that the boys caused to the home.

[177] Here, the accused claimed around $60,000 worth of damage to their home caused by the boys, but this claim does not appear to be supported by the damage Ms. Cooney explained during her cross-examination by the Crown.

[178] Ms. Cooney described the following: the children poking at their clothing, causing holes and rips; punching and kicking the front door (the outer screen door is what was damaged – dented at the bottom); damaging the patio door – kicking it, smashing on it, and throwing things at it – it would not slide easily as a result; damaging the freezer – the seal kept breaking, and it was not keeping its temperature; breaking toys; damaging the glass dining room table – the corner of the table broke off, although Ms. Cooney was not sure how that happened; breaking a bed frame – the slates that the mattress sits in; urination on the mattresses, probably about four of them; urinating under the cat tower, though neither accused saw that happen; breaking plates and cups; causing damage to the bedroom walls; and causing damage to the closet door of L’s bedroom.

[179] In my view, a whopping $60,000 seems wildly excessive. Further, there are no photos or videos of this widespread damage spoken about. Only minimal damage has been documented.

[180] These accused were frequently complaining to others about the boys’ destructive behaviour inside the home. These accused doubted whether their complaints were being taken seriously and were being acted on. So why not take the very simple step of showing the service providers and the professionals proof of the tens of thousands of dollars of damage caused throughout the home? It makes no sense at all.

[181] The reference on this issue is pages 66-78 of the December 9, 2025 trial transcript.

[182] Tenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about L having allegedly broken Ms. Hamber’s arm makes no sense. According to Ms. Cooney, L punched Ms. Hamber, causing Ms. Hamber to fall and fracture her arm. For a broken arm, Ms. Hamber was given a sling. She could not wear a cast because of her allergies (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, page 80).

[183] Allergies or not, I find it hard to believe that a broken arm could be dealt with by way of a sling.

[184] Eleventh, Ms. Cooney’s evidence was inconsistent about how long the boys were zip-tied in their sleep sacks.

[185] A review of pages 93, 98, and 99 of the December 9, 2025 trial transcript reveals that Ms. Cooney went from (a) saying that the boys would sometimes be zip-tied inside their sleep sacks when they were sleeping, to (b) saying that the boys would not be zip-tied in their sleep sacks for more than one hour (it would seem very odd to me that the boys only ever slept for an hour or less), to (c) going back to saying that the boys would be zip-tied inside their sleep sacks overnight.

[186] Twelfth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about L’s food intake makes no sense. He apparently loved food and loved to eat, and they allegedly always gave him lots of food (trial transcript, December 10, 2025, page 93), but the text messages are much more consistent with the accused having limited L’s food consumption, and we know that L died in an emaciated state.

[187] Thirteenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the frequency of restraints having been used on the boys makes no sense. She agreed that the restraints were used to deal with the boys’ bad behaviours, particularly their temper tantrums, and she agreed that the accused told the Halton CAS that the boys were having tantrums a lot in the home, but she would not agree with the Crown that the boys, therefore, needed to be restrained quite often (trial transcript, December 9, 2025, pages 104-105). That evidence does not line-up.

[188] Fourteenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about her father, Ed, either makes no sense or shows a callous disregard for the health and welfare of the children. Ed was failing mentally, causing Ms. Cooney so much concern that she arranged for her father to see medical specialists, and yet Ed was often in charge of looking after the boys and giving them their medication, and he was also in charge of getting L safely out of the house in the event of a fire (trial transcript, December 10 2025, pages 5, 7, and 10).

[189] Why would the accused entrust those serious responsibilities to someone that they knew had diminished mental faculties? It is very odd.

[190] Fifteenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence was inconsistent on the boys’ attachments to their former foster family. She first agreed with the Crown that the boys were closely tied and attached to that family, but she later disagreed with the Crown’s suggestion that the boys remained attached to that family (trial transcripts, December 9, 2025 at page 49 and December 10, 2025 at pages 14-15).

[191] Sixteenth, the evidence of Ms. Cooney about the “disclosures” allegedly made by the boys about being abused by their former foster parents makes no sense.

[192] As an example, the Crown put to Ms. Cooney a text exchange where Ms. Hamber messaged Ms. Cooney, “disclosure time”, and a little later there is a text from Ms. Cooney to Ms. Hamber which outlines one of these alleged “disclosures” made by one or both of the boys (trial transcript, December 10, 2025, page 32).

[193] When this Court asked Ms. Cooney what “disclosure” or “disclosure time” meant to her, she said that would have meant that one of the kids shared with Ms. Hamber that they had a bad memory and wanted to disclose it; Ms. Cooney would then type out what one of the boys was saying (trial transcript, December 10 2025, page 35).

[194] Why in the world would Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney be communicating like this by text? They are in the same place. With the same company – the boys. With the same objective – to get down on paper what the boys say about the former foster family. But the whole exercise begins with Ms. Hamber texting, “disclosure time”, to Ms. Cooney? It makes no sense.

[195] The Crown did put to Ms. Cooney a text exchange between the two accused, with Ms. Hamber stating, “disclosure”, and Ms. Cooney saying, “forgot about that too”. That text exchange seems inconsistent with what Ms. Cooney said was the meaning behind the “disclosure time” texts from Ms. Hamber. If the disclosures are said to arise when one of the boys approaches them, how could Ms. Cooney have forgotten?

[196] No, I find that messages like “disclosure time” mean that it is time for Ms. Cooney to make-up another false allegation of child abuse at the hands of the former foster family. Such a message is like a cue from Ms. Hamber to Ms. Cooney, as sometimes Ms. Cooney would “forget” about doing that.

[197] Seventeenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about whether the accused would withhold food from the boys as punishment is totally incredible.

[198] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney stated that she and Ms. Hamber did not withhold food as punishment. But some of the text messages between the accused plainly say otherwise.

[199] For instance, in one of the messages, Ms. Cooney says to Ms. Hamber, “What’s the plan here? Misses dinner if no stairs?” (trial transcript, December 10, 2025, page 77). It could not be any clearer – the boy would miss dinner as a punishment for not doing the stairs as required.

[200] As another example, Ms. Cooney texts Ms. Hamber, “No food unless calm.” (trial transcript, December 10, 2025, page 78).

[201] As another example, the text exchange between the accused at Christmas time in 2021 reads that the accused made L do burpees in the shower because he had complained about never having food (trial transcript, December 10, 2025, page 89). Clearly, not only would the boys sometimes be punished with no food, but they would also sometimes be punished with exercise when they complained about no food.

[202] Eighteenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about their rules surrounding food was contradictory.

[203] At pages 57-58 of the December 10, 2025 trial transcript, Ms. Cooney agrees with some rules that they had for food at home – the accused decided what the boys could eat, where they could eat it, and how long they could have to eat it, and there were locks on the cupboards so that the boys could not freely go into the cupboards to get food. But then, Ms. Cooney disagrees with all of that except for the locks on the cupboards (page 91 of the same trial transcript).

[204] Nineteenth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about zip-ties on the boys’ sleeping tents was inconsistent and not credible.

[205] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney agreed that she understood from Holly Simmons of the Halton CAS that it was not at all a safety issue, but rather, there were to be no zip-ties on the tents so that the boys could move around the room (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 4). Ms. Cooney also said, at page 97 of the December 10, 2025 trial transcript, that when they had a conversation with Holly Simmons around the zip-ties on the tents, she recalled Ms. Simmons saying to remove the zip-ties.

[206] However, that evidence is totally at odds with Exhibit 193 – in that email, Ms. Simmons clearly stated that no zip-ties were allowed on the tents because of fire safety issues (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 11).

[207] Then there is Exhibit 155A – the audio recording of J yelling “don’t zip it”. Ms. Hamber also says in that audio, “you break that tent, you sleep in the yard”. In the cross examination of Ms. Cooney by the Crown, Ms. Cooney did not admit that the audio refers to the accused using zip-ties on J’s tent, despite the clear context of what Ms. Hamber states in the audio.

[208] In addition, Ms. Cooney claimed that they stopped zip tying the tents right away, after July 3, 2019, but there is a group text exchange from April 10, 2022 where Ed refers to a zip-tie on the zipper of one of the tents. Ms. Cooney said that the zip-tie could have been on the zipper to make it easier for her father to use the zipper (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, pages 16 and 20). That explanation does not appear to make any sense to me.

[209] Additionally, during her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney was shown a text message where she asks her father to get one of the boys out of his “zipped-in tent” to go use the washroom (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 22). Ed replied that he needs scissors and asked where they were. Ms. Cooney denied that the only inference that can be drawn here is that the boy was inside his tent and with a zip-tie securing the tent shut.

[210] Some things just need to be conceded.

[211] Twentieth, we have the issue of L’s camping toilet.

[212] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney stated that once the camping toilet was placed inside L’s room, then he was not secured in his onesie or wetsuit with a zip-tie (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 23). But then the Crown suggested that the texts, when you look at them overall, suggest that the boys were, at least in 2022 (which was well after the camping toilet was introduced), zip tied into their wetsuits on a regular basis, including overnight – to which Ms. Cooney agreed. That is a direct contradiction.

[213] Further, Ms. Cooney claimed that the camping toilet was for L’s convenience and not because the tent was locked or zip tied shut (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 33). That evidence seems to lack basic common sense in that, if L was not stuck in his tent, he could have gone to the bathroom like a normal child instead of being treated like a wild animal who is forced to go to the bathroom in a small bucket where he sleeps.

[214] Twenty-first, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about what J would allegedly do to his own bum was not credible.

[215] She said that J would shove many fingers or attempt to shove his whole hand up his butt. This was supposedly because of flashbacks of abuse at the hands of his former foster family. When probed more on this, though, Ms. Cooney admitted that she does not know if any such abuse happened, or why J allegedly did that, or even the extent to which J actually did that (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 26).

[216] Twenty-second, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the utility of the wetsuits makes no sense. She agreed that she had said that a mattress protector on the beds would not solve the toileting problem because the urine came out of the wetsuits, but she also testified that one of the main purposes of the wetsuit was for toileting issues (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, pages 26-27). Those two things do not mesh.

[217] Twenty-third, Ms. Cooney claimed, during her cross-examination by the Crown, that one of the boys had an accident at school (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 28), but the Court did not hear about this from any of the school witnesses. If that had actually happened, I would have expected that one of the many school witnesses who testified at trial would have mentioned it.

[218] Twenty-fourth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the need for the boys to wear helmets, and about the helmets generally, is absurd and not credible.

[219] Ms. Cooney claimed that the boys had helmets for concern that they would smash their bare faces off hard things, actually targeting their faces, which they in fact did, yet Ms. Cooney agreed that there was no medical attention ever sought for any injuries sustained by either of the boys ramming their bare faces and heads into hard objects (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 47).

[220] Ms. Cooney agreed with the Crown that it was her evidence that they never put anything in front of the helmet, or over the helmet, or under the cage of the helmet, but texts from June 12, 2022 clearly say otherwise – the accused discuss putting something over the helmet (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, pages 67-68).

[221] In addition, Ms. Cooney claimed that the boys did not sleep with the helmets on, but the texts from June 12, 2022 suggest that the boys were, at least on that day, going to sleep with the helmets on (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, pages 69-70).

[222] Twenty-fifth, the police statement provided by Ms. Cooney runs against her credibility as a witness.

[223] Ms. Cooney agreed that she told Sergeant Powers that the helmet had a zip-tie on it since the strap was ripped off, but that evidence contradicts what can clearly be seen in the photo at Exhibit 163. In that photo, there are multiple zip-ties at the rear of the helmet. Ms. Cooney agreed at trial that she never mentioned these other zip-ties during her police interview (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 77).

[224] Clearly, in my view, while being asked by Sergeant Powers specifically about restraints in the context of the helmets, Ms. Cooney deliberately gave a false impression in saying that a zip-tie was used only to replace a broken chin strap. I reject any explanation otherwise, including what Ms. Cooney offered at trial – that she just froze when being asked those questions because of the trauma that she had endured.

[225] In another example from her police statement, Ms. Cooney stated that restraints were used partly because J was a “runner” (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 80), but what about the times he was outside the home on his own with what appears to be neither accused within sight? It makes no sense.

[226] Twenty-sixth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the zip-ties around J’s feet was inconsistent.

[227] To her lawyer in examination-in-chief, Ms. Cooney only said that zip tying near J’s feet was when they used a zip-tie as a shoelace. However, in cross-examination, Ms. Cooney said that they would pull the fabric of the wetsuit over J’s feet and zip tie it closed. She did not mention that during her examination-in-chief. When confronted with that inconsistency, Ms. Cooney blamed the discrepancy on the flow of the questions by her lawyer (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 93), which explanation I reject.

[228] Further, when speaking during cross-examination, Ms. Cooney said that they zip tied J’s feet in the wetsuit once or twice (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 94), but text messages were put to her that clearly say otherwise:

• March 16, 2022 – zip tying the wetsuit around the feet (page 95 of the said trial transcript);

• May 11, 2022 – Ms. Cooney asking Ms. Hamber whether to do the wetsuit with all ends zip tied around the feet (page 97 of the said trial transcript); and

• May 13, 2022 – blue bruise marks on J’s feet and toes – in the texts, the accused say that this was probably from the zip-ties and that J probably did not have enough room for his feet to move (pages 99-100 of the said trial transcript).

[229] There appeared to be another problem with Ms. Cooney’s evidence when speaking about the May 11, 2022 incident. Ms. Cooney initially stated that this may not have been at bedtime but then later admitted that the text messages seem to refer to bedtime. Upon further questioning, Ms. Cooney still did not admit that this was at bedtime. One of the text messages reads, “If he wants nighty, pee pee pills, bye”, yet Ms. Cooney would not agree that the incident appears to have occurred around bedtime for the boys.

[230] Twenty-seventh, I found the evidence of Ms. Cooney about virtual medical appointments to be incredible.

[231] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney stated that they tried but just could not get L on camera for any of his virtual medical appointments. She also blamed Dr. Dhaliwal for not having time to see L for some of his appointments. But that evidence seems inconsistent with two pieces of evidence that Ms. Cooney was shown by the Crown:

• the note from Dr. Singleton that was made an exhibit from the therapy session on June 18, 2020 – it states that Ms. Cooney did the child’s appointment with Dr. Singleton even though the child was available (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 125); and

• Ms. Cooney’s police statement, where Ms. Cooney says that there was no reason why L could not attend the virtual appointments with the psychiatrists (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 128).

[232] Twenty-eighth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the hospital being a “trigger” for L, and that is why L could not attend in-person meetings with Dr. Dhaliwal at the hospital (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 128), makes no sense.

[233] There were three admissions of L to CAPIS, which is at the same hospital, and a fourth attempted admission (trial transcript, December 12, 2025, page 130). Evidently, the accused were not concerned with the hospital triggering something bad in L.

[234] Twenty-ninth, Ms. Cooney sent a video of L allegedly ruminating to Ms. Hamber on August 19, 2022, and Ms. Cooney chose to title the video, “Could die”. Ms. Cooney, during her cross-examination by the Crown, claimed that she meant that she could die because it was so hard to watch it (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 19).

[235] I do not accept that evidence and find that it was L who Ms. Cooney meant could die. It was not herself, as the extent of the impact on her was that she merely found it to be “gross”, as she said herself in the same text exchange.

[236] Thirtieth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the bald spot on L’s head was not credible.

[237] In her cross examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney said that she did not recall if L developed a bald spot on his head (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 21). Texts on August 22, 2022 between the two accused say otherwise, however - “I move to take picks on this side so we don’t have cancer baldness”, Ms. Cooney texted.

[238] The fact that someone actually manipulated the camera so as to deliberately hide a bald spot on L’s head would suggest to me that Ms. Cooney would not have forgotten about the said bald spot when being questioned about it by the Crown at trial.

[239] That is especially the case when Ms. Cooney ultimately admitted at trial that she purposely sent a photo where you could not see how skinny the boy was and where you could not see the bald spot on L’s head (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 27).

[240] Thirty-first, in a text message to Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney states, “Only thing was, ‘I don’t feel good’, not getting my sympathy”. The exchange clearly dealt with L, yet Ms. Cooney denied at trial that the said message that she sent to her spouse meant that L had said that he was not feeling good. Instead, Ms. Cooney insisted that the person not feeling good could have been either herself or Ms. Hamber.

[241] What? To say that is bizarre testimony is an understatement. If it was herself, then she decided to say to her spouse that she would not get any sympathy from herself? If it was Ms. Hamber who was not feeling good, then how is that Ms. Cooney would have known that in order to send the message to Ms. Hamber?

[242] Some things just need to be conceded.

[243] Thirty-second, Ms. Cooney’s evidence was not credible on when L’s alleged regurgitation/rumination problem started.

[244] During her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney agreed that L’s regurgitation and rumination may have started in 2022 but not before 2022 (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 64). But that evidence seems contradictory to the evidence tendered at trial under Exhibit 187 – one of the videos therein shows that L was emaciated well before 2022 (the video was from September 24, 2021). Ms. Cooney agreed during cross-examination that the video shows that L was emaciated even in September of 2021 (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 67).

[245] It is the position of the accused that this wasting-away of L was due to his eating disorder. Thus, if true, then certainly one would expect that the regurgitation/rumination started well before 2022.

[246] Thirty-third, also with regard to the alleged rumination, in her cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney was shown an email from August 19, 2022, an email from Ms. Hamber to Alison Brown at Halton CAS. Ms. Cooney was copied on the email. In the email, Ms. Hamber talked about rumination and that one issue with that syndrome is malnutrition. However, during the cross-examination, Ms. Cooney stated that she does not know what rumination causes, and she does not know what rumination does to someone’s body (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 78).

[247] That evidence at trial seems inconsistent with the said email, as surely Ms. Cooney would have trusted the information being relayed by her own spouse that rumination causes malnutrition.

[248] Thirty-fourth, in her cross-examination by the Crown (the trial transcript reference is around the same as immediately above), Ms. Cooney seemed to suggest that L’s wasting away might have been caused by his temper tantrums and the caloric burn that would have been associated with them. I find that evidence to be nonsensical.

[249] Thirty-fifth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence was very, very troubling regarding the November 20, 2022 incident at home with L.

[250] Ms. Cooney testified that L was not put into the hot tub outside, but she also stated in a text message at the time that her pants were frozen – “My pants are frozen to panta”, she texted at the time. At trial, Ms. Cooney could not really answer about the meaning of that message.

[251] During that incident on November 20, 2022, Ms. Cooney texted to Ms. Hamber, “Unfortunately, my thoughts are he is suddenly going to die, and I’m going to jail”. Ms. Cooney also said in a text message that, if it comes down to it, she will go to jail and not Ms. Hamber. When these text messages were put to Ms. Cooney by the Crown, Ms. Cooney stated that she was concerned about going to jail because of her “catastrophic thoughts” (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 87).

[252] I recognize that every person is different and that some tend to be overly anxious and pessimistic about their own fate. But I cannot be persuaded that an innocent mother would ever text that to her spouse in those circumstances.

[253] When asked at trial about L’s state on November 20, 2022 and whether she thought that he was dying, Ms. Cooney said that she was not sure that she knew that he was dying; she was worried at the time, but she does not know now, and she did not know then, if L was dying. She disagreed with the Crown that she thought, at the time, that L was dying.

[254] That is just plain and simple unbelievable evidence. The private text message that Ms. Cooney sent to her spouse, at the time, speaks for itself. She clearly thought, then, that L was dying.

[255] That nothing was done by the accused in that urgent time of need for L on November 20, 2022 is disgraceful. He should have been brought, forthwith, to the emergency department at the closest hospital. In my mind, that the accused failed to do so speaks volumes about the key issue in this entire case – their intentions.

[256] Thirty-sixth, Ms. Cooney’s evidence about the deleted electronic evidence was not credible.

[257] In the specific context of L’s death and what happened inside the home on that day, Ms. Cooney agreed that they deleted footage, but she also stated that the cameras were not even working when L died (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, pages 115-116). Those two things do not mesh. There was nothing to delete if there was nothing recorded.

[258] Ms. Cooney stated further that she deleted all of the text messages as a result of one of her “catastrophic thoughts” (trial transcript, December 15, 2025, page 117).

[259] Her son had just died, and she became overly anxious about what some might say about her, and so she wiped everything clean of years of messages that she had exchanged with her spouse and with her father, even though she had nothing to hide but just in case someone might find something and use it against her?

[260] No. I do not believe that.

[261] Thirty-seventh, Ms. Cooney testified that the sleep sacks for the boys were made of stretchy material, enabling them to get their aggressions out while inside them (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, page 123).

[262] That makes no sense, however, because it does not explain why the accused also testified that the boys were too rough with the sleep sacks and, consequently, damaged them.

[263] With regard to the evidence of Ms. Hamber, I will start by saying this. There are sometimes things that happen during a trial that so profoundly affect how the trier of fact views one of the interested parties. That happened with Ms. Hamber. There was an occasion during the Crown’s cross-examination of Ms. Hamber that destroyed any remaining credibility that she may have had in the eyes of this Court at that juncture of the trial. This single example, because of its sheer weight, would be sufficient to explain why this Court rejects Ms. Hamber’s denials.

[264] The transcript references for what comes immediately below are to pages 112-117 of the January 22, 2026 trial transcript (cross-examination of Ms. Hamber by the Crown) and to page 176 of the January 23, 2026 trial transcript (re-examination).

[265] The Crown put to Ms. Hamber some texts that she exchanged with Ms. Cooney on September 1, 2022. In one of those texts, Ms. Hamber stated to her spouse, “u strangled him and threw him down”, referring to L In the texts, Ms. Hamber clearly expressed to Ms. Cooney her concern, her displeasure, about having seen that.

[266] The Crown’s only purpose was to get Ms. Hamber to admit what was patently obvious from the unequivocal wording of the texts themselves – that Ms. Hamber saw her spouse physically abuse L in that specific way, by strangling the boy and throwing him down.

[267] But Ms. Hamber decided to dig-in. She told the Crown that she did not see that happen. She explained that her text to Ms. Cooney must have been because L told Ms. Hamber about the alleged incident.

[268] It was a ridiculous thing for Ms. Hamber to have said. It was not the truth. I wrote that down at the time. Everyone in the courtroom knew the same thing at the time.

[269] So, what does an excellent, well-prepared, astute, and very experienced defence counsel try to do with that? Mr. MacGregor tried to give his client another chance.

[270] In re-examination, counsel for Ms. Hamber went back to those texts about the strangulation and physical abuse of L at the hands of Ms. Cooney. Mr. MacGregor put even more of the texts to his client, a greater array of context, in an effort to get Ms. Hamber to say what she so clearly needed to say – that she did, in fact, see that happen. The texts spoke for themselves. With even more context, they screamed out loud for themselves.

[271] But it did not work. Ms. Hamber doubled down and, once again, refused to acknowledge that she saw her spouse do that to L.

[272] That moment was when all of the air went out of the room. I suspect that it was largely because of that moment that Mr. MacGregor pivoted in his effective closing argument to not make any of his submissions dependent on the evidence of Ms. Hamber.

[273] Some things just need to be conceded.

[274] Although I could stop the analysis of the credibility of Ms. Hamber’s evidence right here, I will not do so. There are many other reasons, in addition to the above, as to why this Court does not believe the evidence of Ms. Hamber.

[275] None of the following evidence given by Ms. Hamber is credible, in my opinion:

(i) that the accused sewed L’s clothes hamper (a beanbag) shut, for safety reasons (trial transcript, January 13, 2026, page 75) – presumably this meant that L might try to strangle himself or harm himself in some other way by accessing the clothes, yet if that was a genuine risk then L could have done that at any moment of any day that he wore clothes while outside of the home, like at school, by simply removing an article of clothing, something as inconspicuous as a sock for example, and nothing like that ever happened;

(ii) that the damage caused to the home by the boys amounted to many tens of thousands of dollars yet consisted of things like doors, a television, portable DVD players, mattresses, remote controls, a camera, a bathtub, some sports equipment, shovels, a side panel on a motor vehicle, and some clothing (trial transcript, January 13, 2026, pages 84-87) – I was expecting to hear that the children had ransacked the home from ceilings to floors in order to have caused the alleged several tens of thousands of dollars of damage;

(iii) that it was J’s own idea to use a zip-tie as a “shoelace” (trial transcript, January 13, 2026, page 99) – first, I do not understand how a zip-tie could be used as a shoelace as opposed to the more believable scenario of a zip-tie being somehow strapped around the foot in order to hold the shoe in place, and further I do not understand why a young boy who loved to pick at himself, including at his feet (as alleged by the accused), would suddenly propose on his own that it had to stop and that the solution would have to involve the use of a zip-tie;

(iv) that L was always, right up until the time that he died, perfectly capable, physically, of doing all of the exercises that he was required to do at the direction of the accused (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, page 13) – aside from the fact that the photographs and videos of L, the evidence of the first responders, and the evidence of Dr. Noura Labib (the emergency room physician) are all totally inconsistent with that notion, I find it heartless and cruel that the accused, who even on their own evidence knew that there was something very seriously wrong with the boy, including physically, would have continued to require him to do these “exercises” right up until his death;

(v) that the photograph marked Exhibit 196, which appears to show Ms. Hamber with a black eye, was taken after one of the boys punched her in the face, although she does not recall the occurrence at all (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, page 22) – this is an example of “piling-on” and blaming the children for something, and testifying to that under oath or affirmation, without any memory of what actually happened;

(vi) that the locks on the outside of the boys’ bedroom doors were not a fire hazard (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, page 116) – of course they were;

(vii) that an example of oppositional behaviour would be J refusing to wear a rain jacket outside when it is raining, but oppositional behaviour would not be something like J refusing to wear a wetsuit when told to do so for bedtime – there is no sensical explanation for distinguishing between those two things, and it suggests to me that Ms. Hamber was struggling to even think of something that she could offer to the Crown in cross-examination and which could reasonably be described as being “oppositional behaviour” on the part of J;

(viii) that the wetsuits were optional, she told the Crown in cross-examination, although there was a constant fear that the boys would wrap their clothing, including their pajamas, around their throats and strangle themselves – if that risk was really always there, then it seems odd to me that the accused would have permitted the boys to simply choose whether or not they wanted to wear the wetsuits;

(ix) that she was never told anything about the boys’ violent behaviour when they had the initial disclosure meeting in Ottawa (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, page 180), and she was also never told anything at that meeting about L being a “runner” (page 184 of the same trial transcript) – both of those allegations are totally inconsistent with Exhibit 199, the case notes of Ms. Simmons of the Halton CAS;

(x) that L broke her arm – this allegation made by Ms. Hamber suffers from several frailties: (a) she agreed with the Crown that there was no diagnosis of a broken arm, yet she texted at the time that there was a fracture (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 14), and (b) she told the Crown that it was her upper arm that was broken by the child, however, she texted at the time that the fracture was to her lower arm bone (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 15), and (c) she told the Crown that she got no tests at all done on her arm, yet she texted at the time that the test “results” from the clinic that she attended were what revealed the small ulna fracture;

(xi) that it was not until 2021 that L was housed in the basement of the home – I think that it was likely earlier than 2021, and in fact Ms. Hamber acknowledged that there were at least attempts to have L relegated to the basement that started earlier than 2021 (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 21);

(xii) that she did not know that someone could die of starvation, dehydration, or malnutrition (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 30) – it would seem to me that, for starvation especially, one need not be a medical doctor to know that a person can starve to death;

(xiii) that she sent her November 11, 2021 email to Ms. Stam of the Halton CAS, in which she complained about the boys having to be seen by the family physician, Dr. Duncan, because she was worried that it would risk her own health given her autoimmune disorder and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – Ms. Hamber seems to have forgotten that she had an able-bodied spouse who was perfectly capable of bringing the children to a necessary medical appointment;

(xiv) that she is unsure whether she provided the personal information about herself that found its way into the formal adoption homestudy report prepared by the CAS (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, pages 64 and 67) – of course she did, as there would have been no other way for the CAS to have acquired that information; I think that Ms. Hamber tailored her evidence about this at trial because it became clear when she was testifying that some of that information about her occupation, experience, skills, training, and education was incorrect;

(xv) that she has never described herself as being fluent in French (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 66) – that is incorrect as she clearly texted to Ed that she was fluent;

(xvi) that she has never referred to herself as being a “behavioural/behaviour specialist” (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, pages 77-80) – that is incorrect as she described herself as precisely that in her own LinkedIn profile, and she was also described as such in the adoption homestudy report, which information would have certainly come from her to the CAS;

(xvii) that the boys did not like being treated like babies (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 93), which is probably true, but then I wonder why the accused fed the children with baby bottles and sippy cups; the accused would say that was because of professional advice that they received, however, even if that is true the accused knew that the said advice depended on an assumption that the boys liked and benefitted from being treated like infants/toddlers, which assumption was clearly known to the accused to be false;

(xviii) that the police specifically told the accused to not record the boys’ disclosures about having been allegedly abused by the former foster family in Ottawa (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 121) – this is totally nonsensical, in my opinion, as the police concerns about improper coaching by the accused and about inaccurate reporting by the accused as to what the children were saying would have been alleviated through such recording instead of having the accused try to write down what the boys were saying and then sending their “summaries” to the police, and it is the latter which Ms. Hamber wants this Court to believe was the express direction that they received from the police;

(xix) that she is an “assertive person” but only “at times”, as she told the Crown in cross-examination – I do not know why Ms. Hamber felt the need to downplay her level of assertiveness when she had sat through the entire trial that was chock-full of examples of her habitual forcefulness and her managerial attitude expressed towards nearly everyone who testified before her and towards nearly everyone who was ever involved with the family;

(xx) that L was not swollen or puffy when he first arrived in Burlington from Ottawa (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 156) – that is completely contrary to Ms. Hamber’s self-recorded video (Exhibits 204A and B), in which she said that he was a swollen child at that time;

(xxi) that her self-recorded videos, Exhibit 204A for example, were not meant to be seen or listened to by anyone but, rather, were like a private journal that she created for herself (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 166) – that is completely contrary to her own words uttered during the said videos themselves; no, I conclude that the said videos were obviously meant for public, and the justice system’s, consumption;

(xxii) that L, in the video evidence marked Exhibit 187, appeared to her as being “thin” but not “quite thin” and not anything more than “thin” (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, pages 207-208) – some things just need to be conceded, and when Ms. Hamber was presented with that video she ought to have agreed with any expression suggested to her by the Crown, no matter the degree, as the boy clearly looks skeletal in the said video;

(xxiii) that the wetsuits were not necessarily used to seal the urine in tight so as to avoid accidents (trial transcript, January 19, 2026, page 221) – yet this is precisely what she texted to her spouse on September 19, 2019, although when confronted with that text message by the Crown, Ms. Hamber explained that she might have been texting about sealing in excessive masturbation ejaculate, which explanation I find to be ridiculous;

(xxiv) that she would not have used Ms. Cooney’s email address to message anyone except one specific biological family member of the boys back in Ottawa, yet when confronted by the Crown with a text message that clearly suggests that Ms. Hamber was telling Ms. Cooney that Ms. Hamber had sent messages to service providers that would have looked like they were coming from Ms. Cooney, Ms. Hamber changed her evidence to say that it would have been rare for her to have used Ms. Cooney’s email address to contact others (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, pages 1-2);

(xxv) that Benadryl was never given to either child as a sleep aid (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 4) – that is simply unbelievable as there are text messages that cannot be interpreted in any reasonable way except to say that Benadryl was given to the boys as a sleep aid, and those text messages between the accused were exchanged on December 5, 2021 and December 24, 2021, and those text messages were put to Ms. Hamber by the Crown in cross-examination, and still Ms. Hamber continued to refuse to admit the obvious (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, pages 15-16 and page 21);

(xxvi) that she never told either boy to “shut up”, and she was just exaggerating to her own spouse when she texted Ms. Cooney one time and told Ms. Cooney that she had just told L to “shut up” (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 6) – I do not understand why Ms. Hamber would have, in that moment of frustration, texted her spouse something that was untrue;

(xxvii) that the boys were not always locked inside their bedrooms at nighttime (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 24) – that appears to be inconsistent with the general tenor of the text messages between the accused, however, including an exchange from October 4, 2022 which states, from Ms. Hamber, “both doors closed completely, door locked, same as always” (page 27 of the same trial transcript);

(xxviii) that the accused covered the clocks inside the home, like the one on the stove in the kitchen, in order to hide the time of day from the boys, and that was done because seeing the time of day would trigger L to want to eat more food and then get escalated in his behaviours, but they would freely tell the boys the time of day if they asked, unless the boys were having temper tantrums when they asked (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, pages 39-41) – that evidence is really bizarre, in my view, as I would question the utility of hiding the time of day from a child who, if true, is prone to be self-destructive if he finds out what that time of day is but yet agree to sometimes tell the boy what the time of day is when he asks;

(xxix) that the accused smudged and drummed with the boys, and they did that because of Ms. Cooney’s Indigeneity and because they wanted to respect the Indigenous status of the boys (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 44) – that evidence is completely contrary to the repeated demands of the accused for proof that the children were, in fact, Indigenous and, further, completely contrary to Ms. Hamber’s self-recorded conspiracy theory video (Exhibit 183A), that is, the video where Ms. Hamber looks at and speaks into the camera and says that she has discovered some link between the accused having repeatedly demanded proof from the CAS of the boys’ Indigenous status, to no avail, and the criminal charges that she is now facing;

(xxx) that the boys were not in school in 2022 because the accused had not found a suitable school for them and, further, the boys needed to be kept home for therapy – that evidence is difficult to comprehend because the crux of the defence evidence at trial was that there was never any suitable school that met the needs of the boys, including the one that they went to, so I do not understand, if that is true, why the boys ever went to any school; and, in addition, the trial evidence does not support the notion that the boys were in therapy while not in school, which therapy was incompatible with school;

(xxxi) that the accused never used zip-ties on the boys’ tents after they were told by the Halton CAS not to – that evidence is contradicted by the text messages that post-date when the accused were told not to use the zip-ties on the tents: the texts between Ms. Cooney and Ed on April 10, 2022 (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 65), and the texts exchanged on June 18, 2022 (pages 68-69 of the same trial transcript), and Exhibit 184;

(xxxii) that, in the audio recording made on December 10, 2021 (Exhibit 187), when Ms. Hamber says to L, “one of you puts effort in and one doesn’t”, she was not referring to J as the one who puts effort in – this is absurd, frankly, as who else could Ms. Hamber have possibly been referring to but for J?;

(xxxiii) that texts between the accused that say “dbags”, in relation to the boys, might be referring to “douchebags” but could also be referring to something else (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 105) – I think that this is patently obvious and ought to have been conceded by anyone who is trying to be honest and straightforward in their evidence;

(xxxiv) that L was so dangerous and so destructive that they had no choice but to keep his bedroom extremely sparse and without anything inside it that could have possibly been used by L to harm himself, yet Ms. Hamber had to acknowledge to the Crown in cross-examination that the photos of L’s bedroom clearly show a garbage bag inside a can or a bucket in the corner of the room, presumably a non-vital item as the bucket or can could have been used without a bag inside of it, which bag could have been readily employed by L to strangle or suffocate himself (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 141);

(xxxv) that the boys’ self-injurious behaviour at home included some of the most extreme things imaginable, like the full-on smashing of their bare heads and faces against very hard and solid objects – walls, fence posts, and a curb, included, but neither boy ever needed any medical attention arising from any of these head/face smashes (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, page 184) – that evidence is simply unbelievable;

(xxxvi) that “anything is possible”, an answer that Ms. Hamber gave to the Crown repeatedly throughout her cross-examination – I understand that this is an expression that is often overused and by all of us from time to time, however, there comes a time when this expression is used by a witness to obfuscate the issue, and that is what Ms. Hamber was doing with the Crown; it is not true that “anything is possible”, as surely Ms. Hamber was not prepared to admit that it was “possible” that she starved L to death, for example;

(xxxvii) that there were, it is true, never any private meetings between either boy and anyone at CAS, however, that was only because the accused did not know what the privacy requirement meant, and not because the accused were trying to hide anything (trial transcript, January 23, 2026, page 36) – I find that evidence to be absurd as it is not at all complicated to know what private means – it means private;

(xxxviii) that when the accused received the Requisition for L’s ECG, they were disturbed because it required them to bring L to the hospital in Oakville, and that might trigger L (trial transcript, January 23, 2026, page 102) – that evidence makes no sense at all because, according to the accused, they were, at that very same time, desperately trying to get L admitted to the eating disorder clinic at that very same hospital;

(xxxix) that she now recognizes, but did not recognize then, that L should have probably been brought to the emergency department at a local hospital when he suffered the very serious incident at home in November 2022 (trial transcript, January 23, 2026, page 124) – I do not accept that Ms. Hamber did not know that at the time, as I firmly believe that anyone would have known at the time that what was happening to L, described by the accused themselves, in their own words, was a “crisis”, and the accused had clearly been told by Dr. Dhaliwal to bring L to the hospital if the boy was in “crisis”;

(xl) that she was never outside during the 911 call that she made after L was found by Ms. Cooney to be unresponsive in his room in the basement, when the call itself (Exhibit 62A) makes it crystal clear that she was outside and told the operator exactly that; when confronted with the recording of the call itself, Ms. Hamber explained to the Crown in cross-examination that she probably went outside to get some air and to avoid anaphylactic shock, which explanation I find to be very odd in the face of her dead or dying son lying on the floor inside the home and being tended to by Ms. Cooney (trial transcript, January 23, 2026, pages 156-158); and

(xli) that nobody told the accused that Ms. Brown at Halton CAS was being replaced as their main worker, even though Ms. Hamber also stated that they received an email from Halton CAS when the transition from Ms. Brown was being undertaken (trial transcript, January 14, 2026, at page 65).

[276] Finally, it is important to observe that Ms. Hamber’s trial evidence about the zip-tie(s) and J’s shoe(s) was very different than what she said about that in her September 26, 2023 self-recorded video (trial transcript, January 22, 2026, starting at page 208).

[277] The many differences include: (i) how the blisters on J’s feet were caused, whether by playing soccer on the driveway (in the video) or from playing on equipment at the park (at trial); (ii) whether they tried putting the shoes on J’s feet overnight, without zip-ties, before trying the shoes on his feet overnight with the zip-ties; (iii) the extent to which (how deep) J had picked the skin on his foot/feet; (iv) how the cuts on J’s feet were discovered by the accused; (v) whether Ms. Cooney was present when the shoe was zip-tied to J’s foot; and (vi) how serious the injuries were to J’s feet, whether “light abrasions” (in the video) or very deep and bleeding cuts (at trial).

[278] In summary, I do not believe the denials of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber. I do not believe their evidence that the boys were nightmare (my word) children. I do not believe their evidence that the boys needed to be restrained or confined. I do not believe their evidence that they restrained and confined the boys for protective purposes. I do not believe their evidence that they had little or no choice but to restrain and confine the boys. I do not believe their evidence that the cuts on J’s feet were caused in the way that they described. I do not believe their evidence that they had little or no choice but to use the zip-ties on J’s feet. I do not believe their evidence that they provided the boys, or either of them, with the necessaries of life. I do not believe their evidence that L had some undiagnosed eating disorder. I do not believe their evidence that they did not cause L’s wasting away and his ultimate death. I do not believe their evidence that they never intended to cause any harm to either child. I do not believe their evidence that they never intended for L to die. I do not believe their evidence, generally, that they had no criminal intent.

[279] The evidence of each accused does not leave me with a reasonable doubt about her guilt on any of the offences charged. I find that the evidence of each accused is so replete with problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, and nonsensical assertions that it must be outright rejected by this Court in that it cannot be safely relied upon for anything.

[280] Remember, this Court does not need to believe the defence evidence on the vital issues; it is enough that, in the context of all of the evidence, including the absence of evidence, the conflicting evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. There is no such reasonable doubt here.

[281] It is not simply that this Court does not necessarily believe the exculpatory evidence offered by the accused. It is much stronger than that. I find that evidence to be worthless, and I hope that, by spending so much time on the shortcomings in the evidence of each accused, the reader will understand why I say so.

[282] I cannot leave this section of the reasons without observing the very thorough preparation, hard work, high level of competence, and solid dedication shown by defence counsel, Ms. Edward, Mr. MacGregor, and Mr. Sheiban. I sincerely commend them.

[283] That the evidence of their clients has been found to be worthless is not a function of their representation but rather a function of two things: (i) the highly-incriminating nature of the text messages (Exhibit 1) and the electronic evidence, which defence counsel could do nothing about and which contributed significantly to this being an overwhelming case of child abuse and murder; and (ii) such fine cross-examinations of the accused by Crown counsel, Ms. MacKenzie and Ms. Frew, to go along with such an excellent overall presentation of the case for the Crown, from start to finish.

IX. The Case Has Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

[284] Having rejected the evidence of the accused, on the third branch of the W.(D.) test, I can safely say that the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of each and every count.

[285] On the section 231(5) offence, there was much time spent by all counsel in closing submissions at trial on the question of what exactly happened to L just before he died in that barren room in the basement of the home. What was that clear liquid that he was lying in? Did the accused dunk him in water, specifically in the hot tub outside, to try to warm him up? And so on.

[286] It must be remembered that this Court is not required, nor is it expected, to resolve every factual issue in the case. It is not necessary to do so. In a murder case, there is no obligation on the part of the Crown to prove the exact sequence of events that immediately preceded the victim’s death. In fact, there is no obligation on the Crown to prove the precise mechanism of death. R. v. Rahman, 2014 NSCA 67, at paras. 74 and 75, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed at 2014 70970.

[287] Before turning to the specific offences charged, let us look at the key evidence that this Court does accept: (i) the ante-mortem electronic communications among the accused and Ed which were seized by the police from the accused’s portable devices, along with the other content discovered on those devices; (ii) the evidence of J; (iii) the evidence of those medical professionals who treated L before his death; and (iv) the post-mortem findings and opinions of the two expert witnesses, Dr. Cory and Dr. Pickup.

[288] In focusing this section of these reasons on the specific evidence enumerated above, this Court has not ignored the other evidence adduced at trial. I have considered all of the evidence, however, I have chosen to focus here on what everyone agrees is the most crucial evidence that was tendered at trial, as evident from all of the counsel’s closing submissions.

The Electronic Evidence

[289] The electronic evidence in this case points overwhelmingly to the guilt of the accused. It simply could not be reasonably argued otherwise.

[290] On Christmas Day, December 25, 2022, at 2:28:46 p.m., in their time of presumed immense grief over the very recent death of their son, L, what was happening with Ms. Cooney’s iPhone 8? All of the texts and messages on that device, everything, among her and Ms. Hamber and Ed, were deleted.

[291] They were recovered by the police, however. And they paint a picture of loathe and hate by both accused towards the boys, especially towards L. Exhibit 1 is powerful evidence. How could it not be? These are what the accused thought were private messages, when they could speak the truth of their real feelings as opposed to when they were communicating with the CAS or service providers or school officials or medical doctors.

[292] The idea that all of this name-calling of the boys and all of the cruel and disgusting insults hurled against them by the accused can be explained by frustration is not worthy of serious discussion.

[293] That argument would have a modicum of merit if the name-calling and insults were isolated, or even relatively infrequent, but that is not the case. That argument would have a semblance of reasonableness if the language used was less personal – directed more towards the behaviours instead of the very being of the child himself, but that is equally not the case. That argument would be more palatable if the electronic communications did not include other things, besides the name-calling and the insults, that are clearly consistent with this loathe and hate, but that is not the case.

[294] As Ms. Cooney said about L’s circumstances way back on December 6, 2020, for example, he is back in “jail”. That text from Ms. Cooney to Ms. Hamber is a microcosm of how the accused saw the boy, and that was two full years before he died.

[295] Not only was L a loser and a dick, an asshole and a douche, a fuckin’ prick and an idiot, a little shit and a piece of shit, a whiner and a cry baby, and many other things, all labels used by the accused, but he was also a young boy who needed to be punished and thrown in jail.

[296] L was, in the eyes of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber, a jackass who deserved punishment at the hands of the accused. I agree with defence counsel that we need to look at the actions of the accused, but that includes their actions while they were hurling insults at L.

[297] The December 28, 2020 audio recording is so difficult to listen to. Both accused, the mothers of L, expressly referring to the “exercises” that they were demanding that L, their son, do as being “punishment”. Both mothers interrogating L and accusing him of doing the “exercises” improperly. Both mothers ignoring L’s pleas of being tired and bored of doing the repeated drills on the stairs. Ms. Cooney referring to L having already done the drills for two hours, and then another 45 minutes. Both mothers being very confrontational with L, while L was extremely soft-spoken and exquisitely polite throughout. The mothers telling L that he was uneducated and not a nice person. The mothers yelling at the boy. The mothers eventually telling L to go away and just get to his room and live there for the day.

[298] The December 28, 2020 audio recording is not isolated and is just a terrible and shocking exhibit of abuse of L by these accused. It is consistent with the text messages themselves.

[299] The September 24, 2021 video of L is excruciating to watch. The young boy using a small portable camping toilet to relieve himself. Sitting on the toilet and wiping himself, his wetsuit pulled down. He is so thin it is hard to describe it in words. His bones are visible all down his backside and his upper buttocks. His right arm is the size of a twig.

[300] One would think that such a video might attract some compassion from a mother. But what are the words used to describe L during the messages between the accused that were exchanged on that same date – the date that they were talking about that video which was made that day? They are words like loser, dumbass, dick, and gross.

[301] As the accused said to each other in their messages exchanged on November 14, 2020, L belonged in the “Hamber-Cooney prison”. His name was “prisoner”. And he had finally been “broken” by “officer Hamber”.

[302] This Court could go on and on but for what purpose other than to, in a way, continue to victimize L. He should be remembered for more than this.

[303] These accused disliked both boys, and they truly loathed L. The electronic evidence – the text messages and the audio recordings and the video recordings and the internet searches after L died, all of it, provide the bookends to the story.

[304] The true story, I find, is that the accused abused the boys and, when L finally died, they tried to erase all of the evidence of their abuse and started researching things related to homicide.

[305] Defence counsel are correct that there are things that the accused did and said that seem inconsistent with an intention on their part to harm or to kill L. This Court cannot explain those things, like why the accused would be pushing for L to be admitted to an eating disorder clinic, as just one example.

[306] What I can say is that none of those things changes my view of what the true story is here. And, despite what is undoubtedly some evidence that does not fit neatly within that story, we know something very important, I think critically important on the issue of intent – when there was finally a place for L to go and to get help for what the accused kept insisting was some sort of an eating disorder, Danielle’s Place, they refused to let him go.

[307] That refusal speaks volumes about what the accused really intended and whether they really had the health and welfare of L in mind. Whether they thought that Danielle’s Place was the perfect fit or not, it was an available professional resource for what the accused themselves were saying was the specific problem that L had, and they refused to let him go.

The Evidence of J

[308] J was 13 years old when he testified at trial. His January 11, 2023 audio-video recorded police statement, Exhibit 153A, given when he was 10 years of age, was played in court and forms part of his trial evidence. In addition, his September 1, 2023 audio-video recorded police statement, Exhibit 154A, was played in court and forms part of his trial evidence.

[309] There is no dispute among counsel, nor could there be, that J’s evidence, if believed by this Court, is capable of supporting counts 1-3 on the Indictment.

[310] On count 1, the unlawful confinement allegation, J’s evidence includes that he was confined by the accused for lengthy periods of time – in his bedroom with the door locked on the outside of the door and being unable to even go to the bathroom without someone unlocking and opening the door from the outside, as just one example of such confinement (page 39 of the transcript of the September 1, 2023 statement).

[311] On count 2, the assault with a weapon allegation, J stated to the Crown in direct examination that the cuts on the tops of his feet, shown in Exhibits 160 and 161, were caused by his wetsuit being pulled down and wrapped underneath his feet and then zip-tied in place. He demonstrated this in open court, standing up and using his shirt sleeve and pulling it down and wrapping it around his hand and explaining that the same thing would happen with the bottoms of his wetsuit and his feet. The fabric of the wetsuit bottoms was pulled down and around his feet by the accused, and the zip-ties were fastened by the accused, he explained. The injuries to his feet were not caused by his shoes or by his shoes being zip-tied to his feet, he told Ms. Frew in examination-in-chief.

[312] On count 3, the failure to provide the necessaries of life allegation, J stated to the Crown in direct examination that, sometimes, the accused gave him no food at all. One time that he remembers, he got no food for “days”, and that happened a couple of other times as well. He was not permitted to get his own food.

[313] This Court has to be very careful in ensuring that it does not scrutinize the evidence of the accused in any more of an exacting manner than that of J, however, and there were certainly some frailties, or potential frailties, in J’s evidence:

(i) there were many things that he told Ms. Edward, in cross-examination, that he could not remember (and which we know to be, from other evidence at trial), including but not limited to (a) the incident where he tried to choke himself with a piece of carpet at school and (b) what he told the CAS and the police and SickKids Hospital staff about the former foster family in Ottawa;

(ii) he admitted to Ms. Edward that the bad things that he said previously about the former foster family in Ottawa were not the truth;

(iii) there were many things that he told Mr. MacGregor, in cross-examination, that he could not remember (and which we know to be, from other evidence at trial), including but not limited to (a) the carpet-choking incident at school, (b) him running away from home or trying to run away from home, (c) him grabbing scissors at school or hitting a teacher at school or threatening a teacher at school;

(iv) he admitted to Mr. MacGregor that he did not tell the truth about the former foster family in Ottawa until September 2023, when he gave his second statement to the police;

(v) he admitted to Mr. MacGregor that he persisted with the lies about the former foster family in Ottawa for some four years or so;

(vi) his evidence to Mr. MacGregor about Exhibit 158, the photograph of damage to the walls in his bedroom, was inconsistent in that J first said that he did not remember causing any such damage but then said that he did cause some of that damage;

(vii) he acknowledged to Mr. MacGregor that his story about the former foster family in Ottawa changed after he was reunited with his birth mother and his maternal grandmother, and that he always wanted to be back with his birth mother, and that he would do anything for his birth mother;

(viii) he admitted to Mr. MacGregor that were other things that he has said in the past that he now admits were incorrect, such as saying in the past that he was hit in the head by one of the accused throwing a dog bone at him – he changed that at trial to say that he was hit in the elbow and not the head; and

(ix) he is aware that his family is suing the accused in civil court.

[314] J’s evidence, one can see, was imperfect. Given his tender age when all of this happened, and when he spoke with the police, and when he testified at court, we should not be surprised at that.

[315] Notwithstanding its imperfections, I believe J’s evidence on the key points of the abuse that he and L suffered at the hands of the accused. And I believe J’s evidence that he told those untruths about the former foster family in Ottawa because he was told to do so by the accused.

[316] Quite frankly, the evidence of J that is most relevant to the unlawful confinement allegation was not even disputed by the accused.

[317] In addition, the evidence of J, or more accurately the absence of evidence from J, that he received any medical attention for the deep cuts to his feet, however they were caused, was not even disputed by the accused.

[318] J’s evidence at trial about how the cuts were caused to his feet differed from that of the accused, and on that point, I prefer the evidence of J. I think that it is much more realistic that the deep cuts to J’s feet were caused by zip-ties that were separated from his bare feet by only thinner wetsuit fabric (J’s evidence) as opposed to thicker shoes (the evidence of the accused).

[319] J’s evidence at trial about not being provided, at times, with any food differed from that of the accused, and on that point, I prefer the evidence of J. I think that J’s evidence is much more credible than that of the accused because (i) it is more consistent with the fact that he was relegated to his bedroom so often, a sign of neglect and punishment that seems to me to be incongruous with making sure that the neglected and the punished gets three square meals a day (as the accused would want this Court to believe), and (ii) more consistent with the general tenor and tone of the electronic evidence and the accused mothers’ dislike and resentment towards J.

[320] I believe J.

[321] J’s evidence helps to support counts 1-3 on the Indictment and also helps to support count 4 on the Indictment. On his evidence that this Court accepts, he was definitely confined by the accused. He was definitely assaulted by the accused with the zip-ties around his feet. He was definitely deprived, by the accused, of food and medical attention for the injuries to his feet. His big brother, L, was definitely deprived, by the accused, of food.

The Evidence of the Medical Professionals Who Treated L

[322] This is not a commission of inquiry or a civil proceeding in which this Court is tasked with assigning blame for what happened to L, regardless of whether it makes any difference or not to the guilt or innocence of the two accused, to any and all who were involved in this family’s life.

[323] No, it only matters if it makes a difference to whether these accused are guilty or not. It only matters if it is relevant to the determination on whether the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, any given essential element of any given charged offence.

[324] The defence, with all due respect, wants this to be treated like a commission of inquiry. The Ottawa CAS was negligent in not disclosing the true characters of these two boys and by not approving CPRI for L, as examples. The Halton CAS was negligent for not doing more to help the accused and the boys, for example. Dr. Duncan was negligent in not admitting L to the hospital in mid-December 2022, for example. Dr. Dhaliwal was negligent in not examining L in-person and not getting him into the eating disorder clinic, as an example.

[325] None of these matters, though, unless it impacts on the Court’s assessment of the essential elements of the offence of constructive first degree murder. And none of it does impact on that assessment.

[326] Let me give an analogy, albeit a simplistic one. An accused is charged with impaired operation causing death. The facts are that she got drunk at an office Christmas party, drove away from the party, and struck and killed a pedestrian. Why would the trier of fact be concerned about the actions or inactions of the host of the party? The trier of fact would not be concerned about that.

[327] Here, on the defence’s own argument, count 4 depends on two things: intent and causation.

[328] The actions/inactions of the CAS, whether in Ottawa or Halton or both, have zero to do with either issue.

[329] The actions/inactions of Drs. Duncan and Dhaliwal, who were depending on the cooperation and forthrightness of the accused, which they did not get from the accused, have little to do with either issue.

[330] I say “little” because the only potential relevance would be if this Court concluded that something done, or not done, by Drs. Duncan and/or Dhaliwal broke the chain of causation such that it could no longer be said that the accused caused the death of L, as the term causation is understood in law (explained above in these reasons).

[331] I make no such conclusion.

[332] These two physicians, Dr. Duncan and Dr. Dhaliwal, came before this Court as scarred people. Just like Dr. Labib, who treated L at the hospital and frantically tried to save his life. Just like the seasoned first responders, the paramedics and firefighters and police officers, who were confronted with this small child lying unresponsive in the basement and rushed him out to the ambulance and raced him to the hospital, shutting down all the streets en route in order to save time.

[333] All of these people had a very hard time testifying in the courtroom. It was very emotional for them.

[334] I think that Dr. Duncan and Dr. Dhaliwal did their best. I do not agree with any suggestion that either one of them caused or contributed to the death of L.

[335] Early in the trial, not necessarily because of factual or legal causation but just in terms of the timeline of events, I was concerned about why L was permitted to go home after the December 13th visit with Dr. Duncan. I even said so at the time.

[336] But then I heard all of the evidence at trial, including the evidence about what happened with L at home in November 2022 and the fact that the said entire episode was concealed from Dr. Duncan by the accused, and including the evidence of Dr. Cory who testified that it was not obvious to her that L had to be hospitalized when he had that last visit with Dr. Duncan.

[337] As for Dr. Dhaliwal, I reject the position of the defence that she was an incredible or unreliable witness. I find that she was neither. I accept her evidence that she repeatedly advised the accused to go to the hospital if L was in a crisis situation. I accept her evidence that her efforts to see and to speak with L were frustrated by the accused. I accept her evidence that she was doing whatever she could to respond to the accused mothers’ concerns about a potential eating disorder for L and getting the referral done to have the child admitted to the eating disorder clinic at the hospital in Oakville.

[338] At the end of the day, neither Dr. Duncan nor Dr. Dhaliwal was living with L every day of his life. They were not there to witness him, before their very eyes, wasting away to skin and bones. They had no reason to think that L was being caged in his basement room for most of every day and being treated like a baby and being sometimes deprived of food. They had no reason to think that L very nearly died at home in November 2022.

[339] All of these things were known only to the two accused and, to some degree, Ed.

[340] Turning away now from Drs. Duncan and Dhaliwal, I want to say something more about the evidence of Dr. Labib. I think, with respect, that her evidence ought to have been given more attention than it received in the closing submissions of all counsel. Her evidence, like that of the other treating medical professionals including the first responders, is important. Further, the evidence of Dr. Labib is largely incriminating against the accused.

[341] It was Dr. Labib who saw and treated, at length, L upon his arrival at the emergency department at Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington. She was a very experienced emergency room physician at the time.

[342] She perceived the boy to be about six years of age (we know that L was actually twice that old when he died). He was “skin and bones”, she stated at trial. He had almost zero muscle. He was very, very small. He was wet from head to toe – soaking wet, even his hair, like he had just come out of a swimming pool or something like that. He was cachectic. He was in a state even more severe than being emaciated. His wetness was odourless and colourless – it was not urine or vomit. The boy was so wet that she thought about whether he had drowned. Why was he so wet, she wondered to herself. The boy was hypothermic in that he had a low core body temperature. The body temperature was so low that she found it to be “alarming” and “very concerning” and totally inconsistent with what she was told by the accused had happened. He had no visible injuries except some bruising to his knees.

[343] Dr. Labib described L as being malnourished and anemic, corroborated by his biochemistry results, she said.

[344] Exhibit 100 was filed through Dr. Labib. Thankfully, the courtroom staff did not have to see that photo of L taken at the hospital. I see in that photo a boy who is extremely thin, skeletal I would say.

[345] Dr. Labib testified that she called the CAS that same night because she had grave concerns about the mothers. What they told her about what happened made no sense to her. “For sure”, the wetness all over L was not urine or vomit, Dr. Labib repeated at trial. She later added that it was definitely not sweat either.

[346] In cross-examination by defence counsel, none of Dr. Labib’s evidence was altered in any way. She repeated that the boy was very wet and obviously malnourished and with a very low core body temperature, and she disagreed with Mr. MacGregor that the very low core body temperature could have been caused by L lying on the bare basement floor and/or him having worn a wetsuit and/or it having been wintertime.

[347] Dr. Labib’s evidence supports findings of fact, that this Court makes, that L, at the time of his death, was:

(i) very wet all over, and not from urine or vomit or sweat;

(ii) cachectic;

(iii) malnourished; and

(iv) hypothermic.

The Expert Evidence of Drs. Cory and Pickup

[348] Dr. Emma Cory’s expertise, and the admissibility of her expert opinion evidence, were not challenged at trial. On consent, she was qualified as a medical doctor with expertise in general pediatrics and particular expertise with respect to (i) medical evaluation and interpretation of growth, feeding, and nutrition concerns in infants and children and (ii) medical evaluation and interpretation of possible injuries in children.

[349] Dr. Cory has testified in court as an expert witness on many occasions, in these same subject areas. As mentioned earlier in these reasons, she is the Co-Director of the SCAN Program at SickKids Hospital, and she has been in that role since 2014. She is also a pediatrician at SickKids Hospital and an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. She has a wealth of experience with cases involving child abuse and neglect – maltreatment generally but, in particular, malnourishment and failure to thrive.

[350] In direct examination, in addition to adopting the content of her report dated June 3, 2025 (Exhibit 124A), which report was supplemented by the World Health Organization growth charts that Dr. Cory included therewith (Exhibit 124B), Dr. Cory testified that:

(i) she saw nothing in anything that she reviewed, including but not limited to all of the bloodwork results for L at the time of his death, to suggest that L had an infection of any kind;

(ii) she saw nothing in anything that she reviewed, including the postmortem report, to suggest that L had a chronic medical condition of any kind, aside from severe malnutrition;

(iii) the ECG examination results showed that L did have a low heart rate on December 2, 2022, less than three weeks before he died, and that is a sign of malnutrition;

(iv) the extensive health records for L, which records she reviewed, do not give any cause for concern about his growth or his eating while he was living in Ottawa, before moving in with the accused in Burlington, and in fact L’s weight and his growth were normal up to when he was about 9 years old;

(v) there is no question that the symptoms described by the accused in their text messages exchanged between November 20 and November 22, 2022, regarding L, which messages she reviewed, required an urgent/immediate admission of L to a hospital;

(vi) in her opinion, L had “severe malnutrition”, and in fact he had “chronic malnutrition” which significantly affected not only his weight but also his height;

(vii) she would not be in any position to diagnose L with any type of eating disorder, as she would have had to speak to L in order to make that assessment;

(viii) the bringing-up of food and then chewing and eating and swallowing it again would not typically cause malnourishment because the person’s caloric intake is not being impacted;

(ix) there is nothing that she reviewed that would lead her to conclude that L had rumination syndrome or some other eating disorder;

(x) most children with rumination syndrome do not present with severe malnutrition, and she would describe it as being “extremely unusual” for this degree of malnutrition that L had to have been due to rumination syndrome;

(xi) the stunting of one’s height is uncommon, and for L this suggests that he suffered from longer-term malnutrition;

(xii) severe malnutrition can cause death;

(xiii) electrolyte imbalances and abnormalities can cause cardiac arrest and death, and malnutrition can cause electrolyte issues;

(xiv) malnutrition can also cause one to be more vulnerable to hypothermia;

(xv) malnutrition can cause problems with cognition, academic performance, attention, focus, and energy level;

(xvi) on December 13, 2022, just over one week before he died, L weighed just 48 pounds, which weight was very abnormal for his age at the time;

(xvii) at the time right after his death, L’s weight was measured at 62 pounds, however, that weight must be looked at with some caution because the records indicate that the boy was weighed, at that time, along with several other items;

(xviii) the records from CAPIS show that L ate very well and gained weight when he was there, and it is common for malnourished children to gain weight rapidly after entering a new caregiver environment that does not restrict food intake; and

(xix) in her opinion, there was no medical cause for L’s severe level of malnutrition – rather, it was due to a chronic insufficient intake of calories.

[351] In cross-examination by Ms. Edward, Dr. Cory stated that, given the medical records for L’s doctor visits on December 2, 2021 and December 13, 2022, which records she reviewed, she would have been, at those times, very concerned about L’s weight loss and, on the latter date, “most likely” she would have wanted L admitted to a medical facility.

[352] In cross-examination by Mr. MacGregor, Dr. Cory testified that:

(i) she cannot exclude the possibility that L had an eating disorder, and she cannot say why L experienced a chronic insufficient intake of calories that led to his severe level of malnutrition;

(ii) she would have done certain things on December 13, 2022 to determine if L needed to be hospitalized, like a detailed physical examination of the boy including vitals;

(iii) mental health can impact on one’s feeding;

(iv) she defers to Dr. Pickup on the cause and manner of L’s death;

(v) it is possible that some of the weight measurement difference in L between December 13 and December 22, 2022 may have been from actual weight gain;

(vi) L was taking medications in December 2022, and medications can impact one’s appetite;

(vii) Exhibit 125, the video clip of L from October 2022, which she watched in the courtroom, “absolutely” gave her concerns about L’s appearance – his caved-in face, and his extremely thin presentation, and his pale and very unwell look;

(viii) although she agrees that a hospital admission for L was an option on December 13, 2022, when the boy visited with Dr. Duncan, she cannot say that L should have been so admitted on that date;

(ix) the full scope of rumination syndrome is beyond her expertise;

(x) rumination syndrome can lead to electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, weight loss, nutrient deficiencies, and growth problems;

(xi) regular regurgitation of food would cause concern for the possibility of rumination syndrome;

(xii) refeeding syndrome is caused when a severely malnourished child is given more nutrition (food) too rapidly, leading to an imbalance in electrolytes;

(xiii) an imbalance in electrolytes can lead to cardiac arrest and death;

(xiv) it is hard to predict refeeding syndrome;

(xv) postmortem bloodwork would not necessarily show refeeding syndrome;

(xvi) there are many symptoms of an imbalance in electrolytes, including irritability, constipation, irregular heart rate, nausea, vomiting, numbness and tingling, headaches, fatigue, increased urination, and “wonky” eyes;

(xvii) L being given a nutritional smoothie 20-30 minutes before his cardiac arrest could have prompted refeeding syndrome;

(xviii) she cannot exclude the possibility that refeeding syndrome between December 13th and the date of L’s death caused the boy’s cardiac arrest; and

(xix) L’s caregivers could have done something to bring about refeeding syndrome without knowing that and without doing so deliberately.

[353] In re-examination by the Crown, Dr. Cory stated that Dr. Duncan’s notes from the December 13, 2022 visit with L do not mention that he was told anything by the caregivers about the incident that L experienced at the home in November 2022, and, if she was the doctor who saw L on that date, she would have wanted to know about that incident in November 2022 because it would have been crucial information to her in the determination of what action should be taken for L on that day.

[354] Dr. Michael Pickup’s expertise, and the admissibility of his expert opinion evidence, were not challenged at trial. On consent, he was qualified as an expert witness in the field of forensic pathology.

[355] Dr. Pickup is the Deputy Chief Forensic Pathologist for Ontario. His credentials are impeccable and his experience vast.

[356] Dr. Pickup performed the autopsy (also called a postmortem examination) on L on December 23, 2022. His report is marked Exhibit 129A.

[357] The boy’s measured weight on the day of the autopsy, 62 pounds, must be viewed with caution, Dr. Pickup said, because the 62 pounds included the body bag and all of is contents – three sheets, saline solution, and other equipment.

[358] As Dr. Pickup explained to the Crown in direct examination, his findings showed no evidence of any abnormality in L’s heart; and no evidence of aspiration or choking or drowning; and no evidence of thyroid disease; and no evidence of dehydration; and no evidence of ketones that would normally be present where death is caused by acute starvation – although Dr. Pickup was quick to add that the absence of ketones certainly does not mean that there was not acute starvation in this case; and no evidence of a disease of any kind; and no evidence of a significant injury of any kind.

[359] In conclusion, Dr. Pickup was unable to determine the precise cause of L’s death.

[360] As Dr. Pickup explained more than once during his testimony at trial, the cause of a person’s death cannot always be ascertained.

[361] In Dr. Pickup’s opinion, and he stated this in direct examination by the Crown, decreased caloric intake is the most reasonable cause for L’s significant growth arrest and weight loss. There is no pathological evidence, however, that malnutrition and/or dehydration caused or contributed to L’s death.

[362] Dr. Pickup told the Crown in direct examination that there were some signs on autopsy that L was malnourished; and there were some signs pointing towards hypothermia, though not conclusive; and it is true that severe malnourishment makes one more susceptible to hypothermia; and it is also true that severe malnourishment and/or hypothermia make(s) one more susceptible to an imbalance in electrolytes and cardiac arrest and death.

[363] Quite smartly, defence counsel asked very few questions to Dr. Pickup.

[364] Mr. MacGregor had Dr. Pickup confirm that hypothermia was simply not on his radar here (my expression) because the boy was found unresponsive inside a residence, which is why his report does not deal with hypothermia. Dr. Pickup also agreed with Mr. MacGregor that vomiting can cause an imbalance in electrolytes and cardiac arrest.

[365] Ms. Edward had Dr. Pickup confirm that he cannot state that acute starvation was the cause of L’s death – he would have needed to find ketones in order to make that conclusive determination.

[366] In the assessment of this Court, the following are the key takeaways, findings of fact that this Court makes, based on the evidence of Drs. Cory and Pickup:

(i) L had “severe malnutrition”, “chronic malnutrition”, before he died;

(ii) L’s severe and chronic malnutrition were due to him not consuming enough calories;

(iii) L sustained a cardiac arrest before he died; and

(iv) pathologically, what caused that cardiac arrest, which really is the same thing as saying what was the precise cause of L’s death, could not be determined.

[367] In my view, there is no reliable evidence at trial, including through the evidence of Drs. Cory and/or Pickup, that would enable this Court to find as a fact that:

(i) L had rumination syndrome or any eating disorder;

(ii) L’s severe and chronic malnutrition – his chronic insufficient intake of calories – were caused or contributed to by any medical condition;

(iii) L gained any actual weight between December 13th and the date of his death; or

(iv) L experienced refeeding syndrome between December 13th and the date of his death.

[368] Let me be very clear – the defence has no burden to prove anything at trial, including anything about any of the four items enumerated immediately above.

[369] My point is that, in terms of affirmative findings of fact, they must be based on the evidence. They cannot be based on “maybes” or mere possibilities that cannot be excluded.

[370] And this cuts both ways – it applies equally to the prosecution and the defence. For example, just as this Court cannot find as a fact that L died from hypothermia, on the basis that Dr. Pickup said that it was possible that hypothermia caused or contributed to L’s death, this Court cannot find as a fact that L died from refeeding syndrome, on the basis that Dr. Cory could not exclude the possibility that L experienced refeeding syndrome between December 13th and the date of his death.

[371] The most important conclusion, here, is that L died while he was severely and chronically malnourished in that he had suffered a chronic insufficient intake of calories unexplained by any medical condition.

[372] This Court will now turn its attention to each of the four counts and their essential elements in order to explain why each accused is being found guilty on each and every charge against her.

Count 1 – The Unlawful Confinement of J

[373] This is not a close call.

[374] The evidence is overwhelming that the accused, both of them, (i) intentionally confined J and (ii) did so without lawful authority.

[375] There is no need to even resort to any of the physical restraint techniques employed by the accused, although all of those facts have been made out as well.

[376] It is sufficient to dispose of this count with resort to the uncontroverted evidence that J was locked inside his bedroom for lengthy periods of time, even overnight, without access to basic needs like the bathroom, and without being able to escape because of the door lock being located on the outside of the door.

[377] Section 43 of the Criminal Code has no application here in that (i) the confinement was predominantly for punishment of the child, J, and because (ii) the confinement was clearly excessive (not reasonable) in the circumstances.

[378] The excuse of necessity has no application here because not a single one of the elements has been met: I have no reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was/were in imminent danger or peril – they were not; and I have no reasonable doubt as to whether there was a reasonable alternative to what the accused did – there was in that they could have simply returned the children to the CAS at any time; and I have no reasonable doubt on the proportionality assessment – locking J up like a prisoner caused far more harm than anything that J did or could have done if he was not locked up like a prisoner.

[379] This count has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each accused is found guilty.

Count 2 – The Assault of J With a Weapon

[380] This is not a close call.

[381] The evidence is overwhelming that:

(i) the accused intentionally applied force to J – they pulled down his wetsuit bottoms and wrapped them underneath and around his feet and then secured them to his feet with zip-ties;

(vi) J did not consent to that – he testified as such in direct examination at trial, which evidence this Court accepts, and besides he was a young child at the time, and thus, consent is not a real issue;

(vii) the accused knew that J did not consent, and I reject the evidence of the accused that this was J’s idea to begin with; and

(viii) a weapon, zip-ties, was involved in the assault.

[382] The analysis on section 43 of the Criminal Code and on the excuse of necessity, regarding the assault with a weapon charge, dovetails with the above concerning the unlawful confinement offence. The conclusions are the same. Neither applies.

[383] This count has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each accused is found guilty.

Count 3 – The Failure to Provide to J the Necessaries of Life

[384] This is not a close call.

[385] We know that the accused were J’s view-to-adopt foster parents.

[386] We know that J was under 16 years old at the time.

[387] We know that the accused had a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to J.

[388] On the basis of the evidence that this Court accepts, namely the evidence of J, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to provide the necessaries of life to J in terms of both (i) adequate food and (ii) medical attention for the deep cuts on the tops of his feet.

[389] It is not argued by the defence that the accused had a lawful excuse for that failure, and it could not possibly be said that they did have such a lawful excuse.

[390] We know that J was in destitute or necessitous circumstances at the time. He was a young child in the care and custody of the accused, and even the accused described at trial that J was in need of their constant assistance and supervision and had to be treated like an infant or a toddler.

[391] I am satisfied that the conduct of the accused represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person where it was objectively foreseeable that J was in destitute or necessitous circumstances and, further, there was some foreseeable risk of harm. A reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that failure to provide the necessaries would risk harm to J.

[392] Depriving a child of food for a lengthy period of time, even for one day, risks harm to the child – everyone knows that. Depriving a child of any medical attention for deep and bleeding cuts on his feet risks harm to the child – everyone knows that, and, in fact, such harm came to pass here as J still has visible scars on his feet from those significant injuries.

[393] This count has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each accused is found guilty.

[394] Before turning to count 4, I would be remiss if I did not address, squarely, the issue of criminal intent when it comes to counts 1-3 on the Indictment.

[395] I do not accept the defence argument that any of the actions taken by the accused, or inactions, relevant to counts 1-3, was because they were trying to protect or to help J in any way. No, to the contrary, the conduct of the accused was done out of ill will towards their child, and out of malice, and to punish and deprive their child.

[396] Mens rea is not a concern for me in this case. It has been established.

Count 4 – The Constructive First Degree Murder of L

[397] In my view, this is a textbook case of constructive first degree murder. I find that the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of the offence.

[398] In looking at the helpful written closing submissions filed on behalf of Ms. Hamber, including the document titled “Roadmap”, I take a very different view than that offered by the defence.

[399] This was not a murder, argues the defence, because there was no causation and no intent. I disagree. If this was a murder, argues the defence, in the alternative, then it was not a first degree murder because it was not planned and deliberate (the Crown does not rely on that route to liability) and neither was it a constructive murder. I disagree.

[400] At the outset, it is important to step back and note two things.

[401] First, it is not necessary that this Court be able to say to itself at this stage of the proceeding, “I know everything that there is to know about this case”. I venture to say that there is probably no such case where the trier of fact can comfortably say that after deliberations.

[402] Here, for example, I am not prepared to find as a fact that, on the date of L’s death, the accused took the boy outside and placed him in the hot tub in order to try to warm him up, as alleged by the Crown. I am not prepared to find as a fact that the accused used the black toboggan in order to transport L for that purpose, as alleged by the Crown.

[403] I do not agree with the defence assertions about the lack of credibility and reliability of the evidence of the firefighter who testified about the toboggan, however, I do not find the evidence strong enough to make those findings of fact.

[404] The point is that those findings of fact are unnecessary to the result. They are not things that the Crown must prove, never mind prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What the Crown must prove are the essential elements of the offence, and the Crown has done that to the requisite standard of proof.

[405] Having said that, I firmly believe that the accused did, on the date of L’s death, just as they had done before in November 2022, place the boy in water before he was found in the position that he was found in by first responders. I accept the evidence of Dr. Labib, among others, that L was soaking wet as if he had been dunked in water. And I accept the evidence of Dr. Labib that the wetness that permeated L’s head and body was definitely not vomit or urine or sweat. Dr. Labib was in a much better position to determine that than the one first responder who attended at the home and described in his evidence at trial a stench of vomit or urine or something similar in the basement.

[406] Second, the reason for being of constructive first degree murder, its place within the legislative scheme as it relates to culpable homicide, is worth observing.

[407] For our purposes here, murder is where the person who causes the death of another either (i) means to cause their death or (ii) means to cause them bodily harm that the person knows is likely to cause their death and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not: section 229(a) of the Criminal Code.

[408] There are two types of murder – first degree murder and second degree murder: section 231(1) of the Criminal Code. Anything that is murder and is not first degree murder is, by necessary consequence, second degree murder: section 231(7) of the Criminal Code.

[409] There are also different types of first degree murder. These different types of first degree murder are set out beginning at section 231(2) of the Criminal Code, starting with what I think most laypersons normally associate with first degree murder – a murder that is planned and deliberate.

[410] Parliament has effectively decided that there are other types of murder that do not necessarily involve planning and deliberation but which ought to be considered on the same level as a murder that is planned and deliberate and, thus, ought to be considered first degree murder - the most serious type of murder.

[411] That decision is reflected in what we see in subsections (4) through (6.2) of section 231 of the Criminal Code.

[412] One example of a murder that does not necessarily involve planning and deliberation but which ought, nonetheless, to be considered first degree murder is what we are dealing with here – constructive first degree murder – subsection (5) of section 231 of the Criminal Code.

[413] The expression, “constructive first degree murder”, is not found in section 231 of the Criminal Code. That expression would also not normally be included in the wording of the offence in an information or an indictment. Rather, that is our expression to help denote the type of first degree murder that is being implicated, in other words to distinguish it from other types of first degree murder.

[414] It is an apt description, “constructive first degree murder”, because it makes the point that such a first degree murder is one that is constructed, or arrived at, in a specified number of steps. It is a murder that becomes first degree murder through the construction, the piecing together, of different parts.

[415] Many years ago, Chief Justice Lamer explained very clearly the rationale for constructive first degree murder. In R. v. Luxton, 1990 83 (S.C.C.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711, the Chief Justice observed that it is all about:

• “a proportionality between the moral turpitude of the offender and the malignity of the offence”;

• “Parliament has chosen, once it has been proven that an offender has committed murder, to classify certain of those murders as first degree. Murders that are done while committing offences which involve the illegal domination of the victim by the offender have been classified as first degree murder”;

• unlawful or forcible confinement is one such crime of illegal domination;

• it is the “added element of forcible confinement in the context of the commission of murder” that “markedly enhances the moral blameworthiness of the offender”;

• Parliament has decided to “elevate murders done while the offender commits forcible confinement to the level of first degree murder”, and that is “consonant with the principle of proportionality between the blameworthiness of the offender and the punishment”.

[416] The reference for all of the above is the fourth full paragraph under the heading “Analysis”, contained within the Chief Justice’s opinion.

[417] In other words, section 231(5) of the Criminal Code operates like a sentencing provision.

[418] In my opinion, in our case, to find Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber guilty of the first degree murder of L is certainly in keeping with what I perceive to be their very high degree of moral blameworthiness and is certainly in agreement or harmony with the punishment for first degree murder.

[419] In our case, I repeat that the Crown must prove the following:

(i) that the accused caused the death of L;

(ii) that the accused caused the death of L unlawfully, here – by failing to provide to L the necessaries of life;

(iii) that the accused had the state of mind required for murder, that is, that the accused either (a) meant to kill L or (b) meant to cause bodily harm to L that the accused knew was likely to kill L and was reckless as to whether L died or not;

(iv) that the accused committed an underlying crime of domination, here – the unlawful confinement of L;

(v) that the unlawful confinement of L and the murder of L were part of the same series of events; and

(vi) that the accused was an active participant in the killing of L.

[420] In my view, looking at the first two requirements together, I am sure that each of Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber failed to provide to L the necessaries of life and that the said failure was a substantial cause of L’s death.

[421] They failed to provide to L the necessaries of life in two respects: adequate food and medical attention.

[422] The medical attention relates most specifically to what happened with L at home in November 2022, the month before he died. There is no question that L almost died on that earlier occasion and that it was a crisis situation that required an urgent and immediate visit to the nearest hospital emergency room, but the accused did nothing to get their son that medical attention.

[423] The essential elements of the failure to provide the necessaries of life offence, in the context of the evidence at trial, were reviewed above in these reasons, with regard to J. They need not be repeated here. If they were made out regarding J, which they were, then they are most certainly made out with regard to L.

[424] In fact, the issue of whether the accused failed to provide to L the necessaries of life was not really contested by defence counsel in their closing submissions at trial.

[425] It was not conceded by the defence, however, that the said failure was a substantial cause of L’s death. I am sure that it was.

[426] L was severely and chronically malnourished when he died. He was skin and bones. His severe malnourishment was the result of his chronic insufficient intake of calories. The fact that L received no medical attention when he almost died at home in November 2022, and the fact that L was being deprived of adequate food, were the responsibility of the accused. It was the accused who controlled whether L received medical attention or not. It was the accused who controlled his caloric intake. By withholding urgently needed medical attention for L and by withholding adequate food from L, the accused caused L’s severe and chronic malnourishment and his wretched and weakened physical state that precipitated his death.

[427] L’s severe and chronic malnourished state at the time of his death is amply supported by the medical evidence, most particularly that of Dr. Cory. L’s wretched and weakened physical state at the time of his death, including but not limited to his cachectic condition and his very low core body temperature that was consistent with hypothermia, is amply supported by the medical evidence, including that of Dr. Labib.

[428] L’s severe and chronic malnourished condition and his wretched and weakened physical state at the time of his death were not due to anything other than the actions and inactions of these two accused. There was no other medical condition, disease, or injury that caused those things, or either of them. I reject the evidence of the accused about any alleged eating disorder, whether rumination syndrome or otherwise. I reject the entirely speculative argument by the defence about the possibility of refeeding syndrome. In fact, that argument makes no common sense because there is no reason to believe that the accused would have increased L’s caloric intake after the November 2022 incident and no reliable evidence at trial that L’s body weight actually increased at all between the date of that incident in November 2022 and the date of his death.

[429] That Dr. Pickup could not determine the precise cause of L’s death does not mean that the accused cannot be found to have substantially caused L’s death, both factually and legally.

[430] That L died the month after the serious episode that he suffered at home in November 2022, and that L was seen by Dr. Duncan in the intervening period, does not mean that the accused cannot be found to have substantially caused L’s death, both factually and legally.

[431] There was no break in the chain of causation. In fact, the accused continued to fail to provide to L the necessaries of life after the serious episode occurred when L almost died in November 2022 and right up to and including the date of L’s demise. Illustrative of that is the failure of the accused to even tell the medical professionals, including Dr. Duncan, about everything that happened during that clearly life-threatening incident in November 2022.

[432] In terms of the third essential element of the offence, the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber had the requisite mens rea for murder. I am sure that the accused intended to kill L.

[433] The electronic evidence is overwhelming in this regard. The accused loathed and hated their son. They resented him. They were tired of dealing with him. They relegated him to the basement and locked him up for much of the last two years or so of his life. They persisted with their forcible confinement of L, and with their isolation of him from everything and everyone including his own little brother, and with their failure to provide him with adequate food and with required medical attention, all even though they saw what their actions and inactions were doing to the boy – causing him to waste away into nothing. That persistence demonstrates an intention to kill the boy.

[434] I understand the point made by the defence – why not just kill L then? Why engage at all with the medical professionals?

[435] I confess that I cannot answer those questions. Perhaps it was because the accused wanted to maintain the artifice and fend off suspicion. I cannot be sure.

[436] What I am sure of is that the accused, although not everything that they did or did not do can be said to be consistent only with an intention to kill L, which is not unusual in a murder case, did intend to kill L, which is why they continued doing what they had been doing even after the boy almost died in November 2022.

[437] If others think that I am wrong in this conclusion, then I must add, for the sake of completeness, that I would have found an intention on the part of the accused to cause bodily harm to L, bodily harm that they knew would likely cause L to die, and they were reckless as to whether L died or not.

[438] With regard to the fourth essential element of the offence, I am sure that the accused committed an underlying crime of domination in that they forcibly confined L.

[439] This was not a topic of any serious debate in the closing submissions of counsel. If the elements of that offence were made out for J, which they were, then they are most certainly made out for L.

[440] The electronic evidence, buttressed by the evidence of J and, in most respects, not even quarrelled with by the accused in their own evidence at trial, proves that the accused were locking L up in his “jail”, his basement bedroom locked from the outside, since at least two years or so before the boy died.

[441] The accused had no lawful authority to do so. Section 43 of the Criminal Code has no application here, and neither does the excuse of necessity.

[442] Skipping the fifth essential element of the offence for a moment, we need not spend any time on the sixth and final requirement of the offence. This is not a case about modes or degrees of participation among the two accused. No counsel on either side spent any time whatsoever on this issue in closing submissions at trial. There is no contest that, if the other things are found as this Court has found, it must be concluded that each accused was an active participant in the killing of L.

[443] So, the verdict on count 4 now turns on an assessment of the question of whether the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the unlawful confinement of L and the murder of L were part of the same series of events. I am sure that they were.

[444] I am satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

(i) the underlying crime of domination committed by the accused (the forcible confinement of L), and their murder of L, involved two distinct acts; and

(ii) yet those two distinct acts were closely connected with one another in that they were parts of the same series of events and parts of a single ongoing transaction.

[445] L did not die from being forcibly confined in his dungeon-like bedroom in the basement. Put another way, the accused did not kill L by unlawfully locking him up in his bedroom. They killed L by failing to provide to him the necessaries of life, adequate food and required medical attention.

[446] I respectfully disagree with the defence submission that the unlawful confinement of L and the killing of L were subsumed within each other. They were not. They were separate delicts. The failure to provide the necessaries of life was not necessarily dependent on the unlawful confinement, and the same for the other way around.

[447] Defence counsel’s use of the word “subsumed” is interesting, however. It is interesting because it would be more accurate to say that the failure to provide to L the necessaries of life and the unlawful confinement of L were both “subsumed” under the same single ongoing transaction – that is, the abuse and neglect of L.

[448] And that is precisely why this fifth essential element of the offence has been made out.

[449] The failure to provide the child with the necessaries of life was one part of the same series of events, one part of the ongoing abuse and neglect of L at the hands of the accused. Distinct but closely connected to that failure was the forcible confinement of L, which confinement continued right up to and including the day that the child was found by Ms. Cooney to be lying unresponsive on the floor of his basement bedroom. That unlawful confinement of the child was another part of the same series of events, another part of the ongoing abuse and neglect of L at the hands of the accused.

[450] My hope is that someone reading this will now understand why this Court opened this section of these reasons by observing that this is a textbook case of constructive first degree murder.

[451] The case for first degree murder has been constructed, put together, pieced together, assembled, in parts. Each part has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

(i) the underlying crime of domination – the unlawful confinement of L;

(ii) murder – the actus reus was the failure to provide to L the necessaries of life, and the accused had the state of mind required in that they intended to kill the child;

(iii) substantial cause;

(iv) no intervening act; and

(v) same transaction.

[452] Finally, as reasons for judgment must be seen as being responsive to the major arguments advanced by the unsuccessful side, I will address, briefly, each and every point raised by Mr. MacGregor, and some of these points were also mentioned by Ms. Edward, in his concluding remarks at trial.

[453] First, it was submitted that the actions of the accused in seeking medical help for L in December 2022, including the very day before his death, show a lack of any criminal intent on the part of the accused. I disagree. What is more important is that when the proverbial push came to shove, the accused abandoned L. When Danielle’s Place was there for the boy to treat what the accused were insisting was some sort of an eating disorder, they took a pass.

[454] Second, it was submitted that J’s own evidence at trial supports the defence theory about L having had some sort of an eating disorder (page 88 of the transcript of J’s January 11, 2023 police statement, where J speaks about L’s regurgitation). I disagree. That is a relatively isolated passage in the totality of J’s evidence. That passage cannot be relied upon to bolster the defence theory of rumination syndrome, as what the accused described about L’s alleged rumination was much more extensive than what was mentioned by J. Perhaps more important, however, is that what J described in that one passage contained within that one police statement, according to Dr. Cory, whose expert opinion evidence I accept on this point, would not have accounted for L’s wasting away from severe and chronic malnourishment.

[455] Third, it was submitted that the Crown’s isolation theory makes no sense on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial. I strongly disagree. The totality of the evidence at trial supports that L was isolated from the rest of the world including, after a certain point in his life, school, the outside, and his own brother.

[456] Fourth, it was submitted that the texts between the accused are terrible but do not show an intention to harm or to kill L. I strongly disagree. Other than saying, “we, the accused, intend to kill our son, L”, they communicate everything else that one would expect someone with such an intention to say. The loathe. The hate. The resentment. The insults. The locking of L up in the jail being run by the accused. The taking and, for some unknown reason, the keeping of videos of L looking so sad and weak and frail and desperate. The express recognition, in November 2022, that L may very well die and then just continuing on in the same manner as before. All of these things come through very clearly and consistently in the electronic evidence.

[457] Fifth, it was submitted that the parenting techniques employed by the accused, like the use of restraints on the boys, though abnormal, were to help protect the children. I disagree. Protect them from what? From allegedly smashing their bare faces and heads against cement curbs, while sustaining no injuries? I do not believe any of that evidence of the accused. From what, then, did these boys need to be protected to such a degree that they had to be treated like babies and prisoners inside their own home? I do not understand it.

[458] Sixth, it was submitted that this Court can completely reject the evidence of Ms. Hamber but still acquit her because of a lack of mens rea. I agree that this Court could have done that, but, at the third stage of the W.(D.) analysis, this Court has no reasonable doubt on that issue.

[459] Seventh, it was submitted that the November 2022 incident at home with L is troubling and could permit this Court to find a failure on the part of the accused to provide L with the necessaries of life (specifically, required medical attention), but the chain of causation required for any form of homicide was broken between then and the date of L’s death. I disagree with the second part of that submission. Nothing that occurred between November 2022 and the date of L’s death did anything to change the fact that the actions and inactions of the accused were a substantial cause of the boy’s demise.

[460] Eighth and finally, the post-offence conduct evidence being relied upon by the Crown is weak. I do not agree that it is weak, however, I agree that it ought to be treated cautiously. It should be noted that this Court has not spoken much about that evidence in these reasons, and that has been deliberate.

[461] The postmortem internet searches by the accused are damning. Their behaviour at the hospital, observed by Dr. Labib, was unusual. The very quick alteration of L’s bedroom after the boy died, converting it from a quasi-prison cell to a normal room, was suspicious. The very quick enquiries made to get financial compensation for L’s death were unusual. Ms. Hamber’s conspiracy theory about the accused being punished for their dogged demands that the CAS show proof of the boys Indigeneity was bizarre. And so on.

[462] None of that evidence is necessary to the verdicts, however. In assessing the essential elements of each of the four counts, this Court has not relied upon any of that evidence. In fact, the only item of after-the-fact conduct evidence even mentioned at all earlier in these reasons is the internet searches.

[463] Evidence of after-the-fact conduct is a form of circumstantial evidence. It is all about inferences grounded on logic, common sense, and human experience. It is generally for the trier of fact to choose the inference that it will draw from the array of possibilities. R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, at para. 67.

[464] With the exception of the internet searches, I think that it would have been dangerous for this Court to have drawn any inference from the after-the-fact conduct evidence that would have tended to inculpate the accused. That is true even when, as we must do, that other after-the-fact conduct evidence is looked at in its totality and in conjunction with all of the evidence at trial.

[465] On the internet searches, however, although not necessary for the disposition of the case, I think that there is only one reasonable inference to be drawn from that – the accused had an awareness of their guilt, they had guilty minds, and they wanted to know the extent of their jeopardy within the spectrum of homicide offences. In that sense, the internet searches are classic “consciousness of guilt” evidence, as we used to employ that term.

[466] In any event, all of this discussion is only to respond to the submission made by the defence and not because this Court has relied upon consciousness of guilt evidence in terms of any of the key issues in this case, including intent.

X. Conclusion

[467] For all of these reasons, both Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber are found guilty on all counts.

[468] They unlawfully confined J. They assaulted J with a weapon. They failed to provide to J the necessaries of life. They committed first degree murder on the person of L.

Conlan J.

Released: May 5, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Cooney & Hamber, 2026 ONSC 2646

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-0074

DATE: 2026-05-05

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Brandy Cooney and Becky Hamber

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Conlan J.

Released: May 5, 2026

APPENDIX “A” TO THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF R. V. COONEY AND HAMBER:

SUMMARY OF THE VIVA VOCE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

Contents - Witnesses

HW... 3

Elizabeth ‘Beth’ SIBLEY.. 10

Alex MIKALSKI. 16

Shane SCANLAN.. 18

David CIOLFI. 19

Mary VINCENT. 21

Lindsay BAILEY.. 23

Carmelo ALFANO.. 23

Kathleen WILSON.. 25

Paola GIORDANI-MURRAY.. 29

Darren William VIVIAN.. 32

Sara FERRARO.. 36

Sara BIASETTI. 39

Erin NOLAN.. 43

Sarah LAYZELL.. 45

Hunter GRILLO.. 49

Leahann MALONEY.. 51

Natasha DAVIS. 53

Tayler DUNN.. 56

Lawrence BERNSTEIN.. 59

Chris BURGESS. 61

Tyrone SOLOMON.. 62

Scott LAMB.. 64

Garrett WASSENAAR.. 66

Jared MACMILLAN.. 67

Dr. Alan David BROWN.. 68

Kristina RAPOSO.. 74

Dr. Noura LABIB.. 77

Helen KESKULA.. 79

Chris DORRINGTON.. 81

Dr. Emma CORY.. 82

Dr. Michael PICKUP. 87

Stefanie LEACHEY.. 90

Holly PATERSON.. 92

Sarah BRODIE.. 93

Melissa PARSONS. 95

Dr. Graeme DUNCAN.. 97

Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL.. 105

Lisa POTTS. 109

Matthew BURSEY.. 113

Dr. Arinder MALIK.. 116

Chelsea HARDING.. 117

J. 119

Faisel MODHI. 129

Terra BOVINGDON.. 131

Julie POWERS. 133

Brandy COONEY.. 147

Becky HAMBER.. 152

Witness Name

Party

Dates Testified

Witness’s Testimony

HW

Crown

September 15 and 16, 2025

Foster family of L and J starting February 4, 2013 and ending October 5, 2017. J was little under 1 year old and L was a little over 2 years old when they came to the home. Shown Exhibit 2 – Photo dated June 1, 2013. J’s birthday is February 21, 2012, and L’s birthday was October 24,2010. L and J shared one room. There were requirements to become foster parents (checklist of things – ex. Baby equipment working). Shown Exhibits 3-7.

Information about L:

L was 2 years old when he first came to HW’s home. He was tested at 2.5 years old and had a global developmental delay. L was very intelligent, taught himself how to read. L went to a nursery school; J attended the school too. L had to stop attending because there were concerns about him running away. At three years old, L went to an Indigenous pre-school, he stayed there for junior kindergarten. J went to this school too. L did well here but then there were issues with him hitting teachers and other kids. In senior kindergarten, he entered public school. CAS made the decision to not return L and J to their birthmother and her partner, and L took that change very hard and was angry. He had aggression issues at the school; would yell, bite, punch the kids. Was not rough with foster parents but in the beginning was rough with J; would deliberately try to hurt him, for example, one weekend when they went to Ms. Hamber & Ms. Cooney’s place to pick them up, J had a black eye and a bruise on the cheek, L had hit him twice with a hockey stick; L would try to push J down the stairs. In January 2016, L switched public schools. L had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and was assisted by an Educational Assistant (EA). Incidents happened at school, he would throw chairs, he stabbed a child in the eye with a pencil. By end of Grade 1, L had settled down. There was an incident where L had shown J his bum and J was crying and did not want to be in room with him. J moved into another bedroom with foster parents’ biological child. This had to be reported to CAS because you are not allowed as a foster parent to mix birth children with foster children. This setup worked better for all of them, no incidents after that. L had some self-injurious behaviours such as banging his own head and jumping up and landing hard on his knees; this behaviour stopped after 1-2 months in her care. L was toilet trained here, but still had some bed wetting issues and this continued (once or twice a week and sometimes it would skip a week). When he first came there, he would eat to the point of vomiting. Foster mom would not lock the cupboards. She did not have concerns about food being stolen. Had to watch L around pets. One incident where he killed a snake. Jumped on pet rats on the couch. Would dump all fish food. This issue was reported to CAS. Had a shared EA.

Information about J:

J was shy. More fearful than L and an average child. J was more rarely aggressive, though he was aggressive sometimes (hit a driver in the jaw and she had to seek medical attention). Suspected he had ADHD. Fully toilet trained by the time he left home, no bedwetting issues. J was a pickier eater. Around May/June, it was a hard time for J, his behaviour got worse when he learned they were foster kids. He would sometimes threaten to leave and run away. J was less aggressive, but he did at times engage in self-injurious behaviour, he punched himself at school. Did well at the Headstart program, but did not like school as much as L. Did junior kindergarten and a bit of senior kindergarten before they left the home. HW does not know if J had an IEP. He did not always have his own EA but got an assigned EA at the end of junior kindergarten because he was struggling with finding out they were foster parents and started running away. No concerns with animals, loved animals.

In July 2017, the Cooney and Hamber family is known to her as a potential adoptive family. L and J did not know about it until September. Both kids were good sleepers and mainly did their own personal hygiene. Both boys had tantrums from time to time, but it lessened over time (L). Both L and J had scheduled breaks at school. Would have conversations with kids if they were misbehaving; would react differently, sometimes would air their side of the story, generally the conversations went well.

August 2017 – The children were served with an Adoption Notice, at the insistence of CAS.

August 17, 2017 – Disclosure Meeting at Ottawa CAS occurred; present at the mattering were Ms. Cooney, Ms. Hamber, HW, CAS staff, an attachment therapist (Jossette KODSKI); HW laid out all issues regarding the boys at the meeting for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney seemed interested in listening at first but seemed to lose interest eventually, they seemed to view the children’s issues as parenting issues and that they knew what to do; did not seem interested in the suggestions and ideas about working with the kids that HW had developed with them.

Within a week of August 17, 2017 – Before they had met the kids, HW was on the phone with Ms. Hamber, she said that she knew that L had been abused in the past.

Late August 2017 – HW worked on an adoption plan with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

End of September 2017 – Ms. Cooney told HW that L was fine but referred to J as a “problem child”.

September 14, 2017 – Ms. Cooney & Ms. Hamber gave a “book of their lives” and photos to HW, to share with the boys.

September 15, 2017 – Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber first meet the boys at HW’s house.

There were visits between the kids and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney in Ottawa after September 15.

September 30/October 1 – HW and her husband brought boys to Burlington overnight to visit with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. When the incident with J and the bruised eye happened.

October 5, 2017 – HW and partner and their kids brought the boys to Burlington to permanently place them there. Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber did not allow a goodbye with the kids.

HW had spoken to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney about remaining in contact with the kids and visiting them. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney agreed to keep the kids in contact with HW and her family, LF (the boys’ maternal grandmother) and the school the kids were attending in Ottawa.

December 10, 2017 – Planned visit between HW’s family and the kids in Burlington. Ms. Cooney called saying Ms. Hamber was sick and that they probably could not do the visit. HW insisted that they drove here, that the kids were expecting them and that the visit should go ahead. Did not meet at Hamber Cooney House, met the kids at a Tim Hortons and played laser tag after and they left. Brought the kids’ life books.

After this, HW tried to keep in contact by sending emails and presents for the boys’ birthdays. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said that the boys were struggling with understanding they were not going back to HW’s house and so limited contact.

HW is back in contact with J.

K and B (Birth mother and her partner)

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Structure was important for the boys.

• L would act out in negative ways to get attention, such as by hurting J; hit a child on the head.

• L did lie occasionally; lied about peeing on J’s stuffed animals.

• L threatened to kill her and her husband and their kids in a complete rage. HW reported this to CAS and said both children should receive counselling. Did not receive it.

• L had poor self-image. March 2017 – L told CAS that he did not see himself growing up past being a kid. Therapy was given related to this with J and L until they left HW’s home.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• The boys were never returned to their biological mother and her new partner, despite reintegration being the original CAS plan when the boys went into foster care.

• L diagnosed with global developmental delay by Dr. NAIR and eventually that label did come off.

• L was sometimes aggressive with his younger brother.

• J scared to go to bed, he was afraid of L, that is why he was moved out of the bedroom.

• L showed aggressive behaviour towards the other children.

• L could not return to the nursery school he was initially enrolled at.

• She requested help from CAS multiple times.

• L threatened to kill HW, her partner and her two children; HW did not think he was capable of doing this.

• L hoped he would go back to his birth mother.

• L deliberately harmed animals – snake; worried about harming fish and pet rats.

• L would sometimes eat to the point of vomiting; would overindulge at times.

• L would sometimes smear feces on the bathroom wall.

• One incident where J punched a volunteer CAS driver.

• J intentionally broke his glasses.

• J ran away from school once.

• J threatened to leave the home and run away.

• J ran onto a busy street from a camp once. He could not return to that camp as a result.

• L was defiant, argumentative, charming, could get into a rage, threw temper tantrums, was very intelligent, had trouble showing positive emotions.

• L could make friends easily; more joyful than he was angry or irritable.

• L intentionally deceived the school about his reading abilities.

• L was sophisticated in some ways; he would try to identify the most “powerful” adult in the room and play them off the other adults. Was “obvious” what he was doing.

• November 2018 – HW’s partner was charged with sexual misconduct. The boys made false allegations against her partner. L made an allegation that he was abused at foster parent’s home. That HW’s partner touched him sexually and abused him physically. J said that he was forced to run up and down the stairs as a form of punishment. Both said they were sexually abused by her partner. All criminal charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

• The kids made allegations against other foster families. Those allegations caused those others to refuse to continue to be involved with the boys.

• Most difficult of all her foster kids but she was also a baby family for the most part.

• CAS workers admitted to HW that they could not handle the boys because of their difficulties.

• At the Disclosure Meeting, everyone, including HW was transparent about the concerns and issues with the children.

• HW provided CAS with some information about the children for the adoption fair in February. She did not write the profiles/reports that were initially provided to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and did not see the profiles that were eventually given to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• HW disclosed at the Disclosure Meeting to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney that L stabbed a child in the eye with a pencil and that L threatened to kill her and her whole family. Told them that other CAS workers and staff could not handle looking after the children.

• The CAS workers present at the Disclosure Meeting were Emily BUCHANAN and Sharon KOLLARD (Adoption Worker).

• HW thinks that if someone else had adopted the children, L would be alive today.

Crown Re-Examination

• Structure is important for the kids, especially L; going to school everyday. This was conveyed at the Disclosure Meeting to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Not all foster families refused to stay in contact or stay involved with the boys.

• Did not have to lock the boys out of any rooms. She never used physical restraints with the boys.

Elizabeth ‘Beth’ SIBLEY

Crown

September 16, 17 and 18, 2025

Worked as an attachment therapist. Semi-retired since 2018. The role is to facilitate and strengthen the relationship between parent and child. She was trained in parent child interaction therapy (PCIT). Thriving Child and Parent Services (private practice). Worked childcare at ROCK 0-6 years Team, doing PCIT here. Play therapy – one type of therapy she uses; child plays with the parent.

Halton CAS referred Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and the kids to her. They retained her for 10 sessions with the boys together. 20 hours total.

J and L were 4 and 6 years old when they started with her.

September 14– Phone call with the children’s current therapist, Josette KODSKI and Holly SIMMONS (Adoption Worker, Halton CAS); received info about the kids. They would have had some other information about the kids from Halton CAS.

October 4, 2017 – Met with Ms. Cooney, Ms. Hamber and Holly SIMMONS (Halton CAS Adoption Worker) at Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s home; explained to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney how to contextualize the boys’ experiences from a trauma informed lens; mentioned PRIDE to them, mandatory training for adoptive training; Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney seemed resistant to her involvement because they had worked with kids before.

October 17, 2017– Play session in the home. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were present with both children. Holly SIMMONS there as a witness. By this time, the kids had been with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney for about one week. Boys were excited. They were interested in the activities. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney both had turns plays with each of the boys. Said they would be doing the 3 Houses exercise at the next session.

3 Houses Exercises – A visual, the outline of a house. 3 house represents the birth home, foster home and adopted home. It helps the children process and understand why they moved.

SIBLEY would have preferred the next session to have happened sooner (within 2 weeks). But she found it hard to schedule it with the parents. Witness offered up availability in the evenings and after school.

November 13, 2017 – The next session. SIBLEY got the sense that the children were confused about the move because they had been with the foster home since they were babies. Present were the 2 boys, Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and Holly SIMMONDS, meeting at the Hamber Cooney home.

• L said he punched Ms. Hamber because he was angry that he could not have screen time after school and that he was not making good choices. That he was in his room all day and could not go to school. This concerned SIBLEY so she stopped the 3 Houses Exercise. She had a private discussion with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. She felt that they were taking it personally and were defensive. She also spoke with Holly SIMMONS about this on a November 15 phone call.

November 15, 2017 – SIBLEY had phone call with Holly SIMMONS to discuss concerns. They were concerned about the challenges Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were facing and the ways the boys were being disciplined.

Spoke to CAS Supervisor Lynn RHEAULT who she reported to. Expressed concern about Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney using time out punishments with the kids. Long time again before the next session due to resistance by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and maybe because of what L had disclosed.

January 23, 2018 – Third session with the family. All the same persons were present. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said they were getting frustrated with the boys because they wanted to be accepted as the new parents. SIBLEY reiterated advice about discipline techniques.

Brought toys to the session but because there was a such a long gap, would have been more focused on concerns with adults.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did not seem to be accepting the services and suggestions SIBLEY was offering them.

February 15, 2028 – Next session. Same people were present at the Hamber Cooney residence. Felt a tension when she walked into the home. Chaotic. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had difficult engaging with the 3 Houses Exercise. L and J seemed more nervus and compliant. SIBLEY commented that they were being very kind and Ms. Hamber commented that the kids were putting on a “show” for her. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said J had temper tantrums and food issues. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney raised that the school was not being supportive and that this was contributing to the boys’ behavioural problems. So, a school meeting was arranged for March 27, 2018 to address these problems.

Exhibit 8 – Three Houses Exercise

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did not seem to want to hear good things about the foster home.

March 27, 2018 – School meeting. Present at the meeting were SIBLEY, Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber, Holly SIMMONS, the principal Mr. COSTA and two teachers. Meeting was happening because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were concerned with behaviour escalating at home because of things occurring at school. It was reported by school staff that L needed support at recess; unstructured time was difficult for him. J was anxious in the classroom when adults came and went. J required prompts from ECEs (Early Childhood Educators) and EAs (Educational Assistants) for transitions and they would monitor him more closely at recess. J also struggled with unstructured time. Teacher recommended J for speech therapy (up to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to organize). Her impression was that the school seemed understanding and supportive of L and J.

April 4, 2018 – Next session, home visit. Same persons were present as all previous sessions. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were getting tired and frustrated with the boys’ behaviours and that they were not getting gratitude. They were finding it to be more challenging than expected. This concerned SIBLEY because the role of children at any age is not to express gratitude to the parents. Tensions seemed to be rising in the home, things were escalating and she was concerned about the methods of discipline.

SIBLEY spoke with SIMMONS after the session to ask for more funding from Ottawa CAS to continue the sessions.

Exhibit 9 – Letter to CAS

SIBLEY had no concerns with the behaviour of the boys.

April 25, 2018 – Next session. Home visit. Same people are present. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney expressed that they were dealing with non-compliant behaviour, temper tantrums, not listening and aggression. SIBLEY still concerned about the discipline methods used in the home.

• COURT: Asked what she saw or heard which caused her concern about the methods of discipline in the home.

• SIBLEY: Concerned about the time outs and how defensive Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were and them taking it personally and expecting gratitude from the children. Did not hear anything specifically about the discipline at this visit. She was concerned because the behaviours were escalating.

SIBLEY asked for a consult with adoption supervisor (Lynn RHEAULT – Holly SIMMONS’ boss) and clinical supervisor at Halton CAS (Diane RANDALL).

May 1, 2018 – Case review with adoption team (SIMMONS, RHEAULT), SIBLEY, and RANDALL. SIBLEY shared her concerns at this meeting. Others agreed that it would be helpful for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to meet with RANDALL, RHEAULT and SIMMONS to map out the boys’ behaviours and respond to them. SIBLEY would not be present for the meeting because she was retiring.

June 6, 2018 – Final session. Home visit. Same persons were present. Shared with the boys that she was retiring. Kept the meeting light, she played with them, did the 3 Houses. She did not tell the boys this, but she expected another therapist to be assigned to the family.

Never saw problematic behaviours described by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney in any of the sessions with the boys. Concerned because the behaviours were not decreasing. She worked with more challenging children in the past. She’s been kicked, stabbed with a pencil, yelled at, sworn at, run away, etc. from other children. She did not have any of this with the boys.

She has worked with 35-40 adoptions in her career.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• She spent 20 hours with the family.

• SIBLEY agrees that it would be important for the parents to know as much information as possible about the child, including problematic behaviours.

• She found the boys to be compliant, sweet, polite and that she saw no behaviours that concerned her.

• November 13, 2017 – L directly told her that he was prevented from going to school and was in his room all day. He shared this during the 3 Houses exercise. She spoke to Ms. Hamber about what L said and Ms. Hamber did not deny it. She believed L when he disclosed this to her.

• SIBLEY found Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to be defensive and resistant to help.

• SIBLEY only knew about one confinement of L that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had engaged in.

• Her “impression” was that lengthy time outs were being used as a regular discipline technique. She did not put all the incidents in her notes. But she would not have spoken to SIMMONS about it if she was not concerned.

• When Ms. Hamber said the comment about the children putting on a show, she wrote it down because she felt it was a sign that Ms. Hamber was angry with the boys.

• SIBLEY did not know that L threatened to kill his foster family, that L intentionally harmed animals and pets, that L was kicked out of a nursery school in Ottawa, that L stabbed another child in the eye with a pencil, that J expressed a fear of L, that L would sometimes eat to the point of vomiting, that L urinated on the floor, that L would bang his own head, that J was trying to run away.

• SIBLEY says none of the above behaviour surprises her; says it would not have changed her work with or her impressions of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Says she never experienced such resistance/opposition as she did with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, they did not ask her for help.

• Mr. MacGregor read out the November 13 Case Note. SIBLEY agreed that’s what the note says.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• SIBLEY had up to 9 meetings with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• SIBLEY is not given access to the Halton/Ottawa CAS file; she is relying on Halton CAS staff who did have access to the file; also why she did the phone call with the Ottawa therapist KODSKI.

• COURT: What relevance, if any, did the histories of L and J have on the success of your involvement with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney?

• SIBLEY: It is more about what is happening currently in the adoptive home than their histories. But also not saying that the history has no relevance, it is very relevant.

• SIBLEY did not know that J punched a volunteer CAS driver, did not know that the boys were in separate rooms because J was afraid of L, that J threatened to run away.

• It was SIBLEY, not Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, who asked for the meeting to “map out” the boys’ behaviours.

Crown Re-Examination

• To do her work, she did not need to know the specifics of the boys’ problems and aggressive behaviour before they went to the home of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• She did not receive a social history for either boy from CAS. In writing, she often does receive that.

• Adoptive parents do not need to know the specifics of boys’ problems and aggressive behaviour before the boys came to the home to work with SIBLEY and the programming she offers

• September 14, 2017 – Ottawa CAS worker told her on the phone that the boys were on their best behaviour “currently”.

Alex MIKALSKI

Crown

September 18, 2025

Neighbor to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Exhibit 10 – Karen Drive Map Marked by Mr. Mikalski

Exhibit 11 – Electronic Version of Map of Karen Drive

January 17, 2023 – He gave a statement to police.

Recalls Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney and father living at 505 Karen Drive. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney living at residence for a few years before the boys arrived.

Often saw the boys outside playing sports. Sometimes Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would be outside as well with the boys. He never spoke with either boy.

Overtime he saw the boys less frequently. Eventually he only saw J outside and this started 1 to 1.5 years before COVID. He had 3 unneighborly disputes with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney over the sprinkler line, landscaping and tree.

Exhibit 12 – 505 and 115 Karen Drive Google Map Image

Exhibit 13 – Close Up of 505 Karen Drive

J did exercises outside. He used a clipboard. There was equipment set up for him outside. He would do the exercises alone, after this they stopped seeing the older one outside.

Exhibit 14 – View from Eileen Drive Google Maps

Exhibit 15 – Close up of Rope from Tree, With Loops

He witnessed the boys shoveling snow outside the home. He found this to be odd because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had an automatic snowblower.

He often heard kids and adults yelling and screaming from 505. This was more towards 3-4 years after the boys moved there. Usually, one child can be heard screaming.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• There was no screaming for the first 2-3 years after the boys were there.

• Around 1.5-2 years, there was lots of screaming.

Shane SCANLAN

Crown

September 18, 2025

Contacted by insurance company about water damage at 505 Karen Drive. There was a burst pipe on the main floor bathroom. January 2021 – Work began at 505. June 2021 – He was there, personally, more than 20 times. But not the whole day each time. He mainly dealt with Ms. Cooney. Ed Cooney was in the basement of home. He had to move out while work was being done.

SCANLAN’s majority of time was spent in the basement. Ms. Cooney, Ms. Hamber, the two boys, and Ed Cooney (Brandy’s father), were living in the home. Ed warned him about the boys and said police had to be called in the past. Ms. Cooney was home most of the time.

The boys were very quiet, they looked a little unhealthy (pale and thin), were shy. He did not see the boys often. He could not tell the boys apart.

He never heard tantrums or yelling. The boys’ bedrooms were on the main floor and the basement. He never went inside the basement bedroom.

Exhibit 16 – Basement Photo

Exhibit 17 – Main Floor Bedroom Photo

Exhibit 18 – Main Floor Bathroom Photo

Ms. Hamber was not there often.

He does not know the boys apart.

Basement bathroom – Camera installed, laminated signs saying how to perform hygiene. There were instructional signs in other parts of the house.

There were cameras other places too.

They never completed the work, due to workmanship issues.

David CIOLFI

Crown

September 18, 2025

Works construction. January 23, 2024 – His police statement. He knew both Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. He met them Fall 2019. He built a fence for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney on a boundary with the neighbor.

He saw the 2 boys outside.

September 2020 – He was there again. He built 2 further sections of the fence.

October 2020 – He built a shed in Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s backyard.

He never went inside the house.

Nov 2020 – He built a lean-to against the boundary fence.

Exhibit 19 – Doors Built By Mr. Ciolfi for the Lean-To

March 16, 2021 – He had texts with Ms. Cooney about doing some interior work at the house. He attended March 12. March 16, 2021 – He sends Ms. Cooney a quote.

March 26 – He attends to do the work. The basement was not completely finished.

Exhibit 20 – Staircase to Basement

Exhibit 21 – Doorknobs that he Installed

March 26, 27, 30, and 31, 2021 was when he was there doing the work. April 7 and May 31 was when he made further visits to make fixes.

The purpose of the project was to build a room. To build a permanent bedroom.

Would sometimes speak to the boys while he was working.

July 23 and 25, 2022 – He went there to install a gazebo in the backyard.

September/October 2021 – He went there to see about fence building. He saw kids raking leaves. He was there for a short duration. The project did not go ahead.

April 2022 – Ms. Cooney asks him by text about fixing pocket door and soundproofing the basement bedroom.

April 28, 2022 – He goes to the house to look at the pocket door. Ms. Cooney is there. He makes a quick fix to the door in 10-15 minutes.

He always used the back door at 505 Karen Drive. Exhibit 22 – Photograph of Back Door.

Exhibit 24 – Inside of Pocket Door – That’s the door and handle he installed at the basement bedroom.

Exhibit 27 – L’s bedroom closet. He did not do that work. Did not see those locks and screws.

Exhibit 28 – The lock on L’s bedroom is installed on the outside of the door. He was told to install it that way.

Exhibit 29 – Photo of L’s Bedroom. See little cot in the corner. See object in the right corner, he did not install that

Exhibit 30 – Photo of Wall Opposite the Door to L’s Room. See camera. See signs about “tantrums”. He did not install the cameras or the signs.

March 2021 – He never spoke to the boys inside the home and never heard them.

September 2022 – The insulation he installed in the ceiling of the basement bedroom was to soundproof for loud tantrums, he was told by Ms. Cooney.

The one camera that he saw was in L’s bedroom, above the closet.

Over time he saw the boys less often when he was there.

July 2022 – This was the last time he saw either boy. He saw J.

January 6, 2023 – Ms. Cooney sent him a text with a GoFundMe page after the death of L.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• There were no places inside the home that he was told he could not go.

• It appeared to him that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney cared about the boys.

• He was never told not to talk to the boys.

Mary VINCENT

Crown

September 18, 2025

Lived close to Hamber Cooney residence. Exhibit 32 – Map Showing her House and 505 Karen Drive.

December 2018 – She moved to her home nearby 505 Karen Drive. At the home were herself, her husband, and her husband’s mother. She drove past 505 every day going to and from work.

August 2021 – She would see kids outside 505 from time to time. She never saw adults doing anything with the boys.

After some time, she only saw one of the boys. It was the same boy.

She never interacted with anyone at 505. They did not seem like they wanted any interactions with neighbors. They had a chain installed to keep people off the property. Exhibit 12 – Fence/Chain and the Signs at 505.

Spring/Summer 2019 – She called the police one time to 505 Karen Drive. There was the sound of a child screaming. Emotional screaming. The screaming continued for a “long time”. Around 30-45 minutes. Could also hear a female voice screaming back.

Exhibit 33 – Police Report Dated June 6, 2019

Fall 2022 – This was the last time she saw the one boy outside. She had not seen both boys outside for a “big chunk of time.”

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• She never met or spoke with either Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney.

• She’s not a parent. But has experienced child tantrums from her nieces with whom she spends lots of time.

• What she heard on June 6, 2019 was not a tantrum.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• June 6, 2019 was the only time she heard that.

Lindsay BAILEY

Crown

September 18, 2025

Lived close to Hamber Cooney residence. Moved there Winter 2018 with Mary VINCENT, himself and his mom.

He knew 2 boys, 2 women and an older man lived at 505 Karen Drive. He would usually walk past the house. Sometimes would see 2 boys outside playing sports.

He never interacted with Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney, except in passing while walking his dogs.

June 6, 2019 – Police incident. Was in his backyard. Heard an adult and child. Both were yelling. It was a “screaming match”. It was equal and back and forth. He went inside and had to close the windows because it was so loud. He was worried about the child. 20 minutes later he walked down the street to see which house it was coming from, it was 505 Karen Drive. He could easily hear screaming. Adult sounded angry and child sounded upset.

That was the only time that he heard yelling/screaming.

Over time, it became less and less frequent that he would see either or one of the boys. For at least about a year before he gave his police statement February 26, 2023, he did not see either boy.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• This was not a typical child tantrum that he heard.

Carmelo ALFANO

Crown

September 18, 2025

June 2018 – Moved to Karen Drive.

Exhibit 34 – The Map Showing the Address Circled by Carmelo ALFANO – On Karen Drive

June 2022 – They moved away from Karen Drive.

After they moved to Karen Drive, they met Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and the two boys. They lived across the street from each other.

June to December 2018 – He saw the boys a lot. They were playing basketball and soccer on the property. He saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney a lot.

Halloween 2018 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said they were not doing Halloween because the boys were acting up. Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney came to their house to tell him that.

He never went inside their home.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did come inside their home for Christmas drinks 2018. It was “very awkward” because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were explaining in detail the boys’ past. They explained that they were adopted, that they faced past abuse, that they were a handful.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were very negative. They said they got “ripped off”. It felt like a therapy session for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. It felt like Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had already given up.

He often saw the boys outside doing chores. They were raking and shoveling, he felt it was “extreme”.

“Open the fucking door”; “Let me fucking in”; “You’re a bitch”; he heard a child screaming that at Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Could hear hitting and banging on the door.

In another incident, Ms. Cooney was outside with the boys and there was screaming. Ms. Cooney was yelling across the street, “why don’t you guys call the cops?” After a while, he only ever saw J outside. It has been a year or so since he last saw L outside.

In another incident, Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were yelling and screaming with their neighbor next door over some landscaping issue.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• In his observations, the boys were happy.

• He did not know any details about the past behaviour problems of L and J.

Kathleen WILSON

Crown

September 19 and 22, 2025

August 2018 – Moved to Karen Drive.

June 2022 – Moved out of Karen Drive.

Halloween 2018 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had a ton of decorations. They had inflatables and music.

In texts, Ms. Cooney told her that only one of the boys was going out for Halloween, because the other boy was acting like a “douche”. Ms. Cooney visited their home and said that one of the boys was not getting Halloween because of bad behaviour, he was being punished. She found that extreme.

She saw the boys outside a lot playing sports. The boys were never seen playing with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

The boys did a lot of work around the house such as raking and shoveling. They spent an “excessive” amount of time outside by themselves.

December 25, 2018 – There are texts between Ms. Cooney and WILSON. Ms. Cooney calls L a “dick”.

Most of WILSON’s interactions were with Ms. Cooney.

Around Christmas 2018, Ms. Cooney tells her that the boys disclosed that they were physically and sexually abused by their foster father in Ottawa.

WILSON never went inside the Hamber Cooney residence or in their backyard.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney came to their place for drinks. They talked about how hard it was with the boys. They seemed bitter and felt they were duped by Ottawa CAS. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney spoke about their coping strategies, they would put the boys outside, they would zip-tie the boys into sleeping bags overnight to stop them from urinating in the bedroom.

She would hear screaming at different times. A child screaming. It could be heard from inside her home with the windows and doors closed.

Heard a boy screaming “I hate you, you bitch”. She heard a boy yelling that in the backyard. She heard a boy yelling to get back inside the house.

Screaming started before Christmas 2018 and stopped around the time they stopped seeing L. That was in 2020.

One time she recorded the screaming she heard. It was recorded from her office inside her house with the window closed. She thinks the recording was made in 2019. Exhibit 35A – Recording Played in Court. 35B – Transcript of Recording.

Generally, during screaming incidents, she heard Ms. Hamber sometimes and she heard Ms. Cooney sometimes. She could tell their voices apart. The screaming often came from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s backyard.

Ms. Cooney once told her that one of the boys would get no birthday cake or celebration because he had threatened Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney or either of them.

April 21 and 22, 2019 – Texts between WILSON and Ms. Cooney about L being in the psychiatric hospital. Also spoke about withholding of information by and lack of support of Ottawa CAS.

April 28, 2019 – Texts between WILSON and Ms. Cooney about L’s problems, and about Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s planned 5-year wedding anniversary party. This event was cancelled because of the boys.

Before June 9, 2019 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney set up a GoFundMe campaign, asking for money to help with the kids.

June 9, 2019 – A second GoFundMe was set up, asking for $10,000. Ms. Cooney said that the first one had to be terminated at the demand of CAS.

WILSON never donated to any of the GoFundMe campaigns. The GoFundMe campaigns asked for money to help with medicines, therapy, camps, etc. for the boys.

August 2022 – Ms. Cooney sends WILSON another GoFundMe. This was after WILSON and her family moved away. Ms. Cooney mentioned health problems of Ms. Hamber and her inability to work and their associated money problems in caring for the boys.

September 2022 – Texts from Ms. Cooney asking WILSON to share the GoFundMe with people. Ms. Cooney tells her that both boys are being home-schooled because no school could manage them.

October 2022 – More texts from Ms. Cooney asking her to share the GoFundMe.

January 1, 2023 – Ms. Cooney sends her another the GoFundMe. This was after L died. She did not read that link until March 2023. That GoFundMe was different. It said that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney needed money to hire a lawyer to try to get J back after he was taken away. This was how WILSON found out L had died.

Exhibit 36 – Texts Between Ms. Cooney and Witness

Around June 2020 – She started only seeing one of the boys outside. She would only see J. Once she saw J doing some calisthenics with a clipboard or something. Someone handed him a water bottle out the front door.

Exhibit 37 – Easter 2020 Photo. Boy Sitting Alone on the Front Porch of 505 Karen Drive

WILSON never saw any behaviour issues for the boys. She never saw any fighting/arguing between the boys.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• WILSON could not see into the Hamber Cooney backyard.

• WILSON was never inside the Hamber Cooney residence.

• WILSON says that she never called child welfare, CAS, or police and says this now bothers her everyday.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• The screaming was often 2 times a week.

• At times, the screaming stopped.

• Christmas Drink Evening: Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told them they were advised to zip-tie the children in their sleeping bags by some counsellor or by someone at CAS.

• Exhibit 38 – July 2018 Photo of Front Door at 505 Karen Drive.

• By late 2022, her relationship with Ms. Cooney is “pretty much over”, even electronically.

• Ms. Cooney was always extremely negative and complained about the boys.

• Ms. Hamber was quieter and shyer than Ms. Cooney.

Paola GIORDANI-MURRAY

Crown

September 22, 2025

Child and Youth Counsellor. From 2018-2019, she was at 2 schools including St. Paul’s. Some of her work was individual with students.

The Witness knew L and J.

The Witness describes L as very polite, well mannered, eager to please, a good talker, smart, bright, loved to read, and good at math. She never witnessed any angry or explosive behaviour by L.

The focus of her planned work with the boys was emotional regulation with L and stress/anxiety strategies for J.

November 2018 – Meeting between many persons including the principal, teachers, the Witness, Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the boys’ issues and the concerns that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were having with the boys at home and how the boys could be supported at school.

The problems with the boys were not being seen at the school.

Witness spoke to L’s teacher after the meeting. They both agreed that a behaviour modification program for L would not be undertaken. When she spoke to L’s “mom” about that decision, there was a disagreement. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were the ones to suggest the behaviour modification program. The behaviour modification program was inconsistent with the School Board’s philosophy at the time.

Witness spoke with L’s therapist BORINGDON about the decision not to use a behaviour modification program and the therapist agreed.

When the Witness spoke with Ms. Cooney about the decision over the phone, she disagreed. She said L was a liar. She questioned the Witness’ qualifications and expertise and knowledge and abilities to work with the students. Ms. Cooney called her “stupid.”

The same evening as the phone call, Ms. Cooney emailed the principal to say that she was revoking parental consent for the Witness to work in any way with either boy.

Exhibit 39A – Child and Youth Counsellor Services Summary Report with Regard to L

Exhibit 39B - Child and Youth Counsellor Services Summary Report with Regard to J

Witness never observed any explosive behaviours with J.

Both boys ate their lunches at school separate and apart from the other students.

Witness was not aware of any other accidents/issues for either boy at school.

There was one incident at school where she was playing soccer with a student who had violent tendencies with others. The student had ADHD, anxiety, ODD. She invited L to join soccer. L was there with his EA separate from his other classmates. L joined the game and he was very excited and interacted well with the other student. However, the EA was reluctant to allow that because of a prior direction to not allow L to play with others but it took place anyway.

Winter 2020 (Sometime during January-March) – L had socks duct-taped on his hands at the wrists. She asked him why. He said that his mom did that to teach him a lesson because he lost his gloves in the past. Witness reported that to the principal hoping it would be reported to CAS. L was hesitant to remove the socks.

2019-2020 – Witness heard J say that parents had zip-tied L’s onesie around L’s neck to prevent him going to the bathroom and to teach him a lesson if he had a bathroom accident. Ms. BIASETTI, the teacher, with the support of the Witness, called CAS.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• “Self and Match” program is what the School Board used. This is not behaviour modification.

• Witness did not know about prior behavioural problems (L stabbed student in the eye with a pencil; L killing a snake.)

• Witness was not at the school about half the time that the boys were at the school. She was there 2 and a half days a week.

• Witness agrees that it can be challenging for a child to be subjected to different behaviour strategies at home vs. school.

• Regarding the socks on wrist incident, the Witness agrees that she could have contacted CAS herself, but she did not.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Duct tape was actually attached to L’s wrists. To his skin.

• February 2019 to June 2019 – Witness was at St. Paul’s full time during that time period. Otherwise it was 2 and a half days per week.

• Behaviour modification programs are more negative, punishment focused, than “Self and Match” program the Board uses.

Crown Re-Examination

• “Self and Match” program is not dependent on the child’s wishes or objectives.

• The goals for the children were established collaboratively, between the child, student and the teacher.

Darren William VIVIAN

Crown

September 22 and 23, 2025

Teacher now at the Hamilton-Wentworth Public School Board. Previously, the witness was an Educational Assistant (EA) in Hamilton and in Halton.

Witness was at St. Paul’s between January/February 2019-2022.

Witness describes the role of an EA and his work as an EA. He worked mornings with L starting September 2019, one to one. It is rare for a student to have one EA assigned to them.

Witness never saw any of the behaviours he was told about in relation to L. He was told L had PTSD and past violent tendencies and rules around food and eating. The rules around food and eating were set by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Witness did not see L being aggressive.

L could be easily redirected if he became distracted in class.

L’s backpack was always locked with zip ties. The zip ties had to be cut to access the inside of the bag. J’s bag was also zip-tied. Witness would take the bags to the eating area to cut the ties and the boys would eat in a separate room.

The boys seemed protective over the food. But he never saw the boys argue or fight with each other. The boys never ate with other kids.

Witness would escort L for nutrition break in the morning and for lunch for him to eat separately.

There were rules for L. He was not allowed to use the internet on his own. He was only allowed to read the books sent with him to school. He was not allowed to go to the washroom on his own. He was not allowed to play with anyone. He seemed “very lonely”. But he was told that he could not play soccer because he wore out his shoes too quickly. Witness was not allowed to ask L how he is doing, whether he had a good night.

Witness never saw L try to steal stuff out of the snack bin despite being told by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney this could happen.

Civic Day – At the end of the day, L misplaced his hat. Ms. Hamber accused him of being tricky or sneaky about it when she picked him up. Witness never found L to be tricky or sneaky.

Witness was “usually” in the class when he was with L. For the first few weeks, he accompanied L outside at morning recess. He interacted well with the other students; there were no fights or arguments.

The Witness got reprimanded and reminded that L was not permitted to interact with other students. L was very guarded about sharing personal information. It was “odd”. He did share with the Witness that he is Indigenous. He never talked about his biological family or former foster family.

The school staff were instructed not to ask any personal questions of L. The Witness believes this instruction came from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

L did not go on any field trips or do any extra-curricular activities. For example, there was a field trip and the whole class went except L. L stayed with the Witness at school. He was told he could not go because L was “bad”. L also could not attend a Halloween dance on another occasion.

L had no close friendships in the class.

There was a meeting between the School Staff and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney at school. Witness was not present, but he saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney leaving the building after the meeting. They were laughing and giggling.

The Witness never saw L steal stuff, have bathroom accidents, hurt himself, run away, be aggressive with others, eat things which were not food, or damage property.

Witness worked two instances where he assisted J as EA. J had to be watched closely outside at recess. He was frantic and could not focus. He had high energy and was aggressive. There was an incident where J punched a child with a closed fist and the Witness had to intervene. J would sometimes throw things in the classroom. Another incident in the classroom was when J took a piece of carpet and wrapped it around his neck tightly. His face turned blue/purple. His teacher Ms. BIASETTI was screaming. The Witness describes that incident as J using a “ligature”. The Witness still describes J as being manageable.

After Christmas Break 2019, his work with L ended. The Witness thinks the boys were home schooled after this.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• L felt connected with the Principal Mr. COSTA. L would often go to him during recess.

• Witness never encountered manipulation by L. But Witness did acknowledge that he is bright enough to do that.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Witness was not at St. Paul’s in 2018.

• The Witness does not have knowledge of how L did at the school before 2019.

• Exhibit 40 - Incident June 7, 2018 – Witness never knew about this incident. He finds the behaviour shocking considering his own involvement with L.

• Witness agreed that it would be better to know as much as possible about the child he is assisting as an EA.

• Witness said he knew nothing about L’s diagnoses and prior violent behaviours.

• Witness did know about L’s alleged prior binge eating to the point of vomiting.

• Exhibit 41 – Incident November 8, 2018 – Witness was not aware of this Incident.

• Exhibit 42 – Letter Dated April 23, 2019 – Witness had never seen this Letter before. Witness did not personally experience these concerns with L, at least the vast majority of them he did not.

• Witness was removed from being L’s EA. Witness suspects it was because he allowed L to play with others outside.

• Communication at St. Paul’s was lacking.

• Witnesses’ experience with L was extremely positive.

• Exhibit 43 – St. Paul Incident Reports Involving J – Witness said he did not know about these specific incidents and had never seen these reports before. This information was kept from him and it may have helped him support the boys.

Crown Re-Examination

• The Witness did not feel personally threatened by J.

• The Witness agrees that it is always better to have more information about the children.

• Witness does not disagree that scissors in J’s classroom could’ve been used as a weapon.

• Witness never saw a Behaviour Intervention Plan for either L or J. If one existed, he likely would’ve seen one for L as he was L’s EA.

Sara FERRARO

Crown

September 23, 2025

L’s Grade 4 teacher. She had 12 years of experience as a teacher, but it was her first year at St. Paul. FERRARO described him as a “wonderful, wonderful young boy.” She said that he was very bright and got along with others very well. He excelled in math and reading.

L always followed redirection.

FERRARO met Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney a few times. She also had discussions with them via a Communication Book. They also came to parent teacher interviews. FERRARO did not feel respected by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. She did not like the Communication Book. It was upsetting to see therapy being used as a punishment.

There were school meetings about L. There were lots of people present, inside and outside of the school.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney re-graded a math test for L. They made the grade lower. This was very upsetting for FERRARO. She spoke with the principal and left a voice message for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. They never returned her call.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were very negative with the school. The school was always to blame for the aggressive behaviours at home. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney described the children as vile, manipulative, sneaky, scamming, scheming.

FERRARO never saw significantly aggressive/violent tendencies by L.

L had an IEP. He had individual one-on-one EA support. FERRARO found this surprising given what she knew about L. She did not think L needed an EA.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had various rules. No library books were allowed, only books from home. The children had to be escorted to the washroom. No food in the classroom. The boys’ lunch was always zip-tied. The boys had to eat alone. They were not allowed to do any extra-curriculars like cross country or choir. They could not go on any field trips. They had restricted access to the computer and no internet access.

FERRARO never saw any bathroom accident or anything self-harm.

L would be very anxious if he could not find something that he needed to bring home with him.

Exhibit 44 – Parent Teacher Communication Book

The Communication Book contained negative notes from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to the school starting with the very first day of school. Mr. COSTA, the principal, told her that every entry in the Communication Book had to include something positive and negative. The Communication Book was requested by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. FERRARO found the book to be “torture” and did not want to fill it out at all. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s comments in the book are illustrative of them always looking for something negative with the boys. FERRARO felt that she had no choice but to continue the Communication Book. November 12, 2019 Entry – FERRARO says that Principal COSTA never said to her that L was always rude, disrespectful and oppositional to staff all the time.

Exhibit 45 – School Work Being Remarked

Examples of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney re-grading tests for L and making handwritten comments on his tests for when they are returned to the school. The comments are always critical/negative of L’s performance.

Exhibit 46 – November 19, 2019 Email from Ms. Hamber

January 2020 – The boys started attending school only part time. Ms. BIASETTI reported that to CAS.

February 19, 2020 – School meeting. Witness and Ms. BIASETTI made a list of concerns they had regarding L and J to present at this meeting. Many people were present for the meeting including Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Witness was concerned about L only coming to school for half-days. It was making him anxious and dysregulated and impacting his performance in school. Concerned that on his report Witness had to assign L some “I”s for insufficient evidence because of this half day and missed class.

Exhibit 47 – L’s IEP Printed November 20, 2019

Exhibit 48 – L’s IEP Printed February 11, 2020

Witness advocated at meetings for more books to be made available to L and for more flexibility for L at recess.

Exhibit 49 – L’s Report Cards 2019-2020

When the tests came back to school from home, they were not in sealed envelopes, they could be read by L.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• L had an educational assistant with him everyday in the classroom.

• Witness had about 25-27 students in the class.

• Witness shown Exhibit 42; She says she recognized it and that it was a part of L’s Student Record.

• Witness shown Exhibit 40, she says she was aware of this incident.

• She was aware of L’s prior hospitalization at a psychiatric facility in Oakville before she began teaching L.

• She was aware L was diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and Reactive Attachment Disorder.

• Witness was not aware of L’s specific behavioural problems at the foster home (such as killing snake or stabbing a child in the eye with a pencil).

• Agrees that she does not know how the boys behave at home, but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were overly controlling.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness says each school year is a clean slate for the student. She judges the student in front of her and not the Student Record.

Crown Re-Examination

• Shown Exhibit 42 – Witness says she has seen letters like this used in other instances to secure further resources for the student.

Sara BIASETTI

Crown

September 24, 2025

2019 – Teacher at St. Paul School. Her first year there. J was in her class. He would have been around 7-8 years old.

J was smart, he was good at math and reading. Academically, she had no concerns about him. Emotionally and socially, she had a lot of concerns.

Principal Mr. COSTA told her that foster moms had a lot of demands about the kids and that they should be followed.

Many concerning incidents with J in the class. He said he wanted to die, he stabbed himself and stole scissors. Ms. Hamber told her that these problems were because of J’s history of trauma and abuse.

There was no EA for J at the start.

Exhibit 50 – IEP for J

Exhibit 51 – All Incident Notes for J

November 12, 2019 Incident scared her. Witness thought J as actually trying to kill himself. He wrapped a carpet around his neck and was strangling himself. His face turned blue/purple. She reported this incident to CAS. She called CAS the next morning and spoke with Holly SIMMONS who said it was too political and they needed more people to call and complain.

J became agitated at the end of the day when it was time to go home, which led to serious incidents.

After Christmas break 2019 – J told Witness that L was locked in basement with his grandfather and tied in a onesie by the parents to prevent bathroom incidents. BIASETTI called CAS again.

She also used a Communication Book for J. The book, from her recollection, included comments by the moms about J being “sneaky”. There were some things she did not put in the communication book because she did not want J to be punished. She kept the communication book and her own separate log.

J could at first eat in the classroom. This changed and then he could only eat in a separate area with a zip-tied lunch bag.

She called CAS one day because she saw both boys gagging while eating rotten, moldy meat in the separate eating area at school. J told her that when he went home that day after school, his moms forced him to eat 5 more slices of the meat and locked him in his bedroom because he did not finish the meat at school.

One time she spoke with Ms. Hamber around Christmas time. Ms. Hamber was angry that L had a candy cane at school.

She mainly interacted with Ms. Hamber, not Ms. Cooney. Ms. Hamber would sometimes make negative comments towards Ms. FERRARO (L’s teacher).

J once told her that L was killing the moms slowly. That they could not wait to get rid of L and send him to military school.

Witness shown Exhibit 46. Witness was sent that email from the SERT, Mr. SANTAELLI. Witness says she never saw J picking at or ripping his pants at school.

One time in class, J told everyone that he was abused by others before he was at his current moms’ house.

After Christmas 2019 – J was only attending school half-days in the afternoons, and not every day either. Witness wanted J back in the classroom full time.

School Meeting – Lots of people were present, including Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Witness explained her concerns and why J should be at the school full time. Ms. Hamber said J would be homeschooled because there was not enough structure at school.

One incident where J could not find something before going home. He was frantically searching for it with L. It was a hat. He seemed worried about going home without it.

November 2019 – School Meeting – Ms. Hamber would always blame J’s behaviours on L, the idea that J is following what he sees with L.

During Covid, there was online learning. J did not participate. Witness sent J a video asking how he was doing. He sent a video back to her.

Exhibit 52A – Audio Video of J

Exhibit 52B – Transcript of Audio Video of J

Because there was a clear zip tie visible on his top under the neckline, Witness noticed this and reported it to CAS the next day.

Exhibit 53 – Report Cards for J Dated 2019-2020

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• There was one incident where J hit her in the stomach while pregnant.

• Another incident where J threatened her and her unborn baby with a pair of scissors.

• Witness agrees that the moms accessed a lot of services for the kids and advocated for the kids.

• She did not know the boys’ problem from when they were in Ottawa. She reviewed J’s Student Record but had nothing from Ottawa.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s demands were crazy, the witness says.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Exhibit 51 – Sometimes J acting out came right after he was asked to do something by her. Intervention was required to get J to stop what he was doing.

• She agrees that J’s behaviour was alarming.

• Witness felt that J was being “coached” to say bad things about L.

Erin NOLAN

Crown

September 24, 2025

Clinical therapist and social worker at Radius Child and Youth Services. Radius is a children’s mental health facility. Started at Radius in 2021.

May 8, 2019 – First referral to Radius by Halton CAS for both boys. Ottawa CAS had decided not to pursue Radius in consultation with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

The boys’ legal guardian was the CAS.

August 19, 2020 – Second referral of both boys to Radius. This referral came from Woodview, a children’s mental health center.

It took a long time to get the consents necessary to begin treatment. For some things they needed the consent of Ottawa CAS and for others, the consent of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney; it depended on the service and when it would be accessed.

L spent time at CAPIS in Oakville, a hospital providing psychiatric services.

Witness believes Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused to provide consent for Radius to receive information from CAPIS.

Near the end of November 2021, Witness was assigned to the file.

Two therapists were assigned to L and Witness was one of them. One therapist was assigned to J. Thought L needed more assistance than J.

Witness says that having background information about the client is always helpful.

December 16, 2021 – Online service orientation meeting between Witness, Radius staff and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Ms. Hamber said she was concerned about the boys making false allegations against them, which in turn may be reported to CAS. They said they could not continue services with Radius if Radius would report to CAS the allegations made by the boys. This was a significant concern for Ms. Hamber.

Exhibit 54 – Radius Child and Youth Services Records

January 17, 2022 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had still not decided whether to use Radius. So, Nolan sent them an email.

January 19, 2022 – Email from Ms. Hamber to Nolan, saying they need more time to consider whether to use radius. Said they had a lot of doubt about the program Radius was offering.

February 2, 2022 – Meeting with Witness and Ms. Hamber and others. Ms. Hamber declined Radius. Ms. Hamber had concerns about potentially not being privy to all information shared by the boys during sessions.

Witness says it is very important to have at least a “basic understanding” of what the past trauma was to provide treatment. However, not every detail is necessary and not every past behaviour needs to be known.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney declined Radius’ services for both boys.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Radius’ work is not about determining the truth of what the boys would say.

• Ottawa CAS was concerned about who would have access to information disclosed to Radius.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness does not know if Ottawa CAS could have required the services to be provided for the boys.

• Witness does not know if Ottawa CAS could remove the boys from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s care they did not agree to services from Radius.

• Radius would be reporting to Halton CAS because the boys were living in Halton.

Sarah LAYZELL

Crown

September 25, 2025

Worked at Canoe Therapy pediatric center. Worked there from August 2022 to January 2023.

Ms. Hamber contacted Canoe regarding J. She met with Ms. Hamber for the intake and to gather background information.

August 3, 2022 – Online intake session with Ms. Hamber. It was about 2 hours. Ms. Hamber reported to Witness that J had Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and PTSD. The treatment at Canoe was being funded by CAS. Ms. Hamber said that they were in the final stages of adopting the kids. Ms. Hamber told her that L needed services but J should be treated first. Ms. Hamber said the boys were abused in both their biological home and in the foster home. Ms. Hamber’s main goal with the kids was emotional regulation. Ms. Hamber said they wanted to attend all sessions with J virtually, the Witness thought this was a good idea.

Exhibit 55 – Consent to Treatment Form

Exhibit 56 – Intake Notes by Witness

Sometime between August 3 and August 23 – Witness met with J. Hunter GRILLO the senior therapist was also present.

First session with J – Technical difficulties prevented online attendance by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, so the session was videotaped to be given to them afterwards. The session is an assessment.

Exhibit 57 – Report Dated August 23, 2022. J completed academic exercises increasing in difficulty. J seemed frustrated. The increasing academic demands stopped when J hit his head on the clipboard and engaged in self-injurious behaviour. No aggressive or violent behaviour is noted. No redirection of J was necessary.

Exhibit 58 – Email from Ms. Hamber to Sarah Layzell

Ms. Hamber told Witness that J presented behaviours after the first session. Said these behaviours were typical after the therapy sessions with others and after visits from CAS workers. As services progressed, Ms. Hamber was more focused on J complying with demands than a more cooperative approach.

There were never any problems with J interacting with the other kids at the Centre.

J would’ve known during each session that it was being recorded and observed by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney called the Centre during one session because there was a bowl of candy on the table. They also complained about the therapist having coffee inside the room, they were worried J would try to steal it and drink it.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney always gave feedback after the sessions. They suggested J was not being challenged enough during the sessions and said this multiple times.

Witness was not seeing any of the “precursor behaviours” mentioned during the Intake Meeting. J would generally comply with what was asked of him, even if he did not necessarily want to.

Exhibit 59 – Canoe Work Returned from Home. Witness said the Centre had never received anything like this before from a client or family. It was completely unsolicited.

No aggressive behaviours were noted by the Witness during the sessions.

Ms. Hamber continued to inform the Witness that J was having lots of problems at home. In response, the Witness and the Centre staff asked to go to the home to make observations. They were told no because of health concerns with Covid. Witness and Centre staff offered to wear masks and social distance, etc. but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney still said no. Witness asked for access to camera footage from the home and was told this was not possible due to some technological issues.

The Witness says that focusing exclusively on compliance, like Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney wanted, was not effective.

January 2023 – Witness’s involvement with J ended. She was told he was moved to Ottawa.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Funding for Canoe programming came from Jordan’s Principle, an Indigenous resource for J.

• Providing video of the sessions was not a normal accommodation for parents. Witness had never seen that before.

• Witness does not recall J engaging in “picking” behaviour during the sessions.

• It was Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s approach to have J do what they asked, it was not a cooperative approach.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• The practice was not to take notes during the sessions themselves. That’s why there are no notes for each specific session.

• J attended sessions on October 13, 17, 20, 24, 27, November 3, 7, 10, 17, 21, 24, and December 5, 8, 19, 22. There may have been more sessions.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney only wanted them to work with J at that time. Witness says it is not correct to suggest that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney wanted services for L at the same time as J.

• Witness does not know if funding for the program was for J only.

• Witness took this as a sign of Ms. Hamber being interested and wanting to support J (Exhibit 59).

• Witness was not aware of J wanting to go back to his biological parents and not wanting to be removed from the Ottawa foster home.

• J never said that he was afraid of his brother.

• Exhibit 57 – The striking of the head with the clipboard and him hitting the floor with his fist needed intervention. It is why the demands were removed and J was given a break.

• Exhibit 58 – Witness agrees that if J was engaging in these behaviours at home, it would require intervention and the help of services from Canoe.

• Witness never observed any injuries on J.

Crown Re-Examination

• The incident involving hitting the head with the clipboard happened once.

• All information that Witness new about J came from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Knowing about J wanting to be with his biological family and not wanting to leave Ottawa would not necessarily have affected her work with J.

Hunter GRILLO

Crown

September 25, 2025

J’s senior therapist at Canoe. Taylor NEWTON was J’s other therapist. GRILLO no longer works at Canoe.

First session with J – Assessment. Witness was there with LAYZELL. They purposely tried to evoke certain behaviour from J like mild forms of self-injury. No yelling or swearing was observed. J banged his head with the clipboard and he seemed frustrated. The hit was low intensity. When he started to do that, they went back to a play condition.

J came in 2 times a week, each session was 3 hours. Sometimes it was GRILLO and sometimes NEWTON at the session. The goal of the sessions was to improve J’s functional communication and to advocate for himself.

The sessions went great. J was always in high spirits and always compliant.

Witness never saw any of the problem behaviours described at the Intake Meeting. But the Witness was told that the problematic behaviours continued at home. However, efforts by them to visit the home were rejected by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

She was provided one video by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney of J yelling and screaming. The staff asked to see video of what happened just before that outburst, but the request was not met by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Once or twice the Witness’ session with J was interrupted by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney calling and asking to change the subject because they did not want Hunter talking with J about home.

In the Witness’ experience, they’ve never had a parent behave like this, asking to listen and watch every session and interrupting sessions.

There were many food rules for J. No food or snacks were allowed. J knew about the video recording of the sessions because he would point it out.

Exhibit 60 – Correspondence from J to GRILLO

After L died, Ms. Cooney came to Canoe. J was not there that day, but he was still attending therapy there. Ms. Cooney spoke for 10 minutes or so about how J was doing. She seemed desperate and hysterical to know. At this time, J had been apprehended from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, it was a couple of weeks after L died.

Exhibit 61 – Photo Outside Canoe and Message

J got along great with other kids at Canoe facility.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• There had been about 40 sessions with J.

• GRILLO was not a Board Certified Behaviour Analyst at the time and there are formal college requirements for these professionals.

• LAYZELL was the one required to take notes at the meeting because she was the Board Certified Behavioural Analyst.

• Witness agrees that notes would assist her memory, especially with individual sessions.

• Witness was not aware of J’s problems at school or at prior foster home.

• Witness was not aware that J was afraid of L.

• Witness never saw any physical injuries on J.

• The Witness agrees that the problems being repeated at home, if true, would require therapeutic intervention.

• Witness never saw any problem behaviours by J as described by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Witness is not sure what platform was used to record the sessions.

• Witness has a copy of the back side of Exhibit 60 with some handwriting on it.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness thinks it was Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney who were recording the sessions.

• Other than the first session, Witness is unaware whether any of the sessions were recorded. However, she’s sure that the first session was recorded because of something Ms. Hamber said to LAYZELL in an email about Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney having watched the recording of that first session.

Leahann MALONEY

Crown

September 25and 26, 2025

Worked with Ms. Cooney at Sunshine Donuts in Burlington from October 2021 to July 2022. She was a baker and Ms. Cooney trained her. Ms. Cooney generally worked the same hours as her and the same days. Would sometimes be alone with Ms. Cooney in the shop.

Witness felt it was “toxic” working with Ms. Cooney because it was frequently negative. Ms. Cooney often spoke about her two children and her sick wife. The way Ms. Cooney described things, things were always wrong. Ms. Cooney sounded like a “hypochondriac”. Always complained about how the boys misbehaved and how they had problems before they got them.

The Witness would make suggestions to Ms. Cooney on how to handle the boys because the Witness had a son with cerebral palsy and behaviour issues. Ms. Cooney would mention biting, charging and other aggressive behaviours. Ms. Cooney had no interest in any suggestions.

Ms. Cooney said L was the “major problem” and would lock the oldest in his room because she could not handle it. Ms. Cooney said she left only a bed in L’s room.

The Witness asked why they could not give the boys back. Ms. Cooney said they could not because that was their source of income.

When Witness suggested that you should show love and patience to the kids, Ms. Cooney said that’s what her wife was for.

Ms. Cooney showed her a video of a child looking at the camera. The child turns around and starts to run away. There was no sound to the video and the person taking the video was talking towards the child quickly. Ms. Cooney explained that she often spends her days chasing the child trying to run away.

Ms. Cooney explained that they took the boys out of school because they did not like how the school was disciplining them. She explained that J was kicked out of school multiple times.

Ms. Cooney never said that the older child injured the younger one. Ms. Cooney said she had to leave work early often because L would urinate on his bedroom floor. This happened two or three times. She did not mention feces. Ms. Cooney said L broke many things.

Ms. Cooney said, “We did not have Christmas. My kids did not deserve it.”

Ms. Cooney said her wife was very sick and her medicine was expensive.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• What the Witness actually said Ms. Cooney said about Christmas is “My kids got nothing for Christmas cause they don’t behave” – from Witness’ police statement.

• Ms. Cooney’s negativity may have been because of a lack of sleep.

• Ms. Cooney said that nobody would help them.

Crown Re-Examination

• Ms. Cooney never said they had tried counselling in the past. Witness says it almost seemed like they had given up.

Natasha DAVIS

(Her last name changed in 2022 from BOIS)

Crown

September 26, 2025

She was L’s EA. She has been at St. Paul’s School since 2017 and is still an EA there. The Witness was not sure if she was L’s EA from 2017-2018 but was sure she was from 2018-2019. She filled in as J’s EA a handful of times.

Witness said L was very bright, outgoing, and social. Witness described J as quiet and anxious.

There were certain rules for L such as to take his backpack in the morning and take it to the office, this was zip tied. His lunch bag would also be zip tied. She had to stay with L at lunch in a separate area.

She worked half days with L. Either the morning or the afternoon.

At first, L was allowed to play with his friends at recess. But this then changed, and he could only be with maximum 2 friends at a separate turf area outside at recess.

There were also food and backpack rules for J. His backpack and lunch bag were also zip-tied. They both had to sit separately in a different area for all snacks and lunches. Witness was told the concern was that the boys would binge eat at home. But at first, the boys ate in their classrooms. Then, the boys would eat together in a separate room. Eventually, the boys themselves were separated, with one eating in the resource room and one in the library. Witness was told the concern was that the boys were bickering and comparing food (which Witness says is normal).

Eventually Witness was removed as L’s EA for a small period of time because she spoke with L about cookies. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney complained to the school about this.

Witness never saw any binge eating by either boy.

L would almost daily ask for more food. She would have to say no because of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s rules. Over time, the boys appeared thinner to her, and they would wear baggy clothing.

L would come to school with duct-tape to keep his shoes on. The shoes could not be taken off. Relating to this, J to L “you got in trouble, this is what happens.”

Witness never saw any bathroom accident at school, for either child. She never saw the children engage in self-harm.

L was not allowed to read any schoolbooks. He had earlier been allowed to read specified books. They were not allowed to ever ask the boys how they were doing, how night was, and how the weekend was. She could only talk to the boys about sports. She was not allowed to wish L a happy birthday or celebrate his birthday because he would get in trouble at school. She was told this by someone else.

L did not need support academically. Witness said that he maybe needed help socially but there was nothing serious that she ever saw.

The EAs were told not to call CAS because there was a social worker involved.

Witness had limited interactions with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Just at drop offs and pick ups, their interactions were brief.

Witness saw some of the comments written in the Communication Book from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. They wrote that she looked too much like L’s birthmother, that she was making it hard for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and the boys, that she should not be working with the boys

Witness was concerned about the kids’ wellbeing.

She felt that J was favored over L because J would often have better snacks, there was no celebration of L’s birthday, but they would celebrate J’s birthday and there were more restrictions on L at school.

L was not typical of the kids she typically worked with as an EA. Witness did not see any obvious reason why she was supporting L as an EA.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness was unaware of the details of L’s past behaviours, that he killed a snake or threatened to kill her foster family.

• Witness never saw any violence by either boy at school

• She did see both boys throw tantrums.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• L was “extremely intelligent”.

• Witness knew that L was hospitalized at a psychiatric hospital the summer of 2019, but she did not know any details about it. She thought it was just one time.

• Witness knew nothing about the details of L’s past behaviours in the foster home or at school in Ottawa. For example, she did not know that he stabbed a child in the eye with a pencil or that he was a danger to pets.

• Witness knew some information about binge eating and vomiting.

• Witness did not know about the Incident Notes regarding J. (Exhibit 51) – she was on maternity leave at this time.

• Witness knew J was sometimes afraid of L.

• Witness did not know why certain rules were in place for the kids or why they were so rigid.

Tayler DUNN

Crown

September 26, 2025

December 21, 2022 – Uniform patrol with Halton in Burlington. He was driving the cruiser. After receiving the call from the dispatcher, the Witness arrived at the residence in about 30 seconds, he was very close by.

Exhibit 62A – 911 Call Audio. The call was made at 7:28 PM and he arrived at the scene at 7:29 PM.

When he arrived at the scene, there was an elderly man on the driveway who told him to go through the backdoor. He went in through the back door. In the basement bedroom, there was a woman on her knees giving CPR to a small child who was bare-chested and unresponsive. Another woman in the area was on her phone. There was green tape on the floor in the shape of a square. The child appeared to be about 5 years old. It was difficult to see but the floor around the child appeared to be wet. The child looked cold and blue. He appeared dead and sick. He seemed severely malnourished. There was a small cot in the corner of the room, the size of something a dog would sleep on.

The fire department arrived at 7:30 PM. EMS arrived around 7:32 PM. The firefighters took over doing CPR.

Exhibit 63 – Photo Going Downstairs

Exhibit 64 – Photo of Ed Cooney’s Bedroom

Exhibit 65 – Photo of Basement and Office Area

The woman on the phone was Ms. Hamber. The woman giving CPR to the child was Ms. Cooney and the child receiving CPR was L. Ms. Cooney said that L was in their care for about 5 years. She said he had mental health issues, an eating disorder, that he weighed about 48 pounds and that he was attempting to kill himself for the past 5 years. Ms. Cooney said L had been adopted.

There was an overwhelming smell of vomit and urine. The child was wearing a wetsuit. Ms. Cooney said the wetsuit was because the child had urinated in bed. Ms. Cooney said that today, L ate dinner and went to bed. She said they heard banging in his room and they took away the blanket in the room to prevent any self-harm, so he would not strangle himself. 20 minutes later they checked on him and he was unresponsive, cold to the touch and covered in vomit. Witness says that he did not see any vomit on L.

The Witness asked Ms. Cooney why the room was so bare. There was only a cot, a camping toilet, a mirror and some motivational signs. Ms. Cooney said it was because of his behavioural problems. She explained that L’s dinner had been a smoothie with “protein and nutrients” and that L had completed his bedtime routine. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney seemed emotional and frantic. The Witness learned that L had a brother named J. He learned that Ed Cooney resided in the basement.

Exhibit 66 – Photo Showing Wetsuit, Green Tape Square, a Red and Black Blanket and a White Towel

Exhibit 67 – L’s Room with Cot Against the Wall

Exhibit 68 – L’s Room Cot on Floor White Cover

Witness was shown Exhibit 27, and he described what Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney referred to as the “camping toilet” for when L was locked in the room at night.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had said L was locked in his room on a nightly basis because of the ongoing risk to himself and others. They said he was locked in the room this evening. The Witness saw a lock on the outside of L’s bedroom and saw other cameras in the basement. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney explained that the cameras were to observe L. There was a hockey helmet outside L’s room and it had zip ties on it so it could not be taken off using the normal fastenings on the sides.

The Witness did not see any water basement that could have caused the child to be wet.

Paramedics told him that there were no immediate signs of trauma on the child.

Exhibit 69 – Basement Bathroom

There was a camera downstairs that was pointed towards the staircase.

Ms. Cooney seemed to be doing CPR properly on L.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did not appear to be dazed or in shock.

• The urine vomit smell in the room was very strong, and it could be smelled throughout the basement.

• L was wet, his skin was glistening. While he could be described as sweaty, his hair was damp and wet.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did provide a lot of information to the Witness.

• Witness left the residence at 10:56 PM.

• Witness believes Ed Cooney and J were upstairs inside the residence.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness did not wear a body camera and there is no audio recording from that night.

• The Witness’ notes did not mention a hockey helmet in the basement. His notes say that he “do[es] not note anything suspicious”. The Witness now adds that the hockey helmet and the locks on the outside of the door were suspicious.

• Witness never touched L.

• Witness did not see a toboggan in the room.

• Witness did not see any water in the basement or outside.

• Witness did not see any water in the basement or outside.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness mentioned the hockey helmet to the Crown in preparation for trial and he also mentioned it to his Staff Sargent at the time.

Lawrence BERNSTEIN

Crown

September 29, 2025

Paramedic with Halton Region Advanced Care.

December 21, 2022 – Witness was enroute to the scene at 7:25 PM and arrived at 7:29 PM. He knew it was code “purple” meaning that it was a life-threatening call which was the highest level and was told the call was because a 12 year old had gone into cardiac arrest. The Witness followed the fire truck to the scene because they come from the same building. When he entered the basement, the firefighters were inside the room with the boy. The firefighters told him that the boy had been wearing a wetsuit and he was wet with a lot of water in the room.

Witness could see that L was wet. His head and body were wet. The Witness asked for towels because there was so much water on the floor and he needed them to put his equipment and to kneel on. L’s body was inside the green tape on the floor. His monitor showed no vital signs. There was a small amount of vomit around L’s mouth. However, the liquid on the floor was not water and it did not appear to be urine. There was a lot of liquid, there was about a half litre to a litre.

There was a small cot in the room and not much else in the room.

Two other paramedics arrived at the scene.

Ms. Cooney told the Witness about L’s health history. She said he suffered past abuse, had PTSD, and a history of regurgitation. The Witness had to ask again about L’s physical issues because she only replied with psychiatric information. Ms. Cooney said L did not have any physical issues.

Exhibit 70 – EMS and Ambulance Records

Ms. Cooney did not say that L was unwell before the incident. If she had said this, then he would have documented this. She said L weighed about 40 pounds.

The Witness departed the scene with L in the ambulance at 8:05 PM. They arrived at the hospital at 8:07 PM. At 8:12 PM, L was transferred to the care of hospital staff.

The Witness gave 3 doses of epinephrine to L in total.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• The Witness consulted Dr. Martino at Sunnybrook in Toronto in relation to what dosage should be given to L.

• Exhibit 70 – No trauma was evident on L (Written by Witness on page 5).

• L’s hair and head were wet. Witness says it was not perspiration. Most of the water was on L’s left side. L was on his back facing the ceiling. The liquid was around his body and it was clear and had no odour.

• Witness did not smell any strong odour of urine or vomit.

• Witness did not know when the vomit occurred. He says vomit can result sometimes from chest compressions. The amount of vomit was “little”.

Chris BURGESS

Crown

September 29, 2025

Paramedic with Halton Region Advanced Care.

December 21, 2022 – The Witness was paired with Darren ZIONS. They arrived at the scene at 7:32 PM. They were the patient transport unit. They entered the house and went to the basement. BERSTEIN and the firefighters were providing care to the patient. They decided to stay with the patient while BERSTEIN went to find information about what happened. Witness moved L further into the room for better access to him (away from the doorway). Witness describes L as a “very small boy”. He observed a large amount of fluid around the boy. There were some white towels around him. Witness did not smell any vomit or urine. However, he did see some vomit around L’s mouth and face. Witness wiped the vomit so he could intubate L. The Witness does not know when the vomit got on L, he also says it can result from giving CPR. L was wet and it did not appear to be sweat. His whole head was wet.

At 7:50 PM, the Witness did intubation. L was the size of a 6 year old and weighed about 22 kg. L seemed emaciated and gaunt. At 7:53 PM, the Witness did a second intubation when the tube became dislodged. Eventually, L was placed in an ambulance and was taken to the hospital and ZIONS drove.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness did not see any blood from the first intubation, but he did notice some blood with the second intubation.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Witness did not smell urine but did smell vomit during the intubations, it was not a strong smell; was wearing a N95 mask.

• Witness does not remember any smell associated with the clear liquid.

• L’s hair was wet and it was not just sweat. L did not look like he had been submerged in water (there was no water nearby).

Tyrone SOLOMON

Crown

September 29, 2025

Captain of the fire department. They received the call to 505 Karen Drive. Three firefighters were in the truck, besides himself. They entered the home through the rear door. He observed a camera pointing up at the staircase.

Inside the room there was a police officer and woman performing CPR on a boy. Another firefighter, Scott LAMB, relieved the lady from doing CPR. The boy was “very small.” He looked a lot younger, around 8 years old or less.

Firefighter LAMB confirmed there were no vital signs. The women told him the boy’s weight was 44 pounds. He observed visible bones like ribs and collar bones. The boy was very wet, skinny and there were visible veins. The boy was wearing a wetsuit. It had to be cut off of him. There was fluid all over the floor and it was “very wet.” The moisture had to be dried and cleaned up for them to attach the defibrillator pads to the boy’s body. He requested towels to dry the area. There was a substantial amount of liquid, about 1-1.5 liters. The liquid was clear, it looked like bile, he saw some vomit around the boy’s mouth area. He smelled no odor with the liquid, however, he was also wearing an N95 mask.

EMS arrived and took control. The boy was wearing nothing underneath the wetsuit. The woman who had been performing CPR said the boy had been sexually abused in the past and that he had an eating disorder.

The window in the room was blocked off and he could not see outside. There was a camera inside the room. There was a very small blue cot. There was masking tape on the floor and a closet with a padlock.

Firefighter LAMB carried the boy outside to the ambulance. As the Witness was exiting the basement, he saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney in another room. Ms. Hamber was on her phone, but she did not seem interested. Ms. Cooney was siting and also did not appear interested. Neither Ms. Cooney nor Ms. Hamber asked the Witness about any updates on L or anything else.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• The liquid around L was thicker than water. It looked like bile but it was different than what was under L’s wetsuit.

Crown Re-Examination

• The fluid did not seem to all be produced by L because there was so much of it.

• He saw two different kinds of substances, some bile like substance which was thicker and what appeared to be moisture under L’s wetsuit.

• There was some bile on L’s wetsuit before it was cut off.

Scott LAMB

Crown

October 1, 2025

Firefighter with City of Burlington since September 11, 2006, and volunteered 3 years before that. Assigned to the station at 455 Cumberland Ave in December 2022.

The Witness was working with Captain SOLOMAN and Firefighters RUTLEDGE and CONNELLY. There was an alarm at 7:24:26 PM, dispatch at 7:24:25 PM and they were on route at 7:28:50 PM.

A medical call had come in. It came as a VSA “Vital Signs Absent” call. They put their protective gear on and were on route, the information was updated. The patient was a 12 year old boy with an eating disorder. They arrived at the scene at 7:28:50 PM.

Description at the Scene

The firetruck was parked at the front of the house. They got out of the vehicle and an “elderly” man was flagging them from the driveway and indicating to go around the back of the house. They went in the back door and proceeded into the basement. The basement was in a fair bit of disarray. They entered the corner where the patient was. A woman was knelt over the patient doing chest compressions. Witness took over chest compressions. Witness did a pulse check on the child but did not get a pulse, so he resumed chest compressions right away. The child was lying on the floor on his back in the middle of a taped outline rectangle. Witness asked the woman how long she was doing CPR for and how long ago she saw the child conscious or alive. Witness had to ask 3 times before he got an answer. The woman said she had been doing CPR compressions for 5 minutes and it was 20 minutes before anyone saw him. The woman went to go stand with another woman, one of them was scrolling on her phone. The child appeared to him as a 5 year old in weight. Witness was taken aback because he expected to be responding to a call involving a 12-year-old. The boy was wearing what appeared to be a wetsuit and there was water/fluid around him on the floor. He was skin and bones. There were small bits of vomit in the liquid around him. There was liquid surrounding the body, about a foot or two in radius. The Witness cut off the child’s wetsuit so CONNELLY could put the defibrillator pads on. The child was skin and bones. The child’s hair was wet. Witness administered an OPA on the child.

The walls of the room were all one color. There was a black toboggan in the room. Witness did not notice a bed, toys, or dressers in the room. Witness did notice a camera in one corner of the ceiling.

Lawrence BERNSTEIN, one of the paramedics arrived. The other two paramedics arrived.

LAMB was tasked with picking the child up and he weighed “nothing”. He carried him upstairs and outside and put him on a stretcher. They brought him to the emergency room.

Exhibit 71 – Photo Taken by Officer Gies of L’s Room

Exhibit 72 – Photo Taken by Officer Gies Showing L’s Door and Room

September 21-22, 2025 – Witness re-attended at 505 Karen for a medical call. Witness saw a black toboggan on the front lawn, it was the same one from December 21, 2022. It was a fire and EMS medical call for Ed Cooney.

Exhibit 73 – Photos of Black Toboggan

Witness never saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney at the hospital on the night L died. He was there for about 10 minutes.

Exhibit 71B – Photo of L’s Room marked by Scott Lamb

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness had said in direct examination that the walls were red but they were actually blue. Witness had said the tape on the floor was also red, but it was actually green.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness did not remember the window in the room or the black item in the corner of the room.

• Witness had said in his statement that the floor was concrete, but it was actually wood.

• The fluid around L did not reach the walls.

• Witness did not attempt to locate a water source inside the room.

• Witness says he was likely wearing an N95 mask.

• The vomit was liquid, there were little “bits”.

• L’s hair was wet.

Garrett WASSENAAR

Crown

October 1, 2025

Halton Regional Police officer.

December 21, 2022 – Witness was on the night shift. He was dispatched at 7:26 PM and arrived at the scene at 7:30 PM. He was told that the call involved a 12 year old. An older man was on the driveway and told him to wear a mask because someone had an auto-immune disorder. He went inside the rear door and downstairs to the basement. There were two women in the hallway outside the boy’s room.

Inside the room, firefighters and EMS were administering CPR on the boy. He stood outside the room waiting.

The Witness could not smell urine or vomit in the bedroom and he could not see any vomit either. The two women spoke to another officer.

The boy had no top on but had a wetsuit on that was cut. He was damp with wet hair. He was very skinny and thin. He had boxer shorts on under his wetsuit pants. He did not see any water or other fluid.

EMS BERSTEIN asked the Witness to take some notes, so he did so and gave them to BERNSTEIN afterwards.

The Witness left the scene at 8:03 PM to escort the ambulance to the hospital.

The Witness saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney at the hospital but did not speak with them. They seemed “very calm” even after the child was pronounced dead.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness acknowledges that he never met Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney before and as such, does not know their usual reactions to stress or trauma.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness did not see a toboggan in the room.

Jared MACMILLAN

Crown

October 1, 2025

With the Halton Regional Police since August 2013. He was at CIB as a Detective/Constable.

December 21, 2022 – Witness went to the house with GIES. They arrived at the scene at 8:29 PM. They went into the home and into the basement. Witness did not recall any vomit odour, a urine odour, or seeing fluid or vomit. Ed Cooney said he did not want to provide a statement because he was busy with the dogs. Witness arrived at the hospital at 8:58 PM and spoke with WASSENAAR and Dr. LABIB. The Witness contacted the homicide department.

Exhibit 75 – Photo by Officer MacMillan

The Witness describes the boy’s bedroom as “minimalistic” and “bare”. There was a cot, a lock on the outside of the door and the room had no personality.

A CAS worker came to the hospital and so did Victim Services. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were eventually separated around 10 PM and interviewed.

Exhibit 76A – Hamber Audio Statement

Witness MACMILLAN states that Detective Constable GIES interviewed Ms. Cooney. Their statements seemed to line up.

At 1:04 AM, the Witness went back to 505 Karen Drive with GIES and the Corner PRIESTNER.

Ms. Cooney showed the Witness on her phone how the cameras worked. However, he never used Ms. Cooney’s phone.

At 1:54 AM, the Witness left 505 Karen Drive. The witness never observed the other child.

Exhibit 77A – Cooney Audio Statement

Dr. Alan David BROWN

Crown

October 6 and 23, 2025

A child and adolescent psychiatrist. Witness started the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatient Service (CAPIS) in 1983, though it had a different name then. It is a 19-bed locked unit for treatment, 4 of the beds are intensive care.

There are two main streams for helping children with mental health issues: private and public. To be admitted the patient must be under or equal to 18. There’s no lower limit for age.

CAPIS is meant for acute stabilization (short terms stays). It is typically not meant for chronic situations. 8-10 days is the average duration of a stay. Most patients are 13-15 or 16-18 years old.

2019 – L was admitted 3 times to CAPIS.

The info presented by family of the patient is accepted and not second guessed.

April 2019 – L was admitted to CAPIS on a Form 1. Form 1 means a person can be held involuntarily for up to 72 hours to be assessed. L was put in a room in the general unit with a camera.

April 22, 2019 - L was articulate and bright in his interview with the Witness. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said he should have no carbs, sugar or screen time. He informed them that it was not possible to follow these instructions at CAPIS. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said they did not want this to be a vacation for L. They informed the Witness about L overeating. Staff did report L was taking food off of trays and picking food off of the floor and eating it.

The plan for L was to have trauma counselling, attachment therapy, ABA Behavioural therapy and to prescribe Intuniv.

April 20, 2019 – Dr. MULLINS’s note said that L told her that he had to go up and down the stairs 700 times. Witness says physical exercise is good as behaviour therapy but 700 is excessive.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said that L experienced significant trauma at his prior foster home in Ottawa. They repeated this statement often.

L had no psychotic symptoms. L was not oppositional at CAPIS, and nowhere close to how it was reported by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney in the questionnaire they completed.

May 1, 2019 Report – These were the Witness’ recommendations for L. Risperidone, an anti-psychotic for mood was not needed. ABA therapy, attachment therapy, trauma counselling, respite support and Intuniv medication. Witness’ diagnoses for L: PTSD, Reactive Attachment Disorder, Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. These diagnoses were based in part on the information provided by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. The Witness says that based on L’s behaviour at CAPIS, he would not have diagnosed disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

There was no aggression by L at CAPIS. There was only one incident pf L pushing another child on the basketball court. L did not damage any property. L did not overeat to the point of vomiting at CAPIS. However, L did steal some food at CAPIS. L did sometimes get into arguments with other kids at CAPIS.

The Witness says abuse/neglect can cause the behaviour of hoarding food and binge eating

L was not diagnosed with an eating disorder.

April 28, 2019 – L discharged back home. The plan was to take outpatient treatment and follow the recommendations made by the Witness.

Exhibit 78 – Records from CAPIS for First Admission, April 2019

July 12-18, 2019 – L’s second admission to CAPIS. This was a voluntary admission; it was not a Form 1. Dr. BRAJOVIC was the psychiatrist here, not the Witness.

Exhibit 79 – Records from L’s Second Admission to CAPIS

L was discharged back home on July 18, 2019.

July 21-August 7, 2019 – L’s third admission to CAPIS. It was also a voluntary admission. Dr. BRAJOVIC was the psychiatrist at first and then the Witness took over on July 25, 2019. L was more stable at CAPIS than what Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney described at home. August 7, 2019 – L received his discharge diagnoses – the Witness removed the binge eating disorder that had been diagnosed by Dr. BRAJOVIC during the second admission because the Witness did not see any evidence of that and did not agree with the diagnosis. The Witness was considering CPRI in London which would have allowed L a longer stay, but Ottawa CAS would have had to apply for that.

L was never restrained at CAPIS.

Exhibit 80 – Records from L’s Third Admission to CAPIS

Food hoarding can be a symptom of abuse and neglect, whether that is past or present abuse.

Witness read out notes from CAPIS from Exhibit 80.

August 2019 - Only 4 diagnoses Witness would have been maintained for L based on the Witness’ observations of him at CAPIS and what L said to him at CAPIS: PTSD with residual symptoms, reactive attachment disorder, disruptive mood disorder and ADHD.

Exhibit 135 – Emergency Record and Associated Documents. L was at the emergency department at a hospital.

Witness refused to admit L to CAPIS. There was no acute distress, L himself wanted to go home, no suicidal threat, L seemed stable and happy, he had already been admitted to CAPIS three times and L had community support services already in place.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• 8-10 day stay at CAPIS per the provincial mandate, but a child could be kept for 10 days or longer if they are still in crisis.

• At the time L was discharged from CAPIS in August 2019, the Witness thought CPRI would be a good option for L and that they would take him. However, the hope was that CAS would provide funding for L, regardless of whether he went to CPRI.

• Food can be soothing for a child who has a history of abuse.

• Witness believed L when he said he was abused in his foster home despite what Ottawa CAS said.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• A patient can present very different at the hospital than at home.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney seemed very engaged in what was happening with L.

• Witness says it would have been helpful to him to have known about L’s prior problems in his Ottawa foster home. For example, information about gorging food, vomiting, harming pets, etc.

• Witness was not aware of all of L’s reported behaviours. Witness did not know that L stole someone’s wallet at school.

• During the 17-day stay at CAPIS during his second admission, it is unlikely that L manipulated and fooled them.

• Eating disorders are mental disorders.

• L told the Witness about causing property damage at moms’ house, he said it was about 20k damage.

• L and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told the Witness about L’s problems urinating at home outside of a toilet.

• L would overreact to hospital staff picking up food from the floor and other trays but this was not consistent with a binge eating disorder. Binge eating involves disgust and shame and L did not appear this way.

• August 16, 2019 Final Note – Dr. Brown. Contains information reported to him by the moms. L reported that he sometimes smuggled food into his room because he did not like all healthy food.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s June 22, 2022 Report – Indicated that L engaged in binge eating and some self-harm. Witness agrees that these things could have been red flags for admission to a hospital.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s July 28, 2022 Report – One of the moms reported that L was ruminating after every meal.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s October 4, 2022 Report – One of the moms reported vomiting, ruminating, binge eating, urination and feces. It mentions a possible referral to an eating disorder clinic. Witness agrees that a further assessment would be needed to determine if it was an eating disorder.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s October 27, 2022 Report – Report mentions some of the problems reported by the moms. Witness agrees that these are red flags for a potential eating disorder.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s November 23, 2022 Report – This report also mentions some of the same problems reported by the mom including “ruminating all day and night”.

• Witness agrees that this was very concerning and that a child could die if steps were not taken.

• Dr. Dhaliwal’s December 19, 2022 Report – Says ruminating is getting worse and is occurring all day and night. This would be concerning to the Witness and he would want to examine the child.

• Witness says based on these reports, the child should have been admitted to the emergency room in either November or December 2022.

Crown Re-Examination

• Some of Dr. Dhaliwal’s reports say that the family was given the option to take L to the ER at the hospital and the family declined to do so.

• Witness agrees that in home observation would have been valuable here.

• The age of the child is important in assessing the significance of past behaviours.

Kristina RAPOSO

Crown

October 7, 2025

Child and Youth Counsellor at CAPIS. Worked at hospital with both L and J.

Exhibit 81 – Photo Taken of L at CAPIS

The Witness never saw any note about L in regard to suicidal ideation or homicidal ideation. L was very withdrawn after visiting Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. L behaved really well at CAPIS.

Witness did not see L have any bathroom problems while at CAPIS. L would use the bathroom normally.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would frequently complain about things at CAMPIS. They had a lot of demands. They often conflicted with the staff. There was one incident where Ms. Cooney yelled and swore at staff. There was another incident where Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney were complaining about L being fat but he only weighed 64 pounds. Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney once wrote something on the nursing notes, which is not allowed. They had complaints about food, weight, screen time, etc.

Witness never saw any note about safety concerns for L while he was at CAPIS.

There was a navigator program that acted as a bridge between the hospital and community resources. Witness was the navigator for J and L. It was part of her role to advocate for L and J.

Exhibit 82 – Navigator Records

February 14, 2020 – CAS worker Holly SIMMONS tells Witness that the kids are in “foster care”, that they are not adopted. The Witness thought the adoption had been completed.

Witness never worked one on one with either J or L. She offered to do so but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused.

Witness did a home visit. L and J were there but they played in the basement while she spoke to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

February 2020 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney declined CAS’s offer of a home intensive support program. They said they did not trust CAS.

December 13, 2019 – Witness met with Ms. Hamber. Ms. Hamber told her that L slept in a tent in the basement but that it was a large space with windows. Ms. Hamber told her that they tried ABA therapy but could not get anyone to come to the home because of funding reasons.

March 23, 2020 – Witness’ involvement with the family ended.

February 19, 2020 – School meeting. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney asked the school staff not to ask any questions directly of the kids.

Witness strongly recommended to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney that they accept CAS support right away, rather than stay on the waitlist for Woodview but they rejected this suggestion.

March 16, 2023 – Ms. Hamber told her that the kids were doing much better out of school.

March 23, 2020 – Witness’ discharge note – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused all CAS services including intensive in-home support program. They also rejected all support from ROCK. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told her these things directly.

Exhibit 83 – Application for Special Services at Home

Exhibit 84 – Discharge Summary March 23, 2020 for J

Exhibit 85 – Letter from Ms. Peachy

Exhibits 86-99 – Emails between Ms. Hamber and Raposo

After Witness closed her Navigator file, she told Ms. Hamber to contact CAPIS again in the future if there were any continuing issues.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness shown Exhibit 94.

• Witness says that the main reason why CPRI was not possible was because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had not exhausted all community services that were available to them as required. ROCK was available for them for example.

• Witness did not explore community funding for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney for community resources that had to be paid.

• L and J were waitlisted for Woodview.

• CAS would not confirm any abuse of the boys in Ottawa, it was before the court.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• April 2020 – L told her that he was scared of his foster dad who used to abuse him.

• Exhibit 88 – Emails from Ms. Hamber to Raposo. Witness asked about these emails. Witness agrees that this is a thorough email from Ms. Hamber and that she does not come across as a disinterested parent. Ms. Hamber consistent in saying that the boys had severe needs and always said other service providers were disappointing. Very rigid about rules for L. Ms. Hamber always insistent that L’s behaviours at home were very different.

• Witness thinks she read some information about L’s time in foster care when she was at CAPIS but seems unsure. Witness is unsure but thinks there was some info about that in the electronic CAS notes that L exhibited some aggression while in foster care in Ottawa.

• L was mostly compliant.

• Witness agrees that Dr. BROWN recommended CPRI for L.

Crown Re-Examination

• Regarding the emails from Ms. Hamber, Witness feels that Ms. Hamber was trying to build a case against CAS.

Dr. Noura LABIB

Crown

October 8, 2025

Worked at the emergency department at Joseph Brant hospital.

Witness did not testify as an expert.

L was clearly not the size of a 12-year-old. Witness would estimate he was closer to the size of a 6 year old. He was skin and bones, very small and wet from head to toe, his hair was also wet. L was cachectic, this is more severe than emaciated.

L had dripping wet hair, like he had just come out of a swimming pool. The water did not smell like urine, it did not have any particular smell. L was so wet that she considered whether he had drowned.

L was hypothermic. This means to have a low core body temperature. Witness could not understand why L’s body temperature was that low considering what Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had said happened. This was very alarming to her.

There were no injuries that she observed on L except a bruising to the knees.

Witness declared L’s time of death to be 9:43 PM.

L’s blood sugar was high, a high glucose level. Witness says she did not know why. She says it could be due to stress, diabetes, or other causes. Epinephrine given to L could have caused his glucose level to go up.

L showed signs of dehydration from his biochemistry results. He was malnourished and anemic. The biochemistry suggests it was malnourishment.

Exhibit 100 - Photos of L at Joseph Brant Hospital

Exhibit 101 – Joseph Brant Medical Records of L

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told Witness: that L misbehaved during dinner and so he was asked to go to his room. 20 minutes later they checked on him and he was not doing well. The fluid may have been urine or vomit because he has an eating disorder. That the lock on the outside of his bedroom door was to protect his brother. That he was in a wetsuit because L liked it. They said they did not know why L was wet, they said he may have peed himself, that it was vomit or from the resuscitation efforts.

• Witness is confident that the fluid was not urine or vomit. It was odourless and colourless.

After L was declared dead, Witness saw the moms smiling and laughing and being normal. When she told them that L died, she seemed more distraught than they did. They took the news very well.

Witness called CAS that night.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• The liquid was not urine or vomit. It had no smell or color.

• L looked malnourished.

• L had no signs of trauma other than the bruised knees.

• Malnourishment can have more than one cause.

• Diabetes would not explain how much muscle wasted away. There was also nothing to suggest L had diabetes.

• L’s weight was extremely low.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• L’s body temperature was far too low for it to be explained by him being bare on the floor of the basement, him being wet in a wetsuit or it being winter. He was not sweating.

• L’s hair and underwear were wet, and his body was cold.

• L was skin and bones and no fat.

• Witness asked about diabetic hyperosmolar syndrome (DHS). Witness responds that she cannot answer whether the bloodwork here is indicative of that or not.

Crown Re-Examination

• L’s blood sugar level is too low for it to be DHS.

• L’s symptoms are not specific or exclusive to DHS.

Helen KESKULA

Crown

October 8, 2025

The Witness used to live at Karen Drive, specifically across the street from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. She knew the accused.

Witness said the two boys looked alike, though one was taller than the other. She said the boys were sweet, kind, polite, they played outside, and asked her questions.

The boys would do chores outside. They had small shovels and they were out there for a long time. The boys would talk to her about food.

Around 2-3 times, she heard a child yelling about not wanting to go to school.

After COVID time, she started to see the boys together less and less. After some time, she only saw J outside and would talk to him. For about a year, she did not see L outside at all.

Witness had never been inside the Hamber Cooney residence. If she wanted to leave anything for the boys, she had to drop it off at the end of the driveway. She was told not to go to the door because of viruses.

December 24, 2022 – Ms. Cooney came to her home and told her that L had died. She told her that L ate dinner that night and L went downstairs to his room. 15 minutes later when Ms. Cooney went to go check on L, he had vomited. Ms. Cooney said J had been taken away from them and that they maybe would not be able to stay in their home because they would not be receiving the $3000 a month from CAS any longer.

Exhibit 102 – Text messages between Ms. Cooney and Keskula

December 26, 2022 – Ms. Cooney texted the Witness. Ms. Cooney again mentioned the $3000. Ms. Cooney asked Witness to start a GoFundMe for them. The later texts between them were also about the money and the GoFundMe. The texts continued until January 5, 2023.

Exhibit 103 – GoFundMe Page

This GoFundMe was set up by the Witness. She wrote the message on the page and donated $100. Witness tried to take the page down after the police took her statement.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• On December 24 when Ms. Cooney came to speak to the witness, Ms. Cooney was “teary”.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told the Witness that the boys were abused in the past, at their birth home and the foster home.

• Witness would often speak with J.

• Witness continued to have a bit of contact with Ed Cooney after January 2023. Ed Cooney would tell her that the boys would damage property, pee and poop in their bedrooms and put holes in their drywall.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told the Witness that the boys caused lots of property damage.

Chris DORRINGTON

Crown

October 8, 2025

Seargent with the Halton Regional Police since 2002.

December 21, 2022 – Witness was the supervisor for Burlington. At 7:30 PM, they received a call about a 12-year-old boy. As he arrived at the scene, the patient was being put in the ambulance. Witness entered the residence and went to the basement. Officer DUNN was in the basement. Witness went into the bedroom. He did not notice any odour of urine or vomit and did not see any urine or vomit either. He examined the cot in the room, it was about 4 and a half or 5 feet long and about 2 and a half feet wide. There were no toys in the room and it did not seem like a 12-year-old child’s room. There was a lock on the outside of the door. There were two women in the basement. Ms. Cooney was on the phone so he spoke to Ms. Hamber. She said the lock is because he sometimes punches them. Ms. Hamber told him that the boy, L, misbehaved at dinner and so they sent him downstairs to his room. When they checked on him 20 minutes later, he had no vitals, so they called for help.

The witness did not notice any water in the bedroom. He saw a small wetsuit. He saw a hockey helmet with zip ties on it outside of the bedroom. He saw nothing in the bedroom that would explain why the boy was so wet.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness did not see a toboggan inside the bedroom.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness went back inside the residence to check for any water source when he received a call from a cop at the hospital who mentioned L’s wetness. He did not see anything that could explain it.

Dr. Emma CORY

Crown

October 20 and 21, 2025

Co-Director of Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Program since 2014 at SickKids Hospital. Witness is also a pediatrician at SickKids and an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine.

Witness is tendered by the Crown as an expert witness. Witness testified as an expert in the areas of child growth, feeding and nutrition. She teaches in these areas and has many publications.

Witness has lots of experience with cases involving child abuse and maltreatment generally. Lots of experience with cases involving CAS and those involving malnourishment. Witness is qualified as an expert.

Exhibit 123 – CV of Dr. Cory.

Exhibit 124A – Report of Dr. Cory Dated June 3, 2025.

Page 3 of Report – The November 20-22, 2022 text messages refer to very serious medical issues in relation to L. However, the Witness did not see any record of a medical visit in relation to these serious issues. These issues required urgent hospital care.

Page 6 of Report – If the 30.4 temperature of L was changed to 31.1, it would not change any of her opinions.

Page 7 of Report – Elevated glucose level for L was not a surprise to her given the cardiac arrest. The blood work from December 21 cannot be relied on to accurately assess L’s nutrition levels because these results are highly impacted by resuscitation efforts.

Page 8 of Report – Bloodwork results from December 2, 2022 are more reliable. L had a low heart rate on December 2, 2022 as per his ECG exam. A low heart rate is a sign of malnutrition. L’s sodium levels are not a significant factor for her opinions. A low albumin level is not necessarily a marker of malnutrition. The level of it recorded on December 21 was likely impacted by fluids from resuscitation efforts. The Witness saw no evidence of an infection that would have contributed to L’s death. The Witness says she is not an expert in rumination syndrome.

Page 9 of Report – September 3, 2022: L had all “normal” results on his bloodwork. However, normal bloodwork can exist despite malnourishment. He also had a negative result for diabetes.

Page 20 of Report – Eating disorders can cause weight loss. However, rumination syndrome is different from an eating disorder. Without speaking to L, she would not be able to diagnose him with an eating disorder. Regurgitating food and eating it again would not typically cause malnourishment because it does not impact the calorie intake. The Witness would not diagnose rumination syndrome based on the information she reviewed. The stunting of height is uncommon and rather suggests longer term chronic malnutrition. Severe malnutrition can lead to death. Electrolyte imbalances and abnormalities can cause cardiac arrest and death. Electrolyte issues can be caused by malnutrition. Malnutrition can make someone vulnerable to hypothermia. Malnutrition can cause problems with attention, energy levels, cognition and schooling.

Page 5 and 26 of Report – L’s weight on December 13, 2022 was 48 pounds, and on December 21, 2022 it was 62 pounds. Witness explains that at the time of death, L was weighed with several other items. L’s growth was normal up to 9 years old. L’s CAPIS records show he was eating well there and as a result he gained weight. Witness explains that it is common for a malnourished child to rapidly gain weight after entering a new environment with more food access. Witness saw no evidence of L having any chronic medical condition

Pages 28-29 of Report – Witness says she cannot diagnose an eating disorder or rumination disorder

Page 30 of Report – The symptoms mentioned in the November 20-22, 2022 texts would have caused her to immediately admit L into the hospital

Witness’ opinion is that there is no medical cause for L’s severe malnutrition. The cause was an insufficient intake of calories. Most children with rumination syndrome do not present with severe malnutrition.

Exhibit 124B - Collection of Who Growth Charts

Medical history is very important to her work. The information provided by child caregivers about the child. However, around adolescence, the child becomes more involved in giving information directly to her.

Growth curves help her understand averages and normal growth trends for children. There are ranges of normal and the trend over time is more important than the percentile. L had severe malnutrition. Chronic malnutrition can stunt height in addition to cause weight loss.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Referrals to SCAN come from many different sources. For example, family physicians, CAS, police, caregivers, etc.

• There were some gaps in L’s medical records she reviewed. Not all the medical records had L’s height and weight for example.

• Page 24 of Report – December 21, 2022 – Witness would have been very concerned about L’s significant weight loss. December 13, 2022 – Same is true here. She would have wanted L admitted to a medical facility or the emergency department of a hospital.

• Rumination syndrome is effortless regurgitation on a regular basis.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• The malnutrition was “severe” and caused by insufficient calorie intake.

• Witness cannot diagnose whether L had an eating disorder.

• Witness can not explain why L had insufficient calorie intake. There could be many reasons which explain why.

• Witness says she would have been very concerned about L’s health during his visit with Dr. DUNCAN in December 2021 and December 2022. Witness would have done a physical examination, including checking his vitals and getting a detailed medical history from L and his caregivers. Witness says there was clearly a problem here already.

• L was under the care of Dr. DUNCAN since at least January 2018.

• There was a clear downward trend in L’s weight.

• Witness agrees that mental health can impact on feeding.

• Witness would be surprised if L had a history of binge eating but he died of severe malnutrition.

• L was taking some medication as of December 2022. These medications can impact appetite. The medications are adjusted based on weight.

• Exhibit 125 – Video Clip of L From October 2022. Witness says L’s face looks caved in and very thin. Witness says he looks pale and unwell and like he really needs help. Witness says she would absolutely have concerns if she saw him as a patient.

• Exhibit 126 – CAS Medical Treatment Report Signed by Dr. Duncan. Report recommends an eating disorder clinic for L.

• December 13, 2022 Typed notes of Dr. DUNCAN. No indication from these notes that a vital signs exam for L was done. Witness says there was a clear and obvious problem with L’s presentation that day. There are mentions of continuous regurgitation and an eating disorder in the notes. Witness agrees that hospital admission was an option on this day. Witness says L was severely malnourished when he saw Dr. DUNCAN on December 13, 2022.

• Witness says the full scope of rumination syndrome is unknown to her. It is in the DSM. Risk factors for it include development delays, stress and maltreatment. Electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, dental problems, weight loss, nutrient deficiencies and growth problems are potential consequences of rumination. Witness says it was unlikely that L’s early dental problems were related to rumination.

• Witness describes re-feeding syndrome. This is when a severely malnourished child is at risk when nutrition is increased too rapidly in a medical setting. Hard to predict when a child is prone to this syndrome. Re-feeding can lead to electrolyte imbalance.

• Post-mortem bloodwork can not reliability prove electrolyte imbalance or re-feeding syndrome.

• Electrolytes can lead to cardiac arrest. Symptoms of imbalance include irritability, irregular heart rate, constipation, vomiting, headaches, fatigue, “wonky” eyes, increased urination, numbness, irregular heart rate.

• A nutritional smoothie 20-30 minutes before a cardiac arrest could’ve prompted re-feeding syndrome. However, it depends on what was in the smoothie and the calorie intake.

• Exhibit 127 – Meal Photographs. Witness agrees all of those meals look appropriate for a child like L.

• Witness says it is possible that re-feeding syndrome between December 13 and the date of death caused more re-feeding syndrome and cardiac arrest for L.

• Witness says L’s caregivers could have triggered re-feeding syndrome unknowingly and would not expect them to know.

Crown Re-Examination

• December 13, 2022 – Dr. Duncan’s Typed Notes – There is no mention of Dr. Duncan being told by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney about the things mentioned in their text messages from November 2022. Witness says that if she was the doctor that day, she would have wanted to know that because it would have been very important and concerning information and needed to determine next steps

Dr. Michael PICKUP

Crown

October 21 and 23, 2025

His field of expertise is forensic pathology. He is the Deputy Chief forensic pathologist for Ontario. Witness is qualified as an expert witness.

Exhibit 128 – CV of Dr. Pickup

Witness says a post-mortem examination is not the same as an autopsy. An autopsy has several components. A cause of death cannot always be ascertained from one.

Witness conducted the autopsy of L on December 23, 2022. L weighed 62 pounds and this included his body bag, and the contents of the body bag.

Exhibit 129A – Report of Postmortem Examination.

Page 5 of Report - Describes the contents of the body bag which was weighed, 3 sheets, saline solution and other equipment. Possible sign of malnutrition, no evidence of heart abnormality, no evidence of aspiration, no evidence of choking, no evidence of drowning (but this evidence could’ve been eliminated through resuscitation efforts).

Page 6 of Report – “Hemorrhagic cecal mucosa” not chronic, it was acute and likely occurred at the time of death. “White tablets” Witness says this may be an error, it probably was not found in the large bowel but just in the bowel.

Page 7 of Report – Thyroid gland unremarkable. L had no significant thyroid disease. Though Witness could not rule out microscopic thyroid disease.

Page 8 of Report – “Vitreous” fluid was from the eyeball. Witness tested for electrolytes. Vitreous fluid is more reliable than blood taken post-mortem. Potassium and glucose, these two electrolytes are not that reliable, even through vitreous fluid, post-mortem. L’s stomach contents were not tested because there was no reason to do so here. There is not much evidentiary value with toxicology test from stomach contents. Regarding the white tablets, one was found in the stomach and one in the bowel.

Page 9 of Report – “Ketones” There would normally be ketones if death was due to acute starvation. However, the absence of ketones does not mean there was no acute starvation.

Page 11 of Report – Witness answers six specific questions. Witness says drowning cannot be excluded as a cause of death because he does not know if there is evidence of L’s head being submerged in water. It is possible that narcotics in L’s system, some above therapeutic levels and some below fatal levels, in combination with other things like malnutrition could cause cardiac arrest and death. Decreased calorie intake is the most reasonable cause for L’s growth and weight loss.

Exhibit 130 – Autopsy Photos of L

Exhibit 131 – Item of Clothing Worn by L December 21, 2022

L’s teeth were natural and normal.

Witness cannot explain the wetness on the body at the emergency room hospital. In the late 90s and early 2000s, diatom testing for drowning went out of favour because there was a high risk of contamination. It was challenging test to conduct and there were reliability concerns. The test was not done here with L.

Exhibit 132 – Photos of Tablets from Bowel. Witness says these were sent to the lab for analysis. They were found to be a medication that L was taking at the time.

Witness says it is possible that frequent vomiting over a lengthy period of time could lead to problems with teeth and esophagus.

There was no evidence of dehydration. No evidence of disease of any kind. No evidence of significant injury.

Witness says he was unable to determine the precise cause of death. Witness says an electrolyte imbalance can never be proven because blood work taken after the heart stops beating is unreliable.

Shivering results from decreased body temperature. Hypothermia (which is decreased body temperature) can be fatal. Witness says there were some signs in the autopsy which point towards hypothermia but they are not conclusion because you can have hypothermia without those signs or have those signs without also having hypothermia. Severe malnutrition makes someone more susceptible to hypothermia. Both severe malnutrition and hypothermia make someone more susceptible to an electrolyte imbalance and cardiac arrest.

Witness is asked specifically about certain conditions. If a child was chronically malnourished, weighed around 44-58 pounds, it was winter and he was in the basement sleeping on a cot in a wetsuit. If he was shivering and they attempted to warm him with water and turn a space heater on and he was soaking wet and clear fluid around but no signs of urine or vomit, could hypothermia have caused L’s death? The Witness says “possibly”.

Glucose levels can spike as a result of resuscitation efforts, including epinephrine. But hypothermia is not normally associated with elevated glucose. A stressful medical event, like resuscitation, can cause elevated glucose.

Shivering can cause changes in potassium.

Normal body temperature is around 37 degrees.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Time of death is not at issue here.

• Hypothermia is not mentioned in the Witness’ Report. Witness clarified that there are a few findings in the report that are specific to hypothermia. But he does acknowledge that the circumstances known to him were not those typically associated with hypothermia. For example, L was found inside a residence.

• Witness does not usually see urination after death.

• Vomiting after a seizure is more common and it can cause electrolyte imbalance. Electrolyte imbalance can cause cardiac arrest.

• No connection between sweating and electrolyte imbalance.

• Page 9 of Report – Beta hydroxybutyrate (BHB) was not detected. This is sometimes, not always, associated with hypothermia.

• An anatomical pathologist is not the same as a forensic pathologist. A forensic pathologist has additional training and certification.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• There was wetness in Witness first saw L inside the body bag. However, he paid very little attention to that. The sheets were wet or damp and there was no odour.

• Excessive sweating is not associated with choking or aspiration.

• L’s creatine level was normal.

• Kidney problems can cause electrolyte imbalance.

• Witness says he cannot state acute starvation as a cause of death without finding ketones.

• BHB is not always detected with hypothermia.

• Witness had no circumstantial history (the conditions in which he was found). All the information he had was L’s temperature at the emergency hospital and he placed little weight on that.

Stefanie LEACHEY

Crown

October 23, 2025

Witness is a therapist (cognitive and narrative). She worked with both boys from July 2019 to July 2020.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told her that L functioned at the level of a 1-year-old and J functioned at the level of a 2-year-old, but this was not her experience.

Witness had some virtual sessions with the boys at home. It was difficult to do so because it was not private. For example, one time, Ms. Cooney emailed during a session to say that J was lying to her.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were the ones to decide to end the sessions. They did not like the Witness asking direct questions to the boys. They did not like her suggestion to move to bi-weekly sessions. Witness was concerned that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney focused too much on the negative. Ms. Cooney focused too much on the punitive, especially near the end of her involvement.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney seemed increasingly frustrated near the end of her involvement. Witness never saw any of the problem behaviours described by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney for either boy.

Witness would have continued working with the boys if permitted to do so because they were making good progress.

Witness did not think homeschooling the children was a good idea long term because it would be very isolating for them.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Boys disclosed to her about abuse they faced in the foster home.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were good advocates for the boys. They seemed open to engaging with the services and eager to get funding for more services.

• Her letter dated November 25, 2021 said that the moms did a “great job” advocating for the boys.

• Witness agrees that just because she did not see problem behaviours in the sessions, that it does not mean those did not take place at home.

• Funding for her services came from CAS. Witness wrote a letter asking for the funding to continue. Exhibit 110.

• The zip ties on J’s outfit concerned her and she reported it to Radius. It did not seem enough for to report to CAS.

• Witness thought that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had already adopted the boys. She says she received this information from the moms. But Witness corrects herself because Exhibit 110 explicitly states that the adoption was not completed.

Holly PATERSON

Crown

October 23, 2025

Works as a coordinator at the Halton Coordinated Service Planning Program (HCSP)

Worked with the Hamber Cooney family from October 2020 – March 2021. She met Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney virtually but never met the boys.

HCSP was very similar to ROCK. As an HCSP coordinator, she could refer the family to any service provider, not just ROCK.

Woodview was a service provider she would refer families to. She could not determine acceptance. Woodview was a mental health and autism facility. They had in-home and school-based programs. They were funded by the Halton region and Ontario government. They were located in the Halton region.

December 2021 – Spoke with CPRI. She was told that CPRI could not offer more than what the family already had. As such, the boys never went to CPRI. No physician referred L to CPRI.

The boys were at Woodview but that was before her time with the family.

December 15, 2020 – Dr. SINGLETON would not sign off on a CPRI referral for L.

A referral to Radius was coming. The family also had access to therapist Chelsea HARDING.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Ottawa CAS did not support CPRI.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were diligent in asking for services and in asking for funding.

• Ottawa CAS would have final say on CPRI, even if the physician gave a referral.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney sometimes spoke highly of L and J.

• Referral to HCSP came from Woodview.

• Witness never met L. Agrees that she would have had to meet L to determine the suitability of CPRI for L.

• November 16, 2020 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney shared frustration with the witness about the lack of consistency at ROCK in that they always have to explain the background to someone new each time.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness never saw any injuries on Ms. Hamber.

• Witness did not see any property damage or images of property damage at Hamber Cooney residence.

Sarah BRODIE

Crown

October 23, 2025

Witness is a registered psychotherapist. Specializing in art and play therapy. She has 20 years of experience.

Worked January - April 2019 with L at the Arterie - her own private practice. The moms reached out to her.

January 30 2019 - Her first session with the moms but no kids.

Her involvement was funded by the moms, it was funding from Victim Services and then Ottawa CAS.

Witness’ notes mention several resources including ROCK, CORI, Bartimeus, and others Bartimeus- A private clinic/service, a therapeutic boarding School.

Witness says it is normal to not see some behaviours at therapy that are seen at home, especially initially. It concerned her that moms were considering disrupting the agreed upon therapy program to explore equine therapy with someone else.

April 29, 2019 - Last session with the Witness.

There were other scheduled sessions after this, but they were all cancelled by the moms.

Email from Ms. Hamber to Witness April 29, 2019 – Ms. Hamber was saying L was in the hospital, that he gained weight and that she did not like that. Ms. Hamber said they told L that they would have him down to his normal size again.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Ms. Hamber told her that she had also been in foster care and that she had also been abused while in care.

• Witness had 9 sessions with L, 2 sessions with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Witness says you should not have more than one form of psychotherapy at same time as it is not good for the child.

• Witness agrees that moms consistently wanted as much help as possible for the boys.

• Witness says it was a bad idea to try to switch therapy to equine, especially for a child with an attachment disorder. She did not understand why they wanted this.

• Witness’s funding letter March 19, 2019 included positive things about the moms.

• Witness’ handwritten note May 1, 2023: the family lacked funds to cover her services, but she understood that was eventually sorted out with CAS.

• Witness thought then, and still thinks now, that the therapy with her should have continued.

Crown Re-Examination

• The cancelled services were not because of funding but because the moms had switched therapy.

Melissa PARSONS

Crown

October 23, 2025

Staff Sargent at HRPS Burlington. Was a Detective in CIB at the time.

January 17, 2023 – Search warrant was executed at Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s home. Several officers were involved including her and OIC POWERS. There was a delayed answer at the door, but it was eventually answered by Ms. Hamber. Ms. Hamber was arrested once they entered. Ms. Cooney was not present because she was at work. Ed Cooney was in the basement, and he went to the police station to give a statement.

There was an “overpowering” smell of some kind of cleaning product or aerosol upstairs. This smell was not present in the basement, however.

Exhibit 137 – Search Photos of Karen Drive

Photo 9511 – Shows 2 refrigerators in the kitchen.

Photo 9518 – A door jam and this contained measurements for the boys, the last one for L was February 16, 2022, but there were more recent measurements for J.

Photo 9700 – A baby bottle was found in the fridge with something inside it.

Photo 9713 – There was a strap with bells on it attached to the top of the tent on the bed in J’s room.

Room 9678 – In the outside garbage bun can see a tent with zip ties on it. Photo 9737 – In the garage, several bags of zip ties were found.

J’s bedroom was upstairs. It had a bed with a tent in it (there was a small mattress underneath but no bedding), it had stuffed animals, and some books. Within J’s room, the Witness could see where a camera used to be on the wall. There was a blue sleep sack sewn shut at the bottom. There were also multiple wetsuits.

Exhibit 136 – Sleep Sack Seized from J’s Bedroom

There was a music room upstairs with sports equipment, toys and stuffed animals. There was a third bedroom upstairs for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Some cupboards throughout the house had child locks and strap restraints on them. There was a child safety lock on the exit door at the landing of the stairs.

In the basement bathroom, you could see where a camera used to be stuck on a wall.

In the basement hallway, Witness could see an area where a camera used to be above L’s door.

No hockey helmet with zip ties was ever recovered from the home. They were looking for it.

No surveillance cameras were found. No blue cot was found.

At the time of the search, the locks on the doors to J’s and L’s rooms were not on the outside anymore but were on the inside.

Inside L’s bedroom, there was practically nothing inside. There was a shelf with wires but no camera. It looked freshly painted with names such as “Ottawa CAS”, “Halton CAS”, “Detectives”, “Crown Attorney”, “St. Paul’s School” and there were piles of paperwork around the room.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness did not notice any mold on the food in the fridge and none of it seemed spoiled either.

Dr. Graeme DUNCAN

Crown

October 27 and 28, 2025

A medical doctor in family medicine. Witness is part of the Caroline Family Health team which has 9 family doctors including him. They have about 2200 patients and about 20-25 patients a day.

Caroline Family First (CFF) has a variety of service providers. Children with challenging behaviours can be referred to CFF team. For example, ROCK can refer to them.

Vitals are usually taken by the staff before he sees the patient. The parent is usually present with the child if the patient is a child. Witness will sometimes talk to the child or adolescent in private depending on the nature of the issue.

Witness has had patients under CAS care before. Witness knows about the CAS Wellness check form to be completed.

Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney, and Ed Cooney were all his patients before the boys came into the picture. Ms. Hamber was a patient with him for about 20+ years. Both J and L became his patients as well.

Exhibit 138 – L’s Medical Records From Caroline Family Health

Exhibit 139 – J’s Medical Records From Caroline Family Health

Witness saw L in person three times (January 7, 2018, December 2, 2021, December 13, 2022). Witness saw J in person about three or four times. Neither of them were alone at the appointments.

Witness would always do the CAS wellness checks. He would check their height, weight, nutrition, immunizations, some vitals and check-in with the child.

January 17, 2018 - L’s weight was 55 pounds and 4 ounces. His height was 125 cm.

Witness obtained L’s medical records Ottawa CAS and there was nothing of concern in them.

If a patient is admitted to a hospital emergency room, he is notified. He was told about L’s admission to Joseph Brant hospital on August 12, 2018. Before August 12, 2018, Witness does not recall being told that L engaged in binge eating by anyone.

August 21, 2018 – Holly SIMMONS from CAS asks the Witness to refer L to Dr. Carson/Dr. Gerber, they were pediatricians with special interest in ADHD and behavioural issues. SIMMONS sent a letter.

November 14, 2018 – Dr. DUNCAN makes a referral to Dr. MALIK for L regarding behavioural issues. Dr. MALIK is a consulting pediatrician.

April 19, 2019 – L is admitted to CAPIS for suicidal ideation.

May 2, 2019 – A discharge note from Dr. BROWN. Several recommendations were made, including psychoeducational testing for L.

May 9, 2019 – Psychiatrist Dr. SINGLETON outlines several diagnoses for L and makes some recommendations as well. Dr. SINGLETON writes a report.

January 12, 2019 – Another emergency admission for L to CAPIS. Dr. BRAJOVIC is overseeing doctor. July 18, 2019 Report of Dr. BRAJOVIC mentions a discharge diagnosis of binge eating disorder.

July 12, 2019 – L is again admitted to CAPIS. Report of Dr. BRAJOVIC mentions several diagnoses including binge eating disorder.

August 9, 2019 – L is discharged from CAPIS. Dr. BROWN’s report.

CRPI was never discussed with the Witness.

August 26, 2019 – L was at the emergency department again for suicidal ideation. L was discharged the same day and not admitted.

September 5, 2019 Report – There were concerns that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were abusing the boys. There were mentions of zip-tying kids in their pajamas by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

October 4, 2019 – A letter signed by Dr. CHALKIN (Lead MD at CFF) and Dr. DUNCAN. The letter outlines the abuse practices of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, the lack of cooperation from them and the end of CFF’s involvement with the family. The letter was addressed to the Director of Halton CAS.

November 2, 2019 – Normal ECG results for L.

December 10, 2019 – L’s medication was changed by Dr. SINGLETON.

October 13, 2020 – Another report from Dr. SINGLETON. More changes were made to L’s medication.

April 30, 2021 – Discharge note from Dr. SINGLETON because he was leaving practice, L would not be transferred to another psychiatrist. Dr. DUNCAN would make another referral if needed.

October 7, 2021 – Dr. DUNCAN makes a referral for psychiatry.

November 16, 2021 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney call and speak to the staff of Dr. DUNCAN. They mention suicidal, violent, and aggressive behaviours by L everyday. Dr. DUNCAN recommended that L be taken to the emergency department. L was not taken to the emergency department.

February 11, 2022 – OneLink referral to psychiatry was closed, it was not accepted. It was recommended that L be referred to a pediatrician.

December 2, 2021 – L attended appointment with Dr. DUNCAN in person, Ms. Cooney was there. She noted behavioural problems. L was 58 pounds and 137.5 in height. A CAS Wellness assessment was completed and the results were normal.

The parent was given the completed Wellness form to provide to CAS.

February 11, 2022 – Dr. DUNCAN referred L to Dr. MALIK. It was an “urgent request” after the OneLink referral was declined.

As of October 2021, the Witness had information about L’s eating disorder, besides the binge eating issue.

March 10, 2022 – Dr. DUNCAN received a call from one of the moms. She said Dr. MALIK was no help and demanded more referrals for L.

March 14, 2022 – Urgent fax to Dr. DUNCAN from a pharmacist on behalf of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. It was suggesting that changes should be made to L’s medications. It was stamped “Shopper Drug Mart” at the bottom without a name. Witness says this was atypical and that he had never received anything like this.

March 15, 2022 – Witness did another OneLink referral for psychiatry and medication. He made a referral to Beech Tree Medical Centre. Both these requests came from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

April 27, 2022 – Appointment was booked with Beech Tree. OneLink responded positively and said a psychiatric consultation would be booked.

March 22, 2022 – The same fax from Shopper’s Drug Mart with handwriting was sent to Dr. DUNCAN. But on March 21, 2022, there was a note to Dr. DUNCAN from his consulting pharmacist Michael LE and it was not in agreement with what was in the fax from Shoppers Drug Mart.

March 23, 2022 – Dr. DUNCAN calls Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to discuss medication for L.

May 4, 2022 – Dr. DUNCAN speaks to Ms. Cooney on the phone, and nothing is noted about any concerns regarding L’s growth, nutrition or weight. Michael LE also spoke with Ms. Cooney on the telephone, and nothing was noted about any concerns with L.

June 22, 2022 – Dr. DHALIWAL a psychiatrist notes behaviour problems, lying, stealing food, binge eating and that as a result food needed to be locked up.

September 3, 2022 – Bloodwork results for L were ordered by DR. DHALIWAL. A few slight anomalies were noted, probably due to drugs being taken by L.

October 3, 2022 – Call from one of the moms. They were asking for BMIs, height and weight for L to be given to Dr. DHALIWAL. Dr. DUNCAN gives the info to Dr. DHALIWAL. On July 18, 2019, L’s BMI was 16.5, weight was 28.3 kgs and height was 131 cm.

November 21, 2022 – Call from Ms. Hamber asking for referral to an eating disorder clinic. No further details were given by her. Dr. DUNCAN provided a requisition for an ECG because a binge eating disorder can cause electrolyte imbalances and cardiac problems. He also requisitioned some bloodwork for L to be done. Sent off a referral to OneLink. Eating disorder treatment was requested.

November 23, 2022 – Dr. DHALIWAL wrote a consultation note. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said that L had regressed, that he was ruminating all day and night.

November 23, 2022 – The clinic offered to bring L to the ER and the offer was declined. Dr. DUNCAN recalls being told about regurgitation but not to the extent as indicated in Dr. DHALIWAL’s November 23, 2022 note.

L’s ECG results showed nothing to suggest an electrolyte imbalance which would impact cardiac activity. Nothing noted to give concern about any immediate issues. L’s bloodwork showed some anomalies but presumed it was due to the stress of an eating disorder.

December 13, 2022 – Visit with L where Ms. Cooney said there was continuous regurgitation. Dr. DUNCAN was concerned about L’s weight loss, but nothing else abnormal was noted. L’s weight was recorded to be 48 pounds and he was 135.5 cm in height.

Dr. DUNCAN was never told about the content of the November 20-22, 2022 text messages. That L was maybe dying and had a wonky eye and that he was not speaking normally and had nose bleeds. If he was told, he would’ve told them to take L to the hospital right away.

December 13, 2022 CAS Wellness form completed by Dr. DUNCAN marked weight loss and recommended an eating disorder clinic. Witness did not examine L with his clothes off.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness did not provide counselling to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to help them deal with stress of adopting.

• Witness did not refer Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to the social worker at CFF for counselling because it was not warranted.

• Dr. BATTIGELLI Note dated August 30, 2018 noted the self-injurious behaviour of L. Dr. DUNCAN does not recall whether he booked an appointment with L or Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney in response to that note.

• April 20, 2019 Note of Dr. MULLINS, a psychiatrist. Witness did not book an appoint with L or the moms after receiving that note because he wanted to leave it with the mental health professionals. He also did not refer the moms to the counsellor at CFF.

• October 4, 2019 letter from Dr. CHALKIN and Dr. DUNCAN raising concerns about Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Dr. DUNCAN did not meet with the moms before the letter was sent and did not meet with them after.

• December 13, 2022 – L’s visit to Dr. DUNCAN, Witness could have called an ambulance and he could have told the moms to take L to a hospital but he did not because L was alert, and behaving fine despite the weight loss. L did not appear critically ill.

• Witness did not contact CPRI because a referral to an eating disorder clinic had already been made.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Witness never called CAS on Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• December 2022 – Witness says it was not his normal practice to do orthostatic tests on a 12-year-old but now acknowledges that such a test should be done for a child suffering from an eating disorder.

• Witness says there are degrees of malnutrition and there are methods to determine if someone is severely malnourished.

• Witness does not have much familiarity with refeeding syndrome.

• Ms. Hamber provided the following information to Dr. DUNCAN. L would excessively urinate everywhere, he had violent tendencies, he would gorge food, engage in rumination, that he had PTSD, ODD, RAD, DMDD, engaged in property damage and had many problems at school.

• Witness agrees that the degree of weight loss indicated severe malnutrition; specifically the drop from 26.3 kgs to 18 kg.

• Witness agrees that the boy could have dropped dead of a cardiac arrest at any moment based on regurgitation causing an electrolyte imbalance and cardiac arrest. Witness says he did not reach out to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to warn them of this.

• December 2, 2022 ECG Report – Defence counsel notes that it says “borderline ECG” and the Witness disagrees that this means that it was unreliable and that a further investigation was being done through L’s bloodwork.

• Witness was aware of L’s loss of weight since December 2, 2021.

• Witness agrees that L was severely malnourished and that it warranted immediate medical attention but this was not done.

• Exhibit 125 shown to Witness. Witness agrees that L’s face looked depressed and that he was pale and emaciated and he was skin and bones and that this screamed for immediate attention but that this did not happen.

• December 13, 2022 – Witness agrees that L was at risk of a fatal outcome and that when L left his office, the risk remained.

• Witness agrees that re-feeding could have been prevented in November or December of 2022 and actions taken by him in those months could have saved L’s life.

Crown Re-Examination

• A parent that was not happy with the medical help they were receiving could always take the child to the emergency department

• Witness says he does not know who has the responsibility to provide Wellness forms to CAS. His practice was to give the completed form to the parent to give to CAS.

Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Crown

October 28, 19, and 30, 2025

A child and adolescent psychiatrist at Oakville hospital. She works in in-patient and outpatient care. She is the lead psychiatrist at CAPIS.

Exhibit 140 – Emergency Record for J from May 30, 2018. J was at the emergency department and he left on his own with his family.

Exhibit 141 – Child and Adolescent Outpatient Mental Health Services Progress Note for J December 5, 2019

Exhibit 142 – Halton Healthcare Services Document for L

September 8, 2019 – J was at the emergency department and put into the BAS unit and eventually discharged.

September 12, 2019 – J goes to Urgent Care Clinic (UCC) at Oakville Hospital and meets with Dr. DHALIWAL. One of the moms is there. Medicine is prescribed for J. It was common to not see problem behaviour in the brief clinical setting.

September 17, 2019 – A phone call from one of the moms stating that they had concerns about J’s behaviour.

Some medication is weight based but generally not.

September 19, 2019 – J visits with Dr. DHALIWAL at UCC. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney are both there. Witness does not recall either of them saying that Zoloft makes J go to the dark side or that it causes him side effects because she would have noted that otherwise. Witness does not recall telling Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney that J was being manipulative with staff who are not trained to deal with that.

October 7, 2019 – Witness sees J. One of the moms is present.

November 3, 2019 – Witness sees J. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney both present.

November 25, 2019 – Witness sees J again. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney both are present. If the moms had told her about J strangling himself at school with carpet, she would have documented that. School supports and the Navigation program were recommended. J was able to work with Dr. SINGLETON going forward.

June 2021 – Dr. SINGLETON retired and J’s file was transferred to her.

September 22, 2021 – J was assessed by Dr. DHALIWAL. Ms. Cooney was present.

January 3, 2022 – Dr. DHALIWAL met with Ms. Hamber virtually. J was not there.

January 24, 2022 – Witness mentioned to one of the moms the possibility of inpatient admission to review J’s medications.

Witness did not see J between September 22, 2021 and December 30, 2022.

December 30, 2022 – J assessed by Witness. The plan was to taper J off his medication because he was doing well. The foster mom after J was removed from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s care following L’s death was present.

May 2019 – J started seeing Dr. SINGLETON and eventually he retired.

June 2022 – Witness sees L with Ms. Hamber virtually. Reference is made to L binge eating.

July 28, 2022 – Witness spoke with Ms. Hamber on phone, not L.

August 10, 2022 – Witness spoke with Ms. Hamber on phone. Ms. Hamber reported binge eating, and ruminating food.

October 4, 2022 – Witness sees Ms. Hamber only. Ms. Hamber mentions L binge eating, and ruminating food. Witness says to Ms. Hamber that she should bring L to the ER for admission.

October 27, 2022 – Witness spoke with Ms. Hamber on the telephone. Ms. Hamber reported increased rumination, and binge eating. Witness gave the option to bring L to the ER for admission but it was declined.

November 23, 2022 – Witness spoke with Ms. Hamber on the phone. Ms. Hamber said there was constant rumination except for the last 3 days and that L was like a baby. Witness again gave the option to bring L into the ER but this was declined.

December 19, 2022 - Virtual meeting with Ms. Hamber. Ms. Hamber mentioned the rumination was getting worse. Witness recommended the hospital admission but it was declined.

Witness was not aware of L having a wonky eye, him potentially dying, shivering, etc., the things mentioned in the November 2022 text messages. If she knew, she would have recommended hospital care immediately.

Witness never diagnosed L with rumination syndrome.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Suicide is unusual in kids under 12. Comments by a child that they want to die are typically a sign of distress.

• Witness did not consider calling CAS when there were missed appointments.

• Once L was discharged by Dr. SINGLETON, his care went to Dr. DUNCAN exclusively.

• Inpatient care is necessary if physical health is at risk, as it appeared to be for L in 2022, that is why she kept recommending to Ms. Hamber that L be admitted.

• Witness relied on the fact that L was under the care of CAS and had other community supports.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Electrolyte imbalances, significant weight loss and nutritional problems were not within the Witness’s speciality.

• Eating disorders would be managed by a pediatrician, not a psychiatrist.

• Exhibit 143 – Excerpt put to Dr. Dhaliwal (American Psychiatric Association Guideline). This references rumination and regurgitation. There are recommendations for an initial psychiatric evaluation of a patient with a possible eating disorder. Witness says these guidelines apply to the eating disorder clinic or program, not to her psychiatric evaluation of L.

• Witness saw L online in June 2022, he was not overly thin, he was not skin and bones.

• Rumination syndrome is rare in the Witness’s experience, but she only has a general knowledge of it. However, when Ms. Hamber mentioned it, she researched it and reviewed the DSM-V and spoke to a colleague in an eating disorder clinic, Dr. Kimberley MALLOT about it.

• Witness has only general knowledge of re-feeding syndrome.

• Eating disorders are high risk because they can cause electrolyte imbalances and can cause cardiac arrest and death.

• Exhibit 144 – Excerpt from the DSM5 Dealing with Diagnostic Criteria of Rumination Disorder.

• Witness was pushing Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to bring L to the hospital.

• Witness never spoke to Dr. DUNCAN.

• June 22, 2022 – Witness’ first session with L where she was told that he binged food and stole food as well. Witness saw L’s face.

• Witness never said that the boys’ needs were too complex for CAPIS.

• L was presenting with complex and multiple symptoms and problems. That is why she kept pushing for hospital admission.

• Witness does not recall seeing photos or videos of L in October 2022. Exhibit 125 played. Witness agrees that it is very concerning but she did not see that video or any video/photo of L at the October 2022 visit.

• Witness never saw any video or photo of L ruminating.

• Witness agrees that she never contacted CAS.

• Witness says she had no reason to suspect abuse by the moms at the time.

• Witness agrees that she never told the moms that L could die from an electrolyte imbalance.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness knows about the CPRI.

• Witness says that the risk is not always the same for every eating disorder.

Lisa POTTS

Crown

October 31 and November 7, 2025

Witness was a child protection worker at Halton CAS.

Exhibit 145 – Halton CAS Records

Holly SIMMONS at Halton CAS was an adoption worker and later on an adoption supervisor. The adoption file went from SIMMONS to Ms. STAM to Ms. BROWN.

Witness was not able to access records from Ottawa CAS.

Home studies are done for potential adoption placements. A Ministry ROACH document is the final document presented to the Court to finalize an adoption. OCL must be involved for ROACH because a child over 7 years old must consent to the adoption and the child meets privately with OCL.

CAS provides funding opportunities. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney made many requests for gift cards, on top of the subsidy they already received. Witness reviewed all their requests. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney never asked for respite funding outside the family.

CAS meets privately with the child regularly, every 30-90 days. During visits, the home needs to be seen, including the child’s bedroom. Visits can be unannounced. Length of these visits can vary.

There were investigations done here by CAS. There were investigations done in relation to the disparaging comments at home, the bad meat at school, the inadequate clothing for cold weather. The spoiled meat investigation was verified, CAS interviewed the boys but not privately. CAS wanted to do it privately but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused. Witness investigated the incidents related to the zip ties, containment, the helmet, isolation and name calling. Her investigation was verified for both boys.

Services were often denied by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, or they were accepted but not followed.

Mr. MODHI and the Witness were involved in the apprehension of J after L’s death. J had injuries on his feet and was taken to the hospital.

Medical check ups are required for the children, at minimum, once a year. That is the responsibility of the parents and CAS to complete, not the doctor. From January 2018 – December 2021 the boys did not see a doctor.

The adoption of L and J was not finalized because there were ongoing financial struggles for the moms. They refused to allow the boys to be interviewed by OCL privately. They refused to accept the boys had Indigenous status.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney wanted Ottawa CAS to continue to provide funding for the boys even after the adoption was finalized, up to age 25.

Witness never saw anything in the file to confirm there was property damage at the home or any injuries to Ms. Hamber or any urination or defecation at home or vomiting. She never saw any photos, videos. She was just receiving this information in reports from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Exhibit 146 – Volumes 1 and 2 of Halton CAS Records. Many visits did not take place inside the home. All the visits were announced. There were almost never any interactions between CAS and the boys in private.

August 22, 2022 Case Note – In-person visit but it was outside. L had a wetsuit on, and a t-shirt underneath. Ms. Cooney worried that OCL may have wanted to meet with the boys in private.

September 22, 2022 – Teams meeting between Alison BROWN and J. However, it was not private because Ms. Hamber interfered off camera. Ms. Hamber says that J does not have to talk about food and Ms. Hamber closes the meeting.

September 22, 2022 Email from Ms. Hamber to Alison BROWN – Boys plan to tell lies to Brown to get the moms in trouble.

September 22, 2022 Discussion between Alison BROWN and Ms. Hamber. Both were concerned about L’s health and eating. Ms. Hamber mentions that both boys are ruminating and that Dr. DHALIWAL was concerned about L’s weight.

September 22, 2022 was the last time anyone at CAS met with L.

October 12, 2022 – Teams Meeting. Discussion between the worker and L. Discussion between worker and J. Comments by Ms. Hamber about the kids not being Indigenous and them not prepared to adopt them as Indigenous.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney never signed the Indigenous Cultural Safety Plan (Adoption) to her knowledge.

Witness never saw anything in the CAS file to suggest the moms reported to anyone at CAS the problems with L they mentioned in their November 20-22, 2022 texts.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness did not review the Ottawa CAS file.

• Nothing in the file to suggest Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney requested respite.

• There were no unannounced home visits to the Hamber Cooney residence.

• There were no private visits between CAS and the children.

• Even on the online visits, they would have been able to see locks on the outside of doors if the worker demanded that the computer be taken around the home.

• Adoption is usually finalized within 2 years. That was not the case here.

• CAS can still fund the special needs of the kids even after they have been adopted.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• BROWN and SIMMONS were fired by CAS.

• BANKER, a director of Halton CAS was also fired.

• There was an internal investigation done within Halton CAS. It was found that there were lots of short comings with the note keeping of SIMMONS, STAM and BROWN.

• After L died, J tried to harm or kill himself and run away from his new foster home.

• Provincial CAS standards were not met here in terms of the private meetings with the kids.

• CAS should have investigated at the outset reports L wearing a helmet because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were themselves disclosing it to CAS.

• Ed Cooney was not properly added to the file. He should have been as he was an adult living in the home with the boys.

Matthew BURSEY

Crown

November 7 and 10, 2025

Witness works at ROCK as the VP of Service. Almost 17 years with ROCK. Current position for about a year. Before his current position, he was a director, and before that he was a clinician/therapist for about 9 years.

ROCK has more than one location. ROCK is government funded and it provides several services aimed at youth. It is the lead agency in Halton. All the services are free. ROCK has a 24/7 Crisis for children and caregivers. They have a walk-in clinic that is virtual and operated by therapists. All services are voluntary.

Coordinated Service Program is a ROCK program. ROCK also administers a respite funding program. Respite care is contracted out to agency providers.

Referrals to ROCK usually come through professionals.

ROCK also has an intensive program. Counsellors and therapists can visit the home to help kids and the parents.

Danielle’s Place – Program within ROCK for eating disorders in 2022.

January – September 2019 – CFF started working with the moms and the boys.

ROCK provided funding for respite about 2k to Indigenous network and 2k to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

October 3, 2022 – Ms. Hamber and Ms.Cooney attended at the walk-in clinic. Described rumination and other problems with the boys. They discussed Danielle’s Place, intensive counselling and trauma consultation.

October 17, 2022 – Ms. Hamber declined Danielle’s Place. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney provided consent for Intensive Counseling Services and Emotion focused family therapy (EFFT).

October 26, 2022 – Ms. Hamber consented to trauma consultation report.

November 16, 2022 – First trauma group session was attended

November 23, 2022 – Second trauma group session was attended

November 30, 2022 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney stopped attending the trauma group.

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney attended one session of EFFT

December 21, 2022 – Intensive counsellor from ICS program left a voicemail for Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

December 28, 2022 – The same counsellor as above called home and spoke with Ms. Hamber and she disclosed that L had died.

ROCK takes lots of complex cases. Nothing in the file to suggest Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were told that L’s needs were too complex for ROCK, nor does he expect that anyone at ROCK would’ve said that to them.

Exhibit 149 – ROCK Records for L

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• ROCK is for kids 0-18 years old.

• Witness had no personal involvement with the family.

• ROCK is subject to a duty to report.

• October 3, 2022 Note – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney mentioned rumination but that the child was not in immediate danger at that time. That he engaged in binge eating, lost lots of weight and want the child referred to the eating disorder clinic.

• Witness says that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney reported that the child was kicked out of the eating disorder clinic.

• October 13, 2022 – Ms. Hamber spoke of a eating disorder and of Danielle’s Place. Ms. Hamber spoke of the boy losing weight, rumination, binge eating and starving himself. She pushed for the eating disorder clinic but said the child was not in any imminent danger.

• October 17, 2022 – Ms. Hamber declined Danielle’s place.

Dr. Arinder MALIK

Crown

November 10, 2025

A consultant pediatrician and neonatologist. Her subspecialty is neonatal intensive care. She has her own practice but also has hospital privileges.

May 2019 – Family did not come for the appointment. Both J and L were supposed to be seen.

September 17, 2019 – Witness saw J only.

January 30, 2019 – Witness saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney but not the kids.

September 9, 2019 – Witness saw Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney but not the kids

November 14, 2018 – Witness received a referral from L from Dr. DUNCAN.

February 11, 2022 – An urgent referral for L from Dr. DUNCAN. As such, an appointment was set with Dr. MALIK for March 10, 2022.

Exhibit 109B contains Dr. MALIK’s notes and Exhibit 109A contains an agreed statement of facts for Dr. MALIK.

Witness never met L.

January 30, 2019 – Appointment with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Kids were not there.

September 9, 2019 – Met with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, neither child was there.

March 10, 2022 – Met with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, kids were not there.

Witness says that Exhibit 109B Tab 10, page 1 where it says that she had the pleasure of meeting with L is incorrect. It is a pre-populated form and she did not meet L that day.

Witness says she would have to see the child before changing his medication. Many reasons for this including weight and height to get the correct dosage.

March 10, 2022 – Her involvement with the family ended regarding L.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness says tracking growth of the child is critical, particularly. tracking weight and height. This was done with J but not with L.

• Witness could not move forward with L without measuring his weight and height.

• Witness’ normal practice is to meet with the child after the initial intake appointment.

• Witness agrees it is important to have a full and accurate patient history.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• L was not at the appointment that day.

• Exhibit 150 – Canadian Paediatric Society Guide. Witness knows this document.

• Low percentile weight, stunted height, cachectic and loss of weight can be signs of an eating disorder.

• Witness shown Exhibit 125, says there is visible fat loss on his face but would need more information before saying whether an emergency room visit was required.

• Malnourished kids should not be in the home, they should be in a controlled hospital setting to avoid refeeding syndrome and electrolyte imbalances.

Chelsea HARDING

Crown

November 10 and 28, 2025

Case manager and Child and youth worker at Woodview. From March to November 2020, she worked at Woodview with both L and J.

There was a Safety Plan document for each child.

L and J were admitted for the Halton Intensive Program (HIP). It is a form of in-home treatment program for kids and caregivers. HIP happened but a modified version of it because Witness never attended the home for it.

May 5, 2020 – Witness met with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney by video.

All of their meetings were virtual, with the exception of one which was a brief meeting outside the home with Ms. Cooney. The family declined in person meetings because they said it would not be good for Ms. Hamber’s immune issues and because the boys would become dysregulated.

May 19, 2020 – Witness looked into the boys attending two different day treatment program. However, the boys did not attend because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said it was not a good fit.

May 11, 2020 – Witness’s first session with L but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were there in the background. There was no privacy which was not normal. She communicated the need for privacy with the moms.

Exhibit 151 – Sideview Photograph of L Speaking with Ms. Harding on Screen

Exhibit 152 – Frontview Photograph of L Speaking with Ms. Harding on Screen

July 2020 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told the Witness that the boys would be taking a break from services for the month of August to spend more time to connect as a family.

Witness offered to meet the boys multiple times elsewhere other than the home but Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney declined. Witness never had a completely private session with J or L. Witness was told she could not see the boys at home because it would dysregulate them and because Ms. Hamber was immunocompromised.

There were a few times where her sessions with L or J would end abruptly. She presumed it was Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney ending the session.

October 2020 – Witness was leaving Woodview at this point, but she continued to have virtual sessions with the boys after she left.

November 12, 2020 – Ms. Hamber sent an email saying that they were ending therapy sessions with her.

Witness never saw any problem behaviours with the boys.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

Witness was involved with the kids from May 5, 2020 to November 17, 2020.

J

Crown

November 12, 13 and 18, 2025

Brother of L.

Witness says he was in his room a lot. That his foster dad was abusing him. Witness mentioned seeing L dead at the funeral, the day before his police statement. There were many rules at home and consequences for not following them. L would be punished by having to go up and down the stairs for not following rules. A hockey helmet would be worn and arms and legs were tied together. J did not feel safe because of the restraint system. He would do jumping jacks and burpees and these would be the consequences when his moms were angry at him. He would get pureed food after tantrums. He often had to eat alone in his room. He would sleep in a tent that was zip tied, and within that, sleep within a sleep sack that was also zip tied. He would be locked inside his room a lot and there was a lock outside of his room door. Witness calls L his sibling because L was non-binary. He was zip tied in his wetsuit and Ms. Hamber Ms. Cooney said it was because he would pee everywhere. The same would happen to L. Witness has cuts on his feet from shoes being zip tied to his feet, it would rub and cause large cuts. There were cameras inside his room and in other places inside the home. The hockey helmet would make it hard for him and L to breathe. L had a tantrum the day he died, J did not see L that day, he only heard him.

Witness had seen L regurgitate his food. L did that for years. L had an eating disorder. L was always eating. There would be no meal for him or L sometimes. They would use both straps and zip ties on him. Witness did not like the sleep tent. Witness and L never went inside each other’s rooms, they just passed by each other inside the house. CAS workers never went inside his room or L’s room, they always stayed outside the house. Witness would never speak to CAS staff on his own, Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney would always be there.

Exhibit 153A – Audio Statement that J Gave to Police

Exhibit 153B – Transcript. Witness says that page 34 of the transcript is not the truth about his foster dad abusing him, otherwise he’s telling the truth in the statement.

J’s second police statement is played in court, September 1, 2023.

Ms. Cooney was sometimes drunk. L was in the basement most of the time. There were wetsuits for him and L. J was not allowed to use the washroom on his own. L had to wear the hockey helmet and be strapped. Ms. Hamber was the main person in charge in the house. J would wear regular clothes, not the wetsuit, when CAS staff came to visit. J had restrictions on seeing friends and other people generally. The cameras around the house had audio and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney could talk to him through the camera. There was a camera in the washroom.

J could not go to the bathroom without someone opening the door. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would pull his hair, pull his head back, yell at him and stomp his feet. L had a walkie talkie to communicate with them. L was losing a lot of weight. J heard a lot of screaming and yelling the night L died. He did not see L at all that day. He heard L crying and Ms. Hamber telling L to shut up. L’s cheeks were very thin, you could see his cheekbone and he just getting slimmer. L was Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s biggest target. J hardly got a chance to speak with L, he would only be able to wave at him from inside the house. The wetsuits were very uncomfortable.

J denies peeing around the house. Ms. Hamber once threw a dog bone at him, and it hit his left elbow. L had a bed once, but it got taken away eventually. J was hungry sometimes but was not allowed to get any food on his own. J mostly ate liquid or pureed food. Ms. Cooney would sometimes grab food out of their hands. They had time limits they had to eat within. Ms. Cooney was the one who would do most of these things.

J would sometimes bite Ms. Cooney as self-defence. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would make him say bad things about HW and RW. J says these things were not true and that they were really good people.

Around Covid time is when things changed with him, L and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were watching the police on the cameras and knew the police were on the driveway. Witness would bang on the bedroom door if he wanted to be let out, sometimes they came and sometimes they did not.

Exhibit 154A – Audio Statement that J Gave to Police September 1, 2023

Exhibit 154B – Transcript

Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney said they could not play together outside anymore. This was after he left St. Paul’s. He was allowed to play outside but only rarely.

Exhibit 13 – J thinks that’s him playing outside in the driveway

J does not remember his tantrums at St. Paul’s. He does not remember his lunches there. He does not remember the rules about what he could bring to or from school. Does not remember L ever wetting himself on the school bus. J does not remember saying he wanted to die at St. Paul’s. He would sometimes go to school in the winter in shorts and his friends at school would ask him about it. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would not allow J to take snacks out of the bin at school. L was not allowed snacks either.

Ms. Hamber taught L and J at home. At one point, they did school together at the dining room table. Eventually, J did school alone in his bedroom without L. The home schooling stopped at some point.

J did not always sleep in a tent; it mainly started after Covid. J does not know what the bells on the tent were for. At first, he had blankets and a pillow in the tent but then they were taken away for both him and L.

J would take his medication around dinner time.

Exhibit 155A – Audio clip of J. J remembers breaking 2 tents.

There was a wardrobe in his bedroom, but he was not allowed to open it. There were clips keeping it shut.

J shown Exhibit 137 Photo BL19531. J comments that that’s not what the room used to look like and that many things are different.

Both Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney wanted to use zip ties in his sleep sack. A clock was taken away from his room. Clocks around the house were covered, including ones at the microwave or oven.

Whenever J or L would be seeing a therapist, Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney appeared happier. J and L would not be allowed to speak for a lengthy period of time.

Exhibit 156 – Photo of Hand Up at Sink December 11, 2021

Exhibit 157 – Wetsuit Mitten

Ms. Cooney would leave for work at 2 or 3 am. Before she left for work, she would wake J up to go to the washroom and then she would lock him up back in the tent. J would do exercises sometimes in his room and sometimes outside.

Exhibit 158 – Video from June 30, 2022. J thinks the child in the video is him because of the haircut and his room.

In 2022, J does not recall ever eating outside of his room. He would always be eating pureed food at this point. Sometimes he got no food at all and sometimes would not for days.

Exhibit 159A – Audio Clip from September 23, 2020. J agrees he was having a tantrum. Says he can tell Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s voices apart easily.

Exhibit 159B – Transcript

If there was a food timer, J was not allowed to finish his food if the timer went off. J could never get his own food. Does not recall if there were locks on the fridge or cupboards. J recalls breaking 2 tents in the house but does not remember if anything else. L would sometimes knock down his wardrobe. Neither J nor L broke the front door or the dining table. He only bit Ms. Cooney and that was out of self defence. He never saw any other injuries on Ms. Cooney. He once saw Ms. Hamber with a broken arm, a broken leg, and a broken finger. J thinks he may have caused the finger injury during a physical struggle with Ms. Hamber but thinks the other injuries are before 2022.

Exhibit 160 – Image of J’s Feet August 20, 2022. The wetsuit would be pulled down under his feet and zip tied in place and same for his hands.

Exhibit 161 – Image of J’s Feet December 24, 2022. J says he still has scars on top of his feet to this day.

There were sometimes J would have a bathroom accident in his room. He would pee in his tent and his wetsuit. He would clean it himself in Ed Cooney’s sink. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney would make him stand for hours for the wetsuit to dry. They would tell Ed Cooney to stand there to make sure he gets out all the water.

Helen, the woman across the street was his friend. J had no friends after leaving St. Paul’s.

J once complained at school about not eating enough. Someone later came to the door at night, maybe it was CAS. Ms. Hamber got angry and said not to do that again, otherwise there would be consequences.

J and L would sometimes sleep on the blue things on the floor.

Exhibit 162 – Video of Child Going Up and Down the Stairs Dated April 11, 2022. J thinks this is L. The green tape is to show the point where he can not go past.

Exhibit 163 – L on Stairs in Helmet Dated June 10, 2022. J says these are the same stairs as in the other video. Says the boy in the video is L. J says he’s done exercises on the stairs like that wearing a hockey helmet.

Exhibit 164A – Recording February 7, 2020 Can’t Do Them All Night. J says this is him on the recording. J says he was most likely talking to Ms. Cooney.

Exhibit 164B – Transcript.

J would hear Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney telling L to stop when L would regurgitate. J only saw L regurgitate a few times. J knows how to regurgitate as well. Explain that by regurgitation he does not mean vomiting. He means that the food comes up and you swallow it again. The food does not come out.

J’s tantrums would vary in length. J was locked in his room most of the time. J did not want to be locked in his room or zip tied. J was not allowed to sleep with his arms to his chest to keep himself warm. Ms. Hamber told him that he had to sleep with his arms at his sides. Before the wetsuits, they would wear onesies and these were also zip tied. Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney or Ed would have to cut the zip tie to allow him to go to the bathroom.

Exhibit 167 – Photo from May 13, 2022 of Child Near Counter of Bathroom. The photo was taken by Ed Cooney. J does not know if it is him in the photo or L.

Most days, J had 3 meals. Sometimes he had no meal at all. More than once, he had no meals for a couple days. J never ate cat litter. J never went inside L’s room and L was never in his bedroom. J was not allowed to talk to L. J would do exercises, play in the tent and stare at the wall in his room.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• J does not remember the carpet choking incident at the school.

• J does not remember the principal Mr. COSTA.

• J does not remember the EAs at St. Paul’s.

• He does not remember if he liked equine therapy.

• J does not remember telling CAS that he was abused at his Ottawa foster home or what he said to the police about it.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney told J to say bad things about the prior foster home.

• J does not remember what he said to Sick Kids about the prior foster home.

• J says that what he said about the prior foster home was a lie.

• J says he did not lie about it to please Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney or that he’s lying now when making allegations against Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• J says he did not lie about Ottawa foster home because he was upset at them for letting him go.

• J denies that he’s making up stories about Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney because he’s upset at them for letting him go or to please his biological family, whom he’s now living with.

• J says he did not pick at his feed until they bled.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• J is now with his biological mother.

• J says he was never afraid of L. They would sometimes bully each other. He remembers one incident where he was hit by L with a hockey stick, but it was an accident.

• What J said in his January 11, 2023 statement to police is correct in terms of how L would not follow the rules.

• J does not remember if he said he would/wanted to kill himself.

• J does not remember running away or trying to.

• J does not remember behavioural problems at school. Such as him grabbing scissors and attacking his teacher.

• J did eat lunch at school with L.

• J says he did not copy L’s bad behaviour.

• J was told by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney to say bad things about his prior foster family.

• January 2023 – After he was removed from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s case, J would still say bad things about prior foster parents because he was worried that he would be going back to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. That’s why in September 2023, he told the police that the foster parents did not do bad things to him.

• Exhibit 168 – Insides of 2 Refrigerators. J says he does not know anything about the contents of the fridge.

• Exhibit 169 – Photos of Schedule Tags Taken on January 17, 2023. J agrees that these were used in the home. J does not know when they stopped being used.

• Exhibit 171 – Photographs of Meals Shown to J. J recognizes some of the food as being consistent with what he ate at Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s. Some of it he does not recognize. For a while, every meal was blended food. J does not remember most of the food shown. J disagrees and says this was not the type of food he would usually eat. J says they never celebrated Easter. J does not recall decorating meals like some of the photos depict.

• J never had a loving relationship with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Exhibit 170 – Photos and Videos Shown to J. J says the dates on some of the photos are wrong. J says the photos of him smiling are not genuine, that he’s faking it. J does not remember celebrating Halloween 2022.

• J says he did not see L much in 2022 or going outside in 2022.

• J remembers seeing Helen when he was playing outside.

• Exhibit 172 – Photos and Videos Shown to J of Exterior Matters. J says he did not walk the dogs on a regular basis. In one of the videos, there is a light show and J says that L was not there for the light show.

• Exhibit 173 – 2 Photos of 2 Calendars from November 2022 and December 2022.

• J says that he sometimes would hit or strike out when he was having a tantrum, but not usually.

• J does not remember the violent incidents at school.

• J says he would sometimes hit himself during a tantrum including hitting his head against a wall.

• J does not remember ever running away from home with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• J does not remember breaking anything at home other than some tents.

• Exhibit 174 – Photos Shown to J of Alleged Damage. In a photo shown to him about repair to his bedroom door, he says that happened because he took off a sports sign. J says he does not remember causing damage to the walls or ripping up stuff on the walls but also says he may have caused some of it.

• J agrees that he sometimes wore the hockey helmet to protect himself from hurting himself.

• J says he never tried to choke himself with the blanket and that’s not why it was taken away from him.

• J disagrees with the statement that the wetsuit was because he would pee himself.

• J denies that the marks on his feet were from self harm.

• J says he did throw up at the home of the foster mom he was placed with when removed from Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney’s care, and he admits to running away from her home.

• J does not remember typing Exhibit 60.

• J says his story about the foster home changed because he was reunited with his Grandma and his mother.

• J says his mom has never told him anything about this trial.

• J is aware that his family is suing Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• J denies that the lawsuit is affecting his evidence in court today. J agrees that $4 million in damages would change his family’s situation. J says he’s not lying because of the lawsuit or because of his family.

Crown Re-Examination

• J does not know what L ate on a regular basis.

• J would hit his head against the wall sometimes.

Faisel MODHI

Crown

November 17, 2025

Child protection worker at Halton CAS in December 2022. He was an after-hours worker.

Some concerns were reported by the school to CAS about food issues and a potential mark or scar on a child. At 7:30 PM Witness went to the home unannounced. Ms. Hamber seemed upset about the unannounced visit and so he waited outside the home until Ms. Cooney came home at the request of Ms. Hamber. Once he was inside the home, he interviewed Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. They explained that J’s eating habits and food issues related to him having been abused in his prior foster home. They said the mark on his elbow was from self-harming using a dog bone. Witness asked to speak to the kids and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused. They allowed him to see J in the tent in his bedroom from a hallway but did not allow him to see L at all.

Exhibit 165 – January 30, 2020 Investigation

December 22, 2022 – At 5:45 PM Witness went to a hotel to see Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney and the child. He interviewed them while J and Ed Cooney were in a different room. When Witness looked at one of their phones, he saw a video recording app (Wyze) and saw that there was a camera in a bathroom. After interviewing them, he spoke to J alone. At first Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney refused but then eventually agreed. Then he spoke to Ed Cooney.

Exhibit 166 – Faisel Modhi Case Note

December 29, 2022 – Witness spoke with the appointment coordinator and was told that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney had refused all in person visits with Dr. DHALIWAL.

December 23, 2022 – Decision was made to remove J from the care of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. At the hotel, he interviewed the moms again and J was removed from their care here. Witness spoke with J in the car after the removal and was taken to the new foster home on December 24.

December 31, 2022 – There was an incident of J binge eating at the home of the foster mom that he was placed with following the removal.

December 28, 2022 – The new foster mom contacted him with concerns about J’s feet. They had gone to the doctor and J told the doctor about zip ties on his feet causing injuries to his feet.

December 26, 2022 – There was an access visit with J and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney which was supervised by the Witness. J threw up at the end of the visit.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• January 30, 2020 – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did not want the boys to be interviewed separately.

• December 22, 2022 – Witness did remind Dr. DHALIWAL about her duty to report to authorities.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• December 23-24, 2022 – Witness’ interviews at the hotel on December 22, 2022, were not audio or video recorded. Witness agrees that his typed notes are not verbatim.

• January 2023 – Witness’ investigation file was transferred to Lisa POTTS.

• Witness did not have any access to the adoption file.

• Witness does not know which mother’s phone had the Wyze video record.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness told moms that the camera in the bathroom had to be removed. Not all the cameras.

• Witness’ job was to investigate the safety of J, not necessarily to investigate the death of L.

Terra BOVINGDON

Crown

November 28, 2025

Witness is a child and family therapist. She is a sole practitioner and has had her practice since 2008. She works with kids in foster care and kids being adopted. Witness has worked with over 500 adoption families. She works with families on therapeutic parenting.

Some referrals came to her through CAS, some through the Adoption Council of Ontario (ACO).

Witness uses Theraplay, says this is distinct from play therapy. Dr. Bruce Pery influenced her work with families. Therapeutic parenting helps to deal with kids who have experienced trauma. Explains that instead of sending a child to their bedroom as punishment, you should color with a child who misbehaved. Says therapeutic parenting is different from traditional parenting, she describes it as “co-regulation”.

Near end of June 2018 – Witness started working with the Hamber Cooney family through a referral from Holly SIMMONS.

May 2019 – Witness’ work with the family ended. There were 33 sessions in total.

Witness would work with the family in their home, usually in the living room. Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney, L, and J would be present. Each session was about an hour.

July 11, 2018 – Witness showed an app to the boys and the moms called HeartMath Breathing, it helps the boys regulate their breathing

July 25, 2018 – Witness discussed “dosaging” with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. She explains that this means you spend about 10-15 minutes doing a specific activity with the child to help regulate them.

November 1, 2018 – Witness saw L with a onesie on with a zip tie on. Witness says she did not recommend any of those parenting strategies to them. Witness says both boys had onesies on with zip ties. Witness then spoke to Holly SIMMONS about what she saw.

November 27, 2018 – Witness had concerns about the punitive parenting techniques being used. Witness discussed soothing strategies with the moms. One strategy she suggested was to use a baby bottle. However, she said that it would not be recommended for a child who did not want to use it. She also stated that they should not be surprised if a child asked for a baby bottle on their own.

Witness never recommended doing exercises on stairs as a strategy. Witness never recommended treating the boys like toddlers. Witness never suggested they should serve blended up food or smoothies for the boys on a consistent basis.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness’s October 9, 2018 report had very complimentary remarks about the moms.

• Witness never had a child ask for a onesie.

• Use of a baby bottle could mean the child is regressing. But it is not unexpected for a child who suffered trauma to ask for one.

• Witness was not aware of rumination by either of the boys.

Cross-Examination (Mr. Sheiban)

• Witness did talk with the moms about the use of bed tents.

• Witness never spoke with the mom about the use of a hockey helmet.

• October 30, 2018 – J told her that him lying was one of his bad behaviours.

• Witness did tell moms that one dosaging technique was to use a baby bottle but only if the child wanted it or asked for it.

• April 24, 2019 – J told her that L was mean.

Crown Re-Examination

• Witness did talk to the mom about the use of bed tents, but she cannot remember the details.

Julie POWERS

Crown

December 1 and 2, 2025

Witness is Officer in Charge, and Sgt. in a specialized unit at Halton Regional Police.

January 17, 2023 – Search warrant executed at the Hamber Cooney house. Witness attended.

February 29, 2024 – Charges were formally laid in relation to L.

January 17, 2023 – Charges were laid in relation to J.

The Witness noticed these changes in the home from the night L died to the day the search warrant was executed: There was no camera in the downstairs room; L’s bedroom walls had been painted; the green tape was gone from L’s room; there was not a camera in J’s room; no outside locks on the boys’ doors; a hockey helmet was not there but they did find a brand new hockey helmet without zip ties in the garage; the blue cot in L’s room was not there.

They found a bag of zip ties in the garage.

Exhibit 176 – Bags of Zip Ties Seized from Garage.

Wetsuits were seized from the wardrobe from L’s room. Witness saw small holes in the back around the neck area of the wetsuit and the same holes were at the neck at the front. They found four wetsuits in total and they were all slightly different.

Exhibit 177 – Wetsuits Seized from 505 Karen Drive.

Exhibit 178 – Photograph of Black Item in the Shed. Witness says this item she seized at the curb of the residence on September 22, 2025, as described by Witness LAMB.

January 17, 2023 – Ms. Hamber was arrested at the home and Ms. Cooney was arrested at her workplace in a donut shop.

February 29, 2024 – Ms. Hamber arrested outside a grocery store and Ms. Cooney was arrested outside her workplace.

Exhibit 179 – Agreed Statement of Fact Seized Devices. Witness says their search history and web history was captured. Messages between the parties were found. Chats involving Ed Cooney were found. Emails were also recovered. Witness says the times of the day the communications were made are accurate.

Witness says that out of the 4 devices found, the iPhone 8 belonging to Ms. Cooney on her arrest on January 17, 2023 had the most data.

The Wyze camera application was not found on any of the devices. But there were indicators that the application had been used, there were screenshots from it.

Data tells her that Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney, and Ed could all see the Wyze camera images. August 14, 2023 – Witness contacted Wyze to see if any data could be recovered and they said nothing could be.

Over time, there were fewer images and videos of L as opposed to J and fewer images/videos over time of the boys away from home.

The boys went from wearing normal clothing, to onesies and eventually wetsuits.

There were no photos/videos of the boys drinking out of regular glasses or cups, they were always drinking out of sippy cups and baby bottles.

No images/videos of any injuries to Ms. Hamber or Ms. Cooney. Nothing of vomit, urine or feces.

There was a few images/videos of minor property damage.

There was nothing capturing any tantrums by the boys.

Exhibit 1 – Chats Recovered from Ms. Cooney’s iPhone and Ms. Hamber’s iPad.

Communications/Videos/Photos discussed at trial:

Audio recording from October 25, 2019 played. Texts between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney on October 25, 2019. Times of the text messages and audio seems to coincide.

December 2, 2019 Text Messages – Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney discuss the cost for paying for the cameras and their security system.

December 10, 2019 Text Messages – Ms. Hamber refers to someone as a “douche” in messages to Ms. Cooney.

February 7, 2020 Audio Recording

May 13, 2020 Audio Recording.

October 24, 2020 – Photo of L on his birthday, he was wearing a onesie with a zip tie.

December 6, 2020 – Video of L. There are texts between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney that coincide with this video. Ms. Hamber sends the video to Ms. Cooney, and Ms. Cooney refers to the boy as being back in jail.

December 28, 2020 Audio Recording.

September 27, 2019 Text Messages – No reference is made to a zip tie, a toilet or a tent.

July 26, 2020 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney and Ed – Ms. Cooney refers to a boy as a “loser”, a “whiner”, a “cry baby” and a “douche”.

December 17, 2020 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

November 10, 2020 Video of J.

December 28, 2020 Audio.

February 17, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

February 19, 2021 Text Messages.

April 4, 2021 Photo of L using an exercise sheet.

May 22, 2021 Text Messages between Moms.

May 31, 2021 Video.

June 6, 2021 Audio Between Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney and J.

July 2, 2021 Photo.

July 18, 2021 Photo.

July 18, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

August 22, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

September 21, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney and Ed.

September 22, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

September 24, 2021 Video.

September 24, 2021 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

October 7, 2021 Photo.

October 31, 2021 Photo.

November 14, 2020 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

December 10, 2021 Audio with Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney and L.

January 7, 2022 Photo.

January 7, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

February 19, 2022 Text Messages between Ed Cooney and Ms. Hamber.

• Ed Cooney refers to L peeing and being re-zip tied. Says he was placed back in bed with the door locked.

March 16, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber refers to J as a “dick” and a “douche”.

• Ms. Hamber says “wetsuit that ass”.

• Ms. Cooney says they have to zip tie their feet.

• Ms. Hamber calls one of the boys a “loser”.

March 17, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney says she wants to restrain the “bastard” until he shuts up and that she wants to punch the bastard.

March 22, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber says she placed a helmet on and gloves on a boy. She also says she took a video of it.

April 2, 2022 Text Messages between Ed and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney asks Ed to lock L in and he replies “done”.

April 4, 2022 Text Messages between Ed and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney asks Ed to get “fuckface” up and he responds that he will and says he will zip tie.

April 11, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber refers to one of the boys as a “loser”. She attaches a video of J wearing a wetsuit and a helmet and walking up and down the stairs while drinking out of baby bottle.

April 26, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney says “butthole fucked with the timer” and H Ms. amber responds “dick” and Ms. Cooney refers to getting the helmet.

May 4, 2022 Photo.

• A photo of a boy lying inside a tent curled up with a sheet underneath and no blanket or pillow.

May 11, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney refers to J as a “sneaky fuck”, a “huge fuckshit”, a “dick”, a “huge dick”, and “such a dick”.

• Ms. Hamber responds “fucking dicks”.

• Ms. Cooney suggests putting one of the boys’ coats on backwards and tying it and says “he is in dead cold shape” and “he has dark shit eyes” and that he’s “totally psycho”.

May 29, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber refers to boy as a “psycho” and a “loser”.

• Ms. Cooney refers to a hockey helmet.

• Both mention the use of burpees.

• Ms. Cooney says “the children suck so bad”.

June 10, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says “gonna kill this fuck” in reference to videos sent by Ms. Hamber of L wearing a helmet and going up and down stairs.

June 12-13, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney refers to the boys as “losers”.

June 28, 2022 Voicemail from Dr. DHALIWAL’s assistant.

• Voicemail says that the doctor is away but that if L is in crisis, they should bring him to the emergency department.

July 1, 2022 Text Message between Ms. Cooney and Ed.

• Ed says that L was a “dick” again while was putting a zip tie on.

July 19, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney refers to L regurgitating food on his wetsuit

July 22, 2022 Text Message.

• Ed asks Ms. Cooney if she wants him to lock L in.

July 26, 2022 Voicemail from Canoe Therapy.

• Voicemail saying there is a spot open for a consultation for one of the kids and to call back ASAP.

• This voicemail was left on Ms. Hamber’s phone.

August 1, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber sends 2 videos to Ms. Cooney, they show L exercising in his bedroom.

August 4, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Hamber calls him a “oppositional loser fuckhead”.

August 6, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney

• Ms. Hamber calls boy a “loser” and Ms. Cooney responds “douche bag”.

• Ms. Cooney mentions regurgitation.

August 8, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says there was a “huge regurge” down there.

August 9, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says L is a “loser bag” “shit fuck” and a “dumbass”.

• Ms. Hamber responds “such a dick”.

August 12, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Hamber says “he also regurgitates”.

August 19, 2022 Text Message.

• Video with this message. Shows L sitting quietly against the wall in his bedroom with his arms over his head/face.

August 25, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Hamber refers to restraints and a helmet for J.

• Ms. Hamber calls someone a “loser” and Ms. Cooney responds “gonna kill” and “twat”.

August 29, 2022 Text Message and Photos.

• Ms. Cooney says “pics he does not look ill in” and attaches 3 images of L.

POWERS says that some messages refer to L as “it”.

August 30, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says L is a “dickbag”, he’s a “loser”, that J is a “useless loser”.

September 5, 2022 Text Message.

• Ms. Cooney refers to a helmet.

September 16, 2022 Text Message.

• Ed Cooney says “constant regurgitate”.

September 20, 2022 Text Messages and Video.

• Ed sends video to Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. It shows L in the shower scrubbing a wetsuit.

• Ms. Cooney responds “loser downstairs” and Ms. Hamber responds “being a loser as always”.

• Ms. Cooney says “fuckface shit” and “I’m trying. I really just want to murder”.

September 26, 2022 Text Message.

• Ms. Cooney calls L a “asshole” and says you should pee him, sanitize, ship back and lock it.

October 3, 2022 Voicemail from Dr. DHALIWAL.

• Doctor calling about appointment but there’s no answer and doctor says she will wait and then call back.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney missed the appointment.

October 4, 2022 Photo.

• J lying underneath a white sheet, in a curled position on the cot.

October 7, 2022 Voicemail from ROCK

• Voicemail about arranging appointment for L.

October 22, 2022 Text Message.

• Ms. Hamber says that L lost his food and his mind so he’s restrained to bed for life.

October 23, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Hamber says, “fucking dick”, “fucking asshole”.

• Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney discuss how they are “fucked” because CAS will call because of complaints against them.

• Ms. Cooney says, “I might kill him”.

October 26, 2022 Text Messages.

• More references to the kids being “little shit” and “loser” and “dick”, etc.

October 27, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says boy slammed himself on the floor face first when restraints were brought out.

November 1, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney says “I’ve recorded some barfy shithole for when we need it”.

• Ms. Hamber says “dick downstairs”.

• Ms. Cooney says “good job dumb dumb by regurge all day”.

• Ms. Hamber says “I’m going to kill his whiney ass”.

November 6, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney refers to restraints in L’s room with his helmet.

November 9, 2022 Text Messages

• Ms. Cooney calls boy a “moron”.

November 9, 2022 Voicemail from ROCK.

• Voicemail offering a 5 week trauma series starting next week.

• Voicemail for Ms. Hamber.

November 12, 2020 Text Messages.

• Ms. Hamber says J is a douche again.

November 15, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney asking if the kids keep family’s home address if they are in a group home because of a targeted subsidy.

• They discuss disability benefits.

November 18, 2022 Text Messages.

November 19, 20, 22, 25 Text Messages.

• L fell backwards and almost hit his head.

• Ed says that L is like a person drunk out of his mind, that L slammed his shoulder into the door frame, and that L’s not feeling well.

• Messages over time suggest that L was not getting better and was actually getting worse.

• Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber discuss that L may need to go to the hospital, that his eye is not focused, that he’s very different than on any other day, that he’s starving and dehydrated, that he’s not speaking English.

• Say L is possibly hypothermic and that he can not stand.

• Ms. Cooney asks whether L is dying.

• Ms. Cooney says that her thoughts are that L will die and that she will go to jail.

• Ms. Cooney says L’s eyes are wonky and not centered and that he’s talking weird.

• Ms. Hamber says the kids are booked with Dr. DUNCAN on December 13.

November 21, 2022 Text Messages.

November 22, 2022 Text Messages.

• L has a non-stop nosebleed.

• Ms. Cooney says L is picking his nose and barfing.

• They both insult L.

• Ms. Cooney mentions the McMaster eating disorder clinic.

October 16, 2022 Text Messages.

November 23, 2022 Text Messages.

November 24, 2022 Text Messages.

November 27, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ed says that L regurgitated and he also refers to Lysol wipes.

November 28, 2022 Text Messages.

November 29, 2022 Text Messages.

November 30, 2022 Text Messages.

November 30, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ed refers to there being blood in L’s regurgitate and L trying to clean it up with a Lysol wife.

December 1, 2022 Text Messages.

• Ms. Cooney insults L.

• Mentions of Lysol wipes

December 2, 2022 Text Messages.

December 4 2022 Audio.

• Ms. Cooney says J beats them up and he seems to agree. They ask J what he will say tomorrow at CANOE about a cut on his face.

December 7, 2022 Text Messages.

December 9, 2022 Text Messages.

December 11, 2022 Text Messages.

December 12, 2022 Text Messages.

December 17, 2022 Text Messages.

December 17, 2022 Photo.

December 18, 2022 Text Messages.

December 19, 2022 Text Messages.

December 20, 2022 Text Messages.

December 21, 2022 Text Messages between Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

• Ms. Cooney mentions a yellow stain and Lysol wipes.

• Ms. Cooney says “bastards” referring to the kids and Ms. Hamber says “less barfy”.

December 21, 2022 – 911 phone call by Ed Cooney at 7:23 PM.

December 24, 2022 Emails.

• Emails between Ms. Cooney and someone at TD asking for desperate financial help.

December 27, 2022 Emails.

• Email from Ms. Cooney to insurance company asking for coverage to come to home to clean up where L died.

December 24, 2022 Emails.

• Ms. Cooney emails SunLife asking how to collect insurance money for L’s death to cover funeral expenses.

• No money was paid out by SunLife but Ms. Cooney did make a claim for the proceeds.

Discussion of Ms. Hamber’s internet search history on iPad 6:

• “I hate my child”

• “culpable homicide”

• “criminal negligence”

• “manslaughter”

• “delete Wyze”

• “crime scene clean up”

• “hate my adopted child”

Exhibit 180A – Audio Statement of Becky Hamber January 17, 2023

Exhibit 180B – Transcript

J was apprehended on December 24, 2022. A search warrant was executed and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were arrested on the first set of charges on January 17, 2023. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney were arrested on current charges of first degree murder of L on February 29, 2024. Police searched Mr. MELDRUM’s address, his computer was seized and searched because Ms. Hamber used it. Videos were found which were made by Ms. Hamber while on bail. Notepad entries were also found.

Exhibit 181 – Notepad Entry Made by Ms. Hamber Dated June 14, 2023

Exhibit 182A – Audio Video Recording of Ms. Hamber Speaking into the Computer May 1, 2023

Exhibit 182B – Transcript

Exhibit 183A – Audio Recording of Ms. Hamber Speaking into the Computer June 5, 2023

Exhibit 183B – Transcript

Exhibit 184A – Audio Recording of Ms. Hamber Speaking into the Computer September 26, 2023. Ms. Hamber denies any restraint or confinement, except putting J inside the tent. That the zip tie on the tent was for 2 nights only and that it stopped at CAS direction.

Exhibit 184B – Transcript

Exhibit 185A – Audio Recording of Ms. Hamber Speaking into the Computer October 5, 2023

Exhibit 185B – Transcript

Exhibit 186A - Audio Recording of Ms. Hamber Speaking into the Computer October 24, 2023

Exhibit 186B – Transcript

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Witness did not examine the website attached to the search “I hate my child”.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• There were no KGB interviews of any CAS witnesses.

• Exhibit 187 – Files Derived from Electronic Devices of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney Put to POWERS.

• Exhibit 188 – Audio Recording on iPhone 8 August 22, 2021.

Brandy COONEY

Defence

December 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15, 2025

Direct Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Day of L’s death – he tantrumed most of the day, she gave him a smoothie and water for bed, she went upstairs, she went back down to take away his blanket to prevent strangling with it while tantruming, she had dinner upstairs with Ms. Hamber, halfway through dinner they heard L stop screaming.

• At the end of dinner, she went to see L. She saw him face down. Lots of vomit or something around him.

• She yelled at Ms. Hamber to call 911.

• Ms. Cooney did CPR on L until the first responder took over.

• J apprehended from them at hotel.

• MODHI told them to remove bathroom camera – they decided to remove all the cameras.

• L used to regurgitate/ruminate regularly.

• Around November 20, L said he scared himself – he thought he was going to die. The rumination lessened after then. They did not go to emergency because Dr. DHALIWAL told them not to – the hospital cannot help with the eating disorder.

• “I hate my child” – searched at recommendation of workshop to get support in knowing that they are not alone in their feelings with kids that have problem behaviours.

• Does not deny the name-calling but claims that it was directed at the behaviours and not the boys themselves.

• Importance of Indigenous status to them – wanted them to be raised and taught as per their specific heritage.

• It was her evidence that Holly SIMMONS, at least 20 times, was inside the home and that she saw the locks on the outside of the bedroom doors – SIMMONS never said anything.

• It was her evidence that they never withheld food as a form of punishment.

• The zip ties on the lunch bags at school were because the boys would “gorge” food before lunch. Gradual progression to the zip ties.

• Outdoor activities they did as kids – snowshoeing, hiking, walking, skating, baseball. Daily exercise was important and so was a healthy lifestyle.

• Baby bottles, sippy cups and pureed food were not meant as punishment or to demean.

• In an appointment, doctor told L there was no one like him – was devastated. Not sure if that started the rumination.

• Zip ties used to keep the boys inside tents – to avoid self-harm and destructive behaviour.

• Wetsuits were used as the boys would urinate and defecate everywhere, to stop J from putting his fingers up his butt to remember his foster father’s abuse, and to reduce L’s excessive masturbation.

• The photo of J’s feet with injuries – those marks look a lot redder than when J left their home.

Cross-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Ed Cooney was a very limited caregiver for the boys because he had to be carefully watched.

• In relation to the boys, they were not told anything about violence, aggression, food issues, safety issues, running away, pet issues, mental health issues, and mental health diagnoses.

• They were told conflicting and mixed things about the boys’ Indigenous status.

• Frequent tantrums for L included physical aggression, weapons, self-harm, crying, yelling, screaming, threats, swearing and name-calling, suicidal comments, animal-like, uncontrollable, spontaneous eruptions. J showed the same behaviours – he would mimic L.

• These behaviours were essentially daily.

• Told CAS about all these things – wetsuits, zip ties, hockey helmet, separating boys, J being afraid of L, boys exercising in home, video cameras, sleep sacs, tents, daycare cots for boys. Only thing she was not sure about was the locks outside the doors.

• It was emotionally daunting to care for these kids. Hence things like the “I hate my child” search. They still did not want to give up. They were also relying on the professionals.

• Some meals were blended to help L with digestion.

• She did not use derogatory names when speaking directly to the boys.

• Restraint system had various components – hockey helmet at times to prevent self-harm; jacket with arms at the back to prevent lashing out; mittens/gloves on hands to prevent self-harm through picking at skin or using weapon; wetsuits to protect skin and protect self-harm. Not a punitive purpose – preventative purpose only.

• Claims that the day L died was different than what happened with L in November 2022. In November, L started to recover with their help.

Cross-Examination (Crown)

• Admits that in the text messages, she says nothing positive about the boys. She texted things out of frustration.

• Boys’ behaviours started on the second day after arriving at the home.

• She frequently checked with Ms. Hamber before doing anything with the boys – she agreed with that statement.

• She had lots of examples where the school did not comply with her requests around the boys.

• She may have been around from time to time, but she was not the person attending the appointments with Dr. Dhaliwal or the psychiatric appointments for the boys.

• Crown theory put to Ms. Cooney on the final day of her cross-examination – at some point, she and Ms. Hamber started to paper the record with respect to L’s health. She disagreed with this. The Crown also suggested that their strategy became that the best defence is a good offence. Start to tell professionals that L is regurgitating to explain why he is in such ill health and so dangerously thin. Ms. Cooney asked how this was suggested.

o Regurgitation video from August 19, 2022 – Ms. Cooney claims that this is a regurgitation video.

o Email from August 19, 2022 – email from Ms. Hamber to Alison Brown. Ms. Cooney is copied on this email. Talking about rumination – one issue with that is malnutrition. Putting blame on professionals. The Crown suggested that this email is them “covering their butts”. Ms. Cooney disagreed with that.

o August 19, 2022 message between Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber – “All the ammo we can get” – referring to the video. She claims that “ammo” meant the proof they could get to get L into the eating disorder clinic.

▪ Talking about the email to Alison BROWN – “we send shit so it is not on us”. Ms. Cooney denies that this means they are building their defence to L’s death in August 2022.

o Sent a video of L ruminating to Ms. Hamber on August 19, 2022 – titles the video “Could die”. Ms. Cooney claims that she meant that she could die because it was so hard to watch him and his regurgitation problem.

• Ms. Hamber had access to Ms. Cooney’s email account and would send emails from that address as if the emails were coming from Ms. Cooney. Emails to the boys’ material grandmother were one example of this.

• Recalls that she was aware from Ms. Hamber that there was an offer of Danielle’s Place, which was an eating disorder clinic – aware that Ms. Hamber turned it down on October 17, 2022.

• Said: “Unfortunately, my thoughts are he is suddenly going to die, and I’m going to jail” – for the November 20 incident. Also said in the texts that if it comes down to it, she will go to jail, not Ms. Hamber.

o Says that she was concerned to go to jail due to her catastrophic thoughts – blamed this on her having bad catastrophic thoughts.

o Suggested by the Crown – some text messages also seem to be them speaking about their defence if L dies and they get arrested – she disagreed with this and said that the messages were just her saying what had not been offered to them to help L.

• November 20 Incident – said that L continued to exhibit similar symptoms after this, but not to the same degree. Continued to treat him the same way as before the November 20 incident.

o Continued to use restraints at times, continued to lock him in his room.

o Said they treated L the same way they did every year.

• Crown’s theory was that the incident from December 21 was essentially the same as the one for November 20 – Ms. Cooney denied that.

o Did not recall any of her dry drowning, etc. searches.

o Deleted all their Wyze footage – Faisel MODHI suggested the bathroom camera, but they decided to get rid of all of them.

• Admitted that her and Ms. Hamber did all these things when J was apprehended – remove the locks outside the bedrooms, remove the cameras in the bedrooms, removed the cot from the bedroom.

o Hired a company to clear out that room, including the daycare cot, the cover, L’s wetsuit, and the camping toilet.

Re-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Home Safety Plan – Ms. Cooney’s evidence was that their plan changed after the boys arrived, by necessity from their behaviours.

• Bald spot on L – she said L would sometimes pull out his hair when he was having behaviours.

Becky HAMBER

Defence

January 12, 13, 14, 19, 22 and 23, 2026

Direct Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• Her adoptive mom was abusive to her; her adoptive dad was a workaholic and an alcoholic. Her adoptive parents fought a lot. She had a difficult upbringing.

• Bachelor of Arts in Psychology – wanted to continue and get master’s and PhD but was unable to do that. Financial limitations played a role.

• They were open to almost any child. But that depended on support from CAS. The only thing they hesitated on was a familial history of schizophrenia – neither of them had much knowledge or experience regarding schizophrenia.

• The presenter for the boys said nothing about mental health or special needs of J and L that was not in their specific written profiles. All that was really said was that they are high energy – did not convey anything that gave Ms. Hamber negative connotations. Talked about L learning listening and getting along with others – but nothing caused an apprehension for them. Minimal to no apprehension in adopting the boys – appeared that they could handle the needs of the boys.

• August 2017 disclosure meeting – they got more information about J than L. The last bit of the meeting was just with the foster mom – seemed like there were more attachment issues than anything – no red flags that they could not do this.

o Learned about J being kicked out of summer camp – dealt with attachment issues. They also talked about tantrums.

o Not told about any violent occurrences.

o Learned about L having an insatiable appetite.

o L would seek out the person in power in the room and try to use their power to get things. Did not seem like this was major at the time. Sounded occasional.

o Not told about violence towards animals.

o Learned about J running away but it stemmed around a time that he was being told about adoption – ran out of the school, the classroom to the contained yard once.

o Not told that CAS workers have had difficulty with the boys in the past or that the foster parents had given them back as they were incapable of looking after them.

• L and J did not get along very well – highly competitive with each other. But she knows that they loved each other.

• L had self-harm behaviours. Property damage as well.

• Brought concerns to Holly SIMMONS a few times in the first year with the kids. CAS was telling them to wait and that it is only the first year.

• Easter 2018 – L shoved her down a flight of stairs because he was mad that she slightly brushed up against him. L was brought to the hospital and admitted to CAPIS.

• There were no locks on the refrigerators. There were locks on the cupboards – had medications in them, some had glass jars in them.

• J and Ms. Cooney got along well, but they did butt heads at times.

• J had a flash temper – could often be violent and aggressive. Self-injurious behaviour, manual strangulation, biting, scratching, pinching, tried to stab himself with objects around the house, scratch himself until he bled, hair pulling, teeth pulling, violence towards others, property destruction.

• States that she got some minor injuries from J – sprained or broken fingers.

• J would gorge food on and off – would also hide food. Intentional peeing around the house – sometimes feces, but that was rare. Would smash his head against things.

• They did contemplate giving the boys back to CAS.

o When asked why they did not give them back – loved the kids and did not believe in giving up on them. Believed the sexual assault allegations – did not want to return them to a system where that might occur again.

o Were not getting enough resources and did not feel supported by CAS.

• Admits that they acted improperly with Canoe – too interventionist.

o “Helicopter parents”.

• Kids behaved worse with moms than with professionals.

• Satisfaction level with the amount of resources that were provided to assist the boys – abysmal, inadequate, did not meet the children’s needs.

• What happened to the contents and nature of the room based on L’s interactions within it – dresser needed to be removed because L stood on top of it and tipped it over, cut down the legs of the bed because L would jump off the headboard or footboard, had to remove the footboard and headboard, L would remove pieces of wood from the bed and use those as weapons, L ripped a hole into one of the seams of the bean bag chair – removed that from L’s room, L ripped the mirrors off the wall – broke them in half – tried to cut his wrists with them, left some dents in the walls, damage to the baseboards from urine and feces, damaged one Wyze camera, damaged ceiling tiles.

• J damaged a lot of property in his room – 2 dressers, mirrors, door, things ripped off walls, holes in walls, curtains.

• She was generally calm and collected when speaking with the boys but sometimes she lost her cool. Never used profanity with the boys, never struck them, never hit either with an object, never kicked them, never spit on them, did not witness Ms. Cooney do that.

• Exercises were never done as a form of punishment.

• No concern raised by anyone about exercises or restraint system. CAS had positive feedback about the exercises.

• L’s vomiting started the first year with them. Increased early to mid-2022.

• Deleted texts with Ed Cooney off the iPad – not clearly thinking about what she was doing but she went into a protection mode for her family – wanted to protect Ed Cooney in case there was any fallout or repercussions – wanted to protect him from being part of the investigation.

Cross-Examination (Ms. Edward)

• Painted L’s room purple after his death – to honour L’s memory but to make it less impactful on J – make it okay for J. L’s second favourite colour and a big favourite of the house was purple.

• Date of L’s death – black toboggan was never in L’s bedroom. L was never placed in a hot tub outside, the bathtub upstairs, or the shower downstairs.

Cross-Examination (Crown)

• One or two of the Instagram photos of food could have been blended right after.

• She never assaulted either boy and never saw Ms. Cooney assault either boy.

• Hesitant to admit that, without the X-ray taken, she cannot tell the court that she had a broken arm from being punched by one of the boys and falling down.

• The door to the basement had a lock facing the upstairs, so someone upstairs could lock someone in the basement.

• Agreed that L looked dangerously thin in September 2021 – quite possibly malnourished.

• Extreme Level 10 Behaviours – agrees that there are no recordings of extreme tantrums – seems to blame that on footage being deleted – also agreed later that it was more accurate that she just did not save the footage. Admits that “there would have been evidence on there”. That footage would have been accessible to them. Never showed such proof to any service provider.

• Home safety checklist – states that the fire safety plan may not have been updated once L was put in the basement.

• Ms. Hamber sometimes used Ms. Cooney’s email account to send messages, like to the boys’ maternal grandmother, for example.

• At their home, Mr. Cross made negative comments about them as a same-sex couple.

• Served April 2025 with civil suit on behalf of J.

• Suppose Ms. Cooney said L might be dying and Ms. Hamber was unsure what was going on, does she think she might think that he should go to a hospital then? She said “perhaps.”

• Could not answer why they did not take L to the hospital on November 20 incident.

o Agreed that calling 911 would have been an option on that day. Could have taken him to the emergency room that day or could have called 911.

• Zip ties were used on both boys’ tents for some period of time.

• Boys standing in their rooms – that was a “consequence” of bad behaviour, Ms. Hamber agrees. Fidgeting while standing means the standing lasts longer, which she also agreed. Same for stretching, playing with hair, talking, claiming they are hungry.

• January 17, 2023 statement to the police – told police that the cameras were live only; not capable of recording.

• Said she deleted some texts after L died because she wanted to protect Ed Cooney in case of a CAS investigation – nothing to do with protecting either woman.

• When she started experiencing her hives, she sought medical attention because she wanted to know why that was happening.

• Ms. Hamber agreed that the money they got from the boys became her “income replacement” because she was at home and not working, but she did not view the boys as her income.

• January 17, 2023 police statement – she denied using zip ties on J’s body – she explains that by saying she thought the officer meant bare skin.

• Agreed that L was essentially skin and bones in 2022 when sleeping downstairs in a relatively cold room – sometimes they gave him layers to keep warm.

• Agreed that they were offered trauma therapy for L but decided it was not the right time for that. Agreed that they were offered therapy for L at momentum but declined because they would not record the sessions and provide the recordings to the moms. Agreed that they were offered Danielle’s Place for L but declined because it was not an actual eating disorder clinic.

• Agreed that no one diagnosed rumination syndrome. Also agreed that no one told them that binge eating disorder could evolve into rumination.

• Restraints, exercises and washing clothes in the shower – all of that continued for L after the major episode on November 20.

Re-Examination (Mr. MacGregor)

• The hot tub outside – they used chemicals in it. Distinct smell to the water, which transfers to skin, hair and clothing if you use the hot tub.

APPENDIX “B” TO THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF R. V. COONEY AND HAMBER:

SUMMARY OF THE EXHIBIT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

Exhibit Number

Which Party Entered the Exhibit and Through Which Witness

Description of the Exhibit

Brief Summary of the Exhibit’s Most Pertinent Content

September 15, 2025

1

Crown

USB of chats recovered from Ms. Cooney’s iPhone and Ms. Hamber’s iPad.

2

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of both children from June 1, 2013 – standing in front of a door.

L is in the Spiderman outfit, age 2; J is the other child in the photo, age 1.

3

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of children – J wearing firefighter hat.

HW took the photo. HW believes the children are 4 (L) and 3 (J) in the photo.

4

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of L sitting on a chair wearing red (May 9, 2013).

L smiling at the camera.

5

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of both children – J wearing a bow tie and L wearing a red tie.

Photo taken in HW’s home. The children are dressed for the wedding of their birthmother and her partner.

6

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of J in a firetruck wearing red.

HW believes J to be either 4 or 5 in this photo.

7

Crown – Tendered through Witness HW

Photograph of L wearing a checkered shirt and a bow tie.

HW believes she did not take this photo. She believes it was taken after the children left her home.

September 16, 2025

8

Crown – Tendered through Witness Elizabeth SIBLEY

Series of worksheets with the outline of houses drawn on them.

First worksheet (outline of a house) – Outlines information about the birth home for the two boys. The sheet addresses the timeline for how long each boy was in the birth home. The sheet also addresses who lived in the home with them at the time and the “grown up problems” those individuals had to make it difficult to take care of the children and keep them safe. The children were found a safe home by “Children’s”.

Second worksheet – Had some questions written about their previous family. Questions included asking why “they” were “punching each other”; why their mother married a certain individual and had a new baby; why their father did not ask questions about them or spend time with them.

Third worksheet (outline of a house) – Outlines information about the HW and RW Foster Home. Addresses when the boys were in this home and when they moved “to our forever adoptive family” in Burlington. Nothing positive listed about the foster home other than the time period and ages they were there because Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney did not want any positive things mentioned. SIBLEY also did not want to upset Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney further by having the kids write positive things.

Fourth worksheet (outline of a house) – Worksheet handwritten by J and L. Inside the outline of the home are the names of different sports teams.

September 17, 2025

9

Crown – Tendered through Witness Elizabeth SIBLEY

Letter written by Ms. Elizabeth Sibley dated April 10, 2018.

The letter outlines that Ms. SIBLEY began working with the boys prior to their move to Halton. The letter also addresses that the needs of the boys are high and complex “due to multiple losses and attachment disruptions they have experienced.” The letter also addresses the support from the school. The letter recommends that the boys should continue therapy focused on attachment and trauma.

The letter was written by Ms. SIBLEY after her April 4, 2018 session with the boys, Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, and Ms. Simmons. SIBLEY explains that she wrote the letter because she felt her work needed to continue with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney, and so she was writing asking for more funding from Ottawa CAS. The letter was given to Halton CAS who passed the letter onto Ottawa CAS.

September 18, 2025

10

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

Karen Drive map drawn on by Mr. Alex Mikalski.

The house at the corner of Karen Drive and Eileen Drive is circled. The circle depicts the house of 505 Karen Drive. Where the name Alex MIKALSKI is written, it depicts his home.

11

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

Electronic version of the map.

12

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

505 Karen Drive Google Map Image (as of March 2022).

A zoomed out image of the house, perspective is from the front.

13

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

Close up 505 Karen Drive with basketball net Google Map Image (as of March 2022).

One of the boys is on the driveway with a ball and is wearing a blue coat with a yellow hat.

14

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

View from Eileen Drive Google Map Image (as of March 2022).

View of the side of the home – the fence on the side of the home.

15

Crown – Tendered through Witness Alex MIKALSKI

Close up Google Map Image of tree with line (as of March 2022).

The tree has something white and something blue on it that both appear to be tied to the same branch. Can also see a corner of the fence from the outside.

16

Crown – Tendered through Witness Shane SCANLAN

Photograph of hallway with water damage.

Large amounts of water damage on the floor.

17

Crown – Tendered through Witness Shane SCANLAN

Photograph of the main floor bedroom.

On the bed, there is a net-like structure with a pillow.

18

Crown – Tendered through Witness Shane SCANLAN

Photograph of the main floor bathroom, specifically the toilet.

19

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of doors built by Mr. Ciolfi for the lean-to structure.

20

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of the staircase leading to the basement, angled looking down to the basement.

21

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Screenshot from the Home Depot website of black Weiser Cambie Privacy Knobs.

22

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of the backdoor of 505 Karen Drive.

23

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of hallway to pocket door with MEG poster.

24

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of inside the pocket door.

25

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

View of open door from pocket door.

26

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of storage room with L’s door.

September 19, 2025

27

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of L’s bedroom closet; trash can with a trash bag (i.e., camping toilet), water bottle, and towel on the floor. Door seems to have 3 wooden panels.

This was a photo of L’s room from the night he died.

There is a wetsuit on the floor, as well as a towel, a water bottle, and a trash can with a trash bag inside it (i.e., a camping toilet). There are also 3 wooden panels on the closet to cover 3 of 4 parts of it.

Tayler DUNN, the responding officer at the scene the night L died, described the block item as a camping toilet. He said the term “camping toilet” was used by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

When the Crown put this photograph to Ms. Cooney during her cross-examination, Ms. Cooney said that the garbage bag would be in the “bucket”, but there was also a toilet seat overtop of the bucket and a lid on top of that.

28

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph from inside L’s room, looking outside of it.

29

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of the window wall of L’s room.

There is a hung photograph that states: “This WINE is making me AWESOME.”

30

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of the wall that is opposite the door of L’s room.

There is a sign on the wall that reads: “Tantrums earn nothing. You are not heard when tantruming. Kindness is loud.” There is a second sign that is not quite legible.

31

Crown – Tendered through Witness David CIOLFI

Photograph of the inside corner of L’s room. There is a red, white and blue blanket on the floor.

32

Crown – Tendered through Witness Mary VINCENT

Map marked by Ms. Vincent. A property on Eileen Drive has been circled.

33

Crown – Tendered through Witness Mary VINCENT

Halton Regional Police Service Occurrence Report dated June 6, 2019.

Background on the children. Extensive past trauma. Active criminal investigation into allegations against “previous caregivers” in Ottawa. The boys have been with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney for 20 months and it was “challenging”. Children were seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Singleton.

Incident

Neighbors called the police because they could hear a child screaming for over 5 minutes at 505 Karen Drive. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney explained that it was L having a “tantrum”. They advised that L had not attempted to harm himself then but had done so before. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney complained about the lack of resources available to help them.

The writer went to J’s room. The room was completely covered in tarps and the boys each had a small tray/cot. The cots were “for the boys to sleep in” and the tarps were used because the “boys have trouble controlling their bladder”.

34

Crown – Tendered through Witness Carmelo ALFANO

The map showing the address circled by Carmelo Alfano

September 22, 2025

35A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kathleen WILSON

Recording of screaming.

Recording by Kathleen WILSON of screaming she heard from her office inside her home on Karen Drive. A male and female voice can be heard from the recording. The Witness believes the recording was made in 2019 and the female voice to be Ms. Hamber.

35B

Crown

Transcript of video recording – the transcript notes that there is no date or timestamp shown on the video.

36

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kathleen WILSON

Screenshots of text messages between Ms. Cooney and Witness.

Various text exchanges between the Witness Kathleen WILSON and Ms. Cooney. Ms. Cooney shared GoFundMe campaigns that were set up to raise money for various reasons related to the boys.

37

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kathleen WILSON

Easter 2020 photo of boy on step at 505 Karen Drive.

Witness WILSON says she often saw one of the boys sitting alone on the porch “a lot”.

38

Defence – Shown to Witness Kathleen WILSON

505 Karen Drive Google Maps Image from July 2018.

Witness Kathleen WILSON shown this photo during cross-examination. The photo was presented to her by defence to show that Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney at some point replaced their door and the Witness did not remember this happening.

Witness admits that the door in this photo is different from the door in Exhibit 37.

39A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Paola GIORDANI-MURRAY

Child and Youth Counsellor Services Summary Report with respect to L dated December 13, 2018 – Page 1 only.

A referral form. Reason for referral was “[L] struggles to self-regulate and maintain focus during class time”. At the end of the document, it was stated that “[p]arents withdrew consent.”

Witness Paola GIORDANI-MURRAY suggests this form was sent withdrawing parental consent to the Witness working with L because Ms. Cooney wanted to implement a behavioral modification program for L which the Witness, L’s teacher and his therapist believed should not be implemented.

39B

Crown – Tendered through Witness Paola GIORDANI-MURRAY

Child and Youth Counsellor Services Summary Report with respect to J dated December 13, 2018 – Page 1 only.

Reason for referral: “To provide resources support to the classroom around stress and anxiety”. States that “parents withdrew CYC support before any work was started”. At St. Paul School.

September 23, 2025

40

Defence – Tendered through Witness Darren William VIVIAN

SE 17b form filled out (St. Paul) – Special Education Services Incident Note to Parent/Guardian with respect to L dated June 7, 2018.

An incident note from St. Paul School involving an incident with L signed by the Principal Mr. COSTA. The note says, “[L] kicked the outside door upon entry into the school in the morning. He was reminded by teacher about safety. Upon entering the class, he needed reminders about disruptive behaviour and personal space. [L] spoke to Principal to set expectations for the day. [L] was reminded about recess expectations prior to going outside. At recess, [L] was playing 4-square and got angry at a boy. He made a good choice and walked away. He returned with another ball. The EA reported he returned to the game still angry and threw the ball at another student’s face. [L] was brought into the office by EA.”

Defence counsel presented this letter to Darren William VIVIAN, an EA who worked with L. The Witness said that he never knew about this incident. He found it “shocking” that L would engage in such behaviour given his own involvement with L.

Defence counsel presented this letter to Witness, Sara FERRARO. She says she was unaware of this incident.

41

Defence – Tendered through Witness Darren William VIVIAN

Follow-up letter from Principal Costa regarding the incident that took place on November 8, 2018 with respect to L.

Letter describes an incident where L stole a wallet out of a classmate’s backpack. This letter was presented to Darren William VIVIAN by defence counsel. The Witness stated he did not know about this incident.

Defence counsel presented this letter to Witness, Sara FERRARO. She says she was aware of this incident.

42

Defence – Tendered through Witness Darren William VIVIAN

Letter dated April 23, 2019 regarding L – signed by Mrs. Volpini (classroom teacher), Mrs. Pitt (special education resource teacher), and Mr. Costa (principal).

A letter from the school, St. Paul. The purpose of the letter was to provide an overview of the supports and interventions put in place to help L with his challenges at school. The letter also outlined many of the challenges L was facing.

The letter was presented to Witness Darren William VIVIAN. The Witness stated that he had never seen that letter before. The Witness said that he did not personally experience these concerns with L, at least the vast majority of them he did not.

Witness Sara FERRARO said she recognized this exhibit when defence counsel presented it to her. She said it was a part of L’s Student Record, and she reviewed that before the school year with L started. The Witness said this was not how L presented with her at all. When shown the letter again on Crown re-examination, the Witness said she has seen letters like this used to secure further resources for the student.

43

Defence – Tendered through Witness Darren William VIVIAN

SE 17b forms filled out pertaining to J (St. Paul) – Special Education Services Incident Note to Parent/Guardian. These forms are dated October 7, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 18, 2019, October 23, 2019, October 24, 2019, October 28, 2019, and November 8, 2019.

Incident reports involving J. All dated Fall 2019. Reports involved some serious incidents involving J. He tried to stab himself with scissors, stabbed himself with a pencil, and said he wanted to die.

The Witness Darren William VIVIAN was asked about these reports. He responded that he knew nothing about these specific incidents and had never seen them before. The Witness said this information was kept from him and may have helped him in his role as an EA to the boys.

44

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Parent-teacher communication book with Ms. Ferraro, with entries dated in the fall of 2019. These were with respect to L. J was mentioned once in an email by Ms. Cooney regarding L’s communication book entry from November 5, 2019.

The book was a mode of communication between Ms. Hamber, Ms. Cooney, and L’s Grade 4 teacher Ms. FERRARO. The book would go home, and to the school, and back and forth. The Principal, Mr. COSTA told Ms. FERRARO that she had to include something positive and negative about the boys each day in the book.

November 12, 2019 Entry – Ms. FERRARO says that Principal COSTA never said to her that L was always rude, disrespectful and oppositional to staff all the time.

45

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Sample of L’s schoolwork being remarked.

Examples of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney re-grading tests for L and making handwritten comments on his tests for when they are returned to the school. The comments are always critical/negative of L’s performance.

Witness Ms. FERRARO says that when the tests came back to school from home, they were not in sealed envelopes, they could be read by L.

46

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Email from Ms. Hamber to the school from November 19, 2019 regarding school issues for both L and J.

In the final paragraph, Ms. Hamber states that “[t]here may be things that look outside of the norm that are being done but this does not mean the boys are being punished or mistreated…it simply means that it has either been prescribed by a therapist or it is two parents trying to manage an extreme amount of stress.” Here, there seems to be an acknowledgement of doing things out of the ordinary.

Witness Ms. FERRARO says that she never saw L picking at or ripping up his pants at school (referred to on page 1), that L never said any of those things to her (referred to on page 3) and that she did not observe these traits or behaviours in L (referred to on page 4).

Witness Sara BIASETTI was shown this email. She says she never saw J picking at or ripping his pants at school.

47

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Individual Education Plan (IEP) for L, printed November 20, 2019. This was for the 2019-2020 school year.

48

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Individual Education Plan (IEP) Record of Parent/Student/Staff Consultations with respect to L, printed February 11, 2020.

Contains a record of parent/student/staff consultations. Witness Ms. FERRARO says she advocated at meetings for the plan to be modified. For example, she advocated for more books being made available to L and for L to be able to do more at recess.

49

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara FERRARO

Report cards for L dated November 20, 2019, February 19, 2020, and June 26, 2020.

September 24, 2025

50

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara BIASETTI

Individual Education Plan (IEP) for J, printed February 20, 2020. This was for the 2019-2020 school year.

51

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara BIASETTI

SE 17b forms filled out pertaining to J (St. Paul) – Special Education Services Incident Note to Parent/Guardian. These forms are dated October 7, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 18, 2019, October 23, 2019, October 24, 2019, first incident from October 28, 2019, second incident from October 28, 2019, first incident from November 8, 2019, second incident from November 8, 2019, November 12, 2019, November 19, 2019, November 25, 2019, and December 16, 2019.

Witness Sara BIASETTI said Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney wanted everything documented in these forms because they wanted extra support for services for J to be funded. The Witness does not review/verify the accuracy of these forms after they are created. They are created by others, likely based on information that she provided. The forms are signed and created by Principal, Mr. COSTA. The forms use pre-populated boxes to be checked.

In some instances, BASETTI said she would not necessarily agree that the checked off box was accurate. For example, October 17 2019 Form – “Self mutilation” is the box checked off, but this is not how the Witness would describe what actually occurred.

Witness Ms. BIASETTI agrees that for each of the Incident Notes, the descriptions near the top are accurate.

November 12, 2019 incident scared Ms. BIASETTI. The Witness thought J was actually trying to kill himself. He wrapped a carpet around his neck and was strangling himself. His face turned blue/purple. She reported this incident to CAS. She called CAS the next morning and spoke with Holly SIMMONS who said it was too political, and that they needed more people to call and complain.

Witness Natasha DAVIS was asked if she knew about these incidents. She was off on maternity leave during this time and as a result, she was not aware of these incidents involving J.

52A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara BIASETTI

Audio video of J sent on April 24, 2020.

Witness Sara BIASETTI says that during Covid, J was not participating in online learning, so she sent him a video asking how he was. He replied with this video. A zip tie is visible on his top/onesie just under the neckline. Ms. BIASETTI noticed the necktie and reported it to CAS the next day.

52B

Crown

Transcript of audio video of J reading letter to Sara Biasetti. This was dated Friday, April 24, 2020, but there was no timestamp shown on the video.

53

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sara BIASETTI

Report cards for J dated November 20, 2019, February 19, 2020, and June 26, 2020.

54

Crown – Tendered through Witness Erin NOLAN

Radius Child & Youth Services Records between May 8, 2019 and May 31, 2022.

September 25, 2025

55

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sarah LAYZELL

Canoe Therapy Company Limited – Consent to Treatment form filled out for J by Ms. Hamber. This was dated August 17, 2022.

In the “Special Care Needs” section of the form, Ms. Hamber states that J has a dairy allergy and that his eating is “severely disordered”. She also advises not to provide food to J, who requires complete supervision around food.

56

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sarah LAYZELL

Handwritten notes on the ABA Intake Form for Canoe Therapy in relation to J. This was dated August 3, 2022.

Witness Sarah LAYZELL wrote these notes during her Intake Meeting with Ms. Hamber. She noted that there was no relationship between the boys, the boys were mainly kept separate, that J engaged in serious self-injurious behaviors, that they were using a helmet on J to help de-escalate him and that they did not allow any screen time for J.

57

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sarah LAYZELL

The Individualized Service Plan for Canoe Therapy in relation to J. This report was dated August 23, 2022. There was an IISCA Data Sheet – Performance-Based Criteria attached to this. IISCA stands for Interview-Informed, Synthesized Contingency Analysis.

Notes from J’s first session with Canoe Therapy.

58

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sarah LAYZELL

Email from Ms. Hamber to Sarah Layzell dated August 24, 2022, along with handwritten notes from Sarah Layzell.

Ms. Hamber’s email to Sarah LAYZELL after watching video of J’s session at Canoe Therapy. Ms. Hamber was complaining about J’s presentation and behaviors after the first session.

59

Crown – Tendered through Witness Sarah LAYZELL

Canoe worksheet returned from home.

The worksheet came back to Canoe Center from the home of J and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney. Witness LAYZELL said it was unsolicited and that they had never received anything like this before from another client or family. The typed words and handwritten comments in the document are not from Canoe.

Witness Ms. LAYZELL says she at the time took this as a sign of Ms. Hamber’s high level of interest and active involvement in supporting J.

60

Crown – Tendered through Witness Hunter GRILLO

Correspondence referred to by Hunter Grillo – appears to be from J to Hunter Grillo.

A typed letter received by Mr. GRILLO from J a few weeks after therapy ended in January 2023. The letter speaks of abuse at the hands of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

61

Crown – Tendered through Witness Hunter GRILLO

Photograph and electronic message – shown to Hunter Grillo.

The photograph was taken from inside a car – the car is facing a parking lot and a plaza. Message of the photo was sent to Ms. Hamber.

From Exhibit 1. The photo outside Canoe taken from inside the car, with a message from someone to Ms. Hamber. Delivered January 12, 2023.

September 26, 2025

62A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

The audio of the 911 call.

Call sent to dispatcher which sent Officer Tayler DUNN to the Hamber Cooney residence. The call was made at 7:28PM and he arrived at the scene at 7:29PM.

62B

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Transcript of the 911 call – Ms. Hamber called. The transcript states that the Officer in Charge was Sergeant Julie Powers. The transcript also notes that this was an unknown date.

In the call, Ms. Hamber noted that her 12-year-old son was unconscious and not breathing. She said that he has an eating disorder and issues with regurgitation. He had just regurgitated, and they could not resuscitate him. Ms. Cooney was performing CPR at the time. The dispatcher walked them through chest compressions. When the fire department arrived, the phone call ended.

63

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of the stairs to the basement on December 21, 2023.

At the bottom and top of the stairs, there is tape on the floor. Photo showing stairs going downstairs into the basement.

64

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of Ed Cooney’s area showing the door open and a view of the MEG poster.

Photo of Ed Cooney’s bedroom.

65

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of Ed Cooney’s area looking towards the office and the bedroom.

66

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph showing a wetsuit, a green tape square, a red and black blanket, and a white towel.

There was a green tape square on the floor of L’s room based on other exhibits and photographs. Inside the green tape square was the wetsuit and a white towel. There was a red and black blanket outside of the square.

67

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of L’s room with the cot against the wall. Wetsuit, white towel, and red and black blanket on the left side.

68

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of L’s room with the cot on the floor. There is a white cover over top of the cot.

On the white cover, there appear to be many stains.

69

Crown – Tendered through Witness Tayler DUNN

Photograph of the downstairs bathroom on December 21, 2022.

September 29, 2025

70

Crown – Tendered through Witness Lawrence BERNSTEIN

EMS and ambulance records from December 21-22, 2022. This includes the Call Details Report, the Ambulance Call Report, and the Unit Activity Log.

Call Details Report

The priority for this incident was deemed PURPLE. The call started at 7:22PM and ended at 7:30PM.

The person taking notes noted that there was a 12-year-old boy unconscious and not breathing. It was noted that he has an eating disorder. It was also stated that there was no defibrillator available and that someone was performing CPR. The comments also outline that the boy was blue. The problem was noted as “Cardiac or Respiratory Arrest / Death”.

Ambulance Call Report

In relation to the demographics of L in the report, it was noted that he weighed 22kg.

Incident history – began resuscitation upon arrival. Saw a female performing chest compressions. L was wearing clothing that resembled “a wet suit”. This was cut off and they noted how wet L was. Part of the floor beside L was covered with a clear fluid, possibly water. Little vomit was present. They noted that there was no evidence of trauma, but L did not appear to be a 12-year-old. He was skinny, emaciated-like. The family reported that L was sent to his room for misbehaving and was alone there for 20 minutes – unusual silence from his room – they went to go check on him and found him.

Also noted that he was pale.

Past history was noted as “PTSD, eating disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, reactive attachment disorder, rumination syndrome, a long history of abuse” – this information was given by a family member present.

Incident report reason – “Scene or situation that represents a suspected or actual criminal circumstance or event.” One of the other paramedics noted “Suspicious or unexpected death (coroner’s investigation DNR/TOR)”.

Witness Lawrence BERNSTEIN stated that Page 4 of 15 of Exhibit 70 contains all the information Ms. Cooney told the Witness about L the night of December 21. In cross-examination by Mr. MacGregor, Witness BERNSTEIN was asked about him writing on page 5 of the Report that there is no trauma evidence on the boy. The Witness agreed that this was true.

October 1, 2025

71

Crown – Tendered through Witness Scott LAMB

Photograph taken by Officer Gies of L’s room from the doorway (room where L was found).

Green tape square on the ground, wetsuit and a towel on the ground in the square. The cot is up against the wall. There is also a red and black blanket on the ground outside of the green tape square. Water bottle and trash can on the ground next to the closet. Closet has 3 wooden panels on it.

Firefighter LAMB testified about this photo. Said L was lying facing up in the green taped box. His head was pointed towards the closet. The Witness believes the article of clothing to be a wetsuit.

71B

Crown – Tendered through Witness Scott LAMB

Photograph taken by Officer Gies of L’s room from the doorway (room where L was found) (MARKED).

Red line between trash can in the corner at the closet and the white towel on the ground in the green tape square.

Witness LAMB made a red mark on the photo to show the precise location of the toboggan. It was upside down on the floor.

72

Crown – Tendered through Witness Scott LAMB

Photograph taken by Officer Gies showing L’s door and room marked by Firefighter LAMB.

Marked red circle in the middle of the floor.

72B

Crown

Photograph taken by Officer Gies showing L’s door and room marked by Firefighter LAMB (MARKED).

Marked red lines in the left corner over the white towel.

73

Crown – Tendered through Witness Scott LAMB

4 photographs collectively taken by Firefighter LAMB in September 2025 of black toboggan.

Black toboggan was flipped over and was on a rock. Witness Scott LAMB says that this is the same toboggan he witnessed in L’s room on the night of December 21, 2022. The Witness re-attended at the scene and took these photos because he was there in response to a call regarding Ed Cooney.

74

Crown – Tendered through Witness Scott LAMB

Black toboggan shown to Firefighter Lamb in the courtroom.

The physical toboggan was shown to Witness LAMB and he confirmed it was the same toboggan that he saw in L’s room the night he died. It was a Pelican brand. The Witness said he recognizes it as something used for ice-fishing because he is an ice fisherman.

75

Crown – Tendered through Witness Jared MACMILLAN

Photograph taken by Officer MacMillan of L’s room.

Green tape square on the floor with a wetsuit and a white towel in the square. The cot was up against the wall, and a red and black blanket was on the floor next to the cot.

Blue, white, and red item is in the right corner of the photo.

Witness MACMILLAN describes the boy’s bedroom as “minimalistic” and “bare”. There was a cot, a lock on the outside of the door and the room had no personality.

76A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Jared MACMILLAN

Audio statement of Ms. Hamber from December 21, 2022.

76B

Crown

Transcript of audio statement of Ms. Hamber dated December 21, 2022.

77A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Jared MACMILLAN

Audio statement of Ms. Cooney from December 21, 2022.

Witness MACMILLAN states that Detective Constable GIES interviewed Ms. Cooney.

77B

Crown

Transcript of audio statement of Ms. Cooney dated December 21, 2022.

October 6, 2025

78

Crown –Tendered through Witness Alan David BROWN

Records from CAPIS (Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatient Services) admission #1 for L – April 19-28, 2019.

79

Crown –Tendered through Witness Alan David BROWN

Records from CAPIS admission #2 for L – July 12-18, 2019.

80

Crown –Tendered through Witness Alan David BROWN

Records from CAPIS admission #3 for L, which started on July 21, 2019.

October 7, 2025

81

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

Photograph of L taken on Ms. Cooney’s iPhone from July 29, 2019 at CAPIS.

Photograph of L sitting on a bed. Buzz cut hair. Wearing a white t-shirt and shorts sitting on the bed with some personal items. Not smiling.

Witness RAPOSO says that photography is prohibited at CAPIS. Parents are told this explicitly and that was violated here by Ms. Cooney taking this photo.

82

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

Unhighlighted navigator file records for L.

83

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

Ministry of Community and Social Services Application for Special Services at Home. This was for J.

Form was completed by RAPOSO and Ms. Hamber for J only (at the instruction of Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney).

84

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

Halton Healthcare – Navigator Program – Mental Health Program Outpatient Services Discharge Summary for J.

The admission date into the program was November 25, 2019, and the discharge date was March 23, 2020. His discharge diagnosis was history of complex PTSD. The summary noted that he was receiving treatment from Dr. Singleton and that current medications included Zoloft 25mg t.i.d.

In the disposition / discharge plan section, the summary notes that “[c]lient’s family has declined all services that Halton Children’s Aid Society has offered including intensive in-home support. Client’s family has also declined support from Reach out Centre for Kids ROCK.” The mothers noted that they would continue as J’s primary support until services with Woodview became active (which J was on a waitlist for).

85

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

Copy of a letter from Ms. Peachy dated February 11, 2020. The letter was addressed to Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber.

Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber were praised for their support of the boys and for advocating on their behalf. They also recommended in-home behavioural support.

Support for the home-schooling decision – reiterated that it was intended to be short-term.

86

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email messages between Kristina Raposo and Becky Hamber – December 13 and December 16, 2019.

87

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email from Becky Hamber to Kristina Raposo January 6, 2020, which forwards an earlier email from Becky Hamber to Nelson Costa and others January 5, 2020.

88

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The package of emails which includes the email from Becky Hamber to Kristina Raposo January 6, 2020, which forwards an email from Becky Hamber to Holly Simmons January 5, 2020.

89

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email from Becky Hamber to Kristina Raposo January 14, 2020, which forwards an email from Gregory Santarelli to Becky Hamber and others January 10, 2020.

90

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The emails between Becky Hamber and Gregory Santarelli – January 10, 2020 and January 15, 2020.

91

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The package of emails which includes the email from Becky Hamber to Nelson Costa and others – January 16, 2020.

92

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email from Becky Hamber to Gregory Santarelli and others – January 22, 2020.

93

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email from Becky Hamber to Holly Simmons – January 29, 2020.

94

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The package of materials that includes the email from Holly Simmons to Becky Hamber February 4, 2020 and subsequent messages.

95

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email from Becky Hamber to Holly Simmons – February 6, 2020.

96

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The emails between Kristina Raposo and Brandy Cooney – February 12, 2020.

97

Crown– Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The emails between Kristina Raposo and Becky Hamber – February 18, 2020.

98

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The emails between Kristina Raposo and Becky Hamber – February 27, 2020 and March 2, 2020.

99

Crown – Tendered through Witness Kristina RAPOSO

The email exchange between Kristina Raposo and Becky Hamber – March 23, 2020 and March 24, 2020.

October 8, 2025

100

Crown – Tendered through Witness Noura LABIB

The photographs of L at Joseph Brant Hospital, December 21, 2022.

Extremely thin, backside clearly emaciated, almost skeletal. Legs, above and below the knees. Very, very skinny. Almost just bones and no muscles visible.

101

Crown – Tendered through Witness Noura LABIB

Joseph Brant Hospital Medical Records, December 21, 2022 regarding L.

102

Crown –Tendered through Witness Helen KESKULA

Text messages exchanged between Brandy Cooney and Helen Keskula.

Text messages where Ms. Cooney mentions the $3,000 they used to receive from CAS, which they now lost because J had been taken away from them. Ms. Cooney asks KESKULA to set up a GoFundMe for them.

103

Crown –Tendered through Witness Helen KESKULA

GoFundMe Page.

This GoFundMe was set up by Witness Helen KESKULA. She wrote the message on the page and donated $100. Witness tried to take the page down after the police took her statement.

October 9, 2025

104

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Evidence of Sarah Brodie, The Arterie.

105

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Brookside Psychologist.

106

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Evidence of Karen Chardola, Senior Service Manager, Child and Youth Services.

107

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Terra Bovingdon.

108

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – from Health Canada Regarding the pills found at the autopsy of L.

109A

Crown

Original Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Dr. Arinder Malik.

109B

Crown

Amended Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Dr. Arinder Malik.

110

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Stephanie Peachy.

111

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Reach Out Centre for Kids (“ROCK”).

112

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Woodview Mental Health and Autism Services.

113

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Halton Coordinated Service Planning.

114

Crown

Affidavit, Report and CV of Bradley Dafoe.

115

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Evidence of D./Cst. Daniel Gies.

116

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact – Re: Sylvia Inkster.

117

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and Notes of Officer Laura McLellan.

118

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and Records of Momentum Autism Services.

119

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact regarding several neighbors.

120

Crown

Report of Dr. Baird.

121

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact regarding the Wyze Camera app.

122

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact regarding police reports.

October 20, 2025

123

Crown

CV of Dr. Emma CORY. Exhibit related to the voir dire held to qualify Dr. Emma CORY as an expert. Dr. CORY was qualified as an expert.

124A

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Emma CORY

Report of Dr. CORY dated June 3, 2025.

124B

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Emma CORY

Collection of Who Growth Charts.

October 21, 2025

124C

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact for Dr. CORY’s additional evidence about the weights.

125

Defence – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Emma CORY

Brief video clip of L from October 2022.

Witness Dr. CORY was shown this exhibit on cross-examination by Mr. MacGregor. Witness says L’s face looks caved in and very thin. Says he looks pale and unwell and like he really needs help. Witness says she would absolutely have concerns if she saw him as a patient.

126

Defence – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Emma CORY

C.A.S. Medical Treatment Report signed by Dr. Duncan December 13, 2022.

Report recommends an eating disorder clinic for L.

127

Defence – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Emma CORY

The meals photographs.

Witness Dr. CORY was shown these meals by defence counsel. Witness agreed that all of those meals looked appropriate for a child like L.

128

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

The CV of Dr. Michael PICKUP.

Exhibit used to qualify Dr. Michael PICKUP as an expert witness. The application was granted and he was qualified.

129A

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Amended Report of Postmortem Examination.

129B

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Bound brief – L Ancillary Report – 7 Reports.

129C

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Invitae Diagnostic Testing Results Report – September 14, 2023.

130

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Autopsy photos of L – December 23, 2022.

131

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Item of clothing worn by L – December 21, 2022.

132

Crown – Tendered through Expert Witness Dr. Michael PICKUP

Photographs of tablets from bowel.

Expert Witness Dr. PICKUP says these were sent to the lab for analysis. They were found to be a medication that L was taking at the time.

October 23, 2025

133

Crown

Agreed Statement of Fact and the related materials from Dr. Mark Andrew Tarnopolsky.

Report contains expert opinion evidence.

October 24, 2025

134

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Alan BROWN

CV for Dr. Alan BROWN.

135

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Alan BROWN

Emergency record and associated documents with regard to L’s attendance at the Hospital on August 26, 2019.

136

Crown – Tendered through Witness Melissa PARSONS

Sleep sack seized from J’s room.

Blue sleep sack. Witness Melissa PARSONS says the bottom of the sleep sack was sewn shut.

137

Crown – Tendered through Witness Melissa PARSONS

Search photos of 505 Karen Drive.

Some of these photos were addressed during the Crown’s cross-examination of Ms. Cooney and the direct examination of Ms. Hamber.

J’s room folder – photo of the tent that was in J’s room when he was apprehended – scratches on one end of the green foam piece that was on the floor of the tent.

October 27, 2025

138

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Graeme DUNCAN

The medical records for L from Caroline Family Health.

139

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Graeme DUNCAN

The medical records for J from Caroline Family Health.

October 28, 2025

140

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Emergency record for J from May 30, 2019.

141

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Child and Adolescent Outpatient Mental Health Services Progress Note for J from December 5, 2019.

142

Crown – Tendered through Witness Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Halton Healthcare Services document for L with a dictation date of May 9, 2019.

October 30, 2025

143

Defence – Tendered through Witness Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Excerpt put to Dr. Dhaliwal (American Psychiatric Association Guideline).

144

Defence – Tendered through Witness Dr. Shelinderjit DHALIWAL

Excerpt from the DSM5 dealing with Diagnostic Criteria A, B, C, & D of Rumination Disorder.

October 31, 2025

145

Crown – Tendered through Witness Lisa POTTS

Halton CAS Records.

CAS Homestudy Report – Completed by Holly Simmons. It states that Ms. Hamber’s occupation was a behavioural specialist, early childhood educator (which she claims is incorrect and that she did not list herself as that). Also states that she speaks French (stated that she was not fluent).

November 7, 2025

146

Defence – Tendered through Witness Lisa POTTS

Volumes 1 & 2 of the Halton CAS Records with regard to L.

In the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney by Mr. MacGregor, it was acknowledged that in these documents were the “profiles” of the two boys, which outlined their heath and development, their personalities, their interests, etc. They were “potential candidates” for adoption. Page 529 of the sealed records was in relation to J, and page 589 of the sealed records was in relation to L. Ms. Cooney agreed that these documents shown to her do not outline the violence and aggression that had been exhibited by the boys – also agreed that other components were missing from these documents.

147

Defence

CAS notes for investigation post death of L.

In the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney by Mr. MacGregor, some of the text messages between her and Ms. Hamber from this exhibit were addressed and put to Ms. Cooney. Showed common terms Ms. Cooney would use to identify an individual (e.g., “dumbass”) – Ms. Cooney said that would be the way she would identify a person’s behaviour. In another example, she refers to a co-worker as a “whore” and a “stupid bitch”. Showing other messages that demonstrate a common vernacular between the two women.

Also in this exhibit was an email drafted by Ms. Cooney on April 20, 2020 – in response to an email from Stefanie PEACHY. Ms. Cooney attempting to be candid about what she was experiencing at the time in relation to the boys. This was put to Ms. Cooney during her cross-examination by Mr. MacGregor.

In the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney, she was shown the CAS notes that accompanied the virtual visit between the boys and Alison BROWN. According to the notes, L cried in front of Ms. BROWN and Ms. Hamber had some form of outburst. The women speak over L in the virtual call. Further, the notes say that when Ms. Cooney says his room is warm, he shakes his head in disagreement.

148

Crown

Summary of Investigation by C. Oliver.

November 10, 2025

149

Crown – Tendered through Witness Matthew BURSEY

ROCK Records with regard to L.

This document related to a Home Study, which dealt with the type of children the accused persons would be prepared to parent. During cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney acknowledged that her and Ms. Hamber were open to taking virtually any child to foster – not comfortable if the child had a family history of schizophrenia – would also include a sibling group up until the age of 7 – open to adopting almost any child under the age of 7, except with a history of schizophrenia.

150

Defence –Tendered through Witness Dr. Arinder MALIK

Canadian Paediatric Society: A Guide to the Community Management of Paediatric Eating Disorders Position Statement.

Witness Dr. MALIK stated that she is familiar with this document when it was presented to her by defence counsel.

151

Crown – Tendered through Witness Chelsea HARDING

Side view photograph of L speaking with Ms. Harding on screen.

Photo of one of the sessions Witness HARDING had with L. She communicated the need for privacy in the sessions, but this was not followed.

152

Crown – Tendered through Witness Chelsea HARDING

Front view photograph of L speaking with Ms. Harding on screen.

Photo of one of the sessions Witness HARDING had with L. She communicated the need for privacy in the sessions, but this was not followed.

November 12, 2025

153A

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Audio video statement that J gave to police January 11, 2023.

153B

Crown

Transcript.

November 13,2025

154A

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Audio video statement that J gave to police September 1, 2023.

154B

Crown

Transcript.

155A

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Audio clip of J from October 9, 2019.

Audio of J yelling “Don’t zip it”. Ms. Hamber also says in the audio: “You break that tent, you sleep in the yard”.

In the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney by the Crown, Ms. Cooney does not agree that the audio refers to them zip-tying J’s tent.

155B

Crown

Transcript.

156

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Photograph of one of the boys standing in front of the sink in the washroom with his hand up – from December 11, 2021 on the Wyze Camera footage.

157

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Wetsuit mitten.

158

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Video from June 30, 2022.

When put to Ms. Hamber: J is in his room doing burpees. Green square here – green square was set up to show J where his feet had to be while doing exercises. Laminated sheet beside him – those were the exercise sheets.

159A

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Audio clip from September 23, 2020.

159B

Crown

Transcript.

160

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Image of J’s feet from August 20, 2022.

Cuts on top of J’s feet.

161

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Image of J’s feet from December 24, 2022.

This photo was filed when J testified – with respect to the injuries that still appeared on his feet in December 2022.

When this was put to Ms. Hamber during her direct examination, she stated that she sees J’s feet, healing or healed areas on the big toes, and scars on top of the feet.

162

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Video of child going up and down the stairs dated April 11, 2022.

As per the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney, she says that the boy in this video is L. She used the term “concussion cap” to refer to the helmet in that video. She agreed with the Crown that there was no protection for the face on the concussion cap.

In this video, L was also drinking out of a baby bottle.

163

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Video of L on stairs in helmet – June 10, 2022.

This video was played in court during the cross-examination of Ms. Cooney by the Crown. It was a video of L “doing stairs” wearing a wetsuit and a helmet. He was going up and down the stairs. In the video, you can hear L whimpering. There were multiple zip ties at the rear of the helmet.

164A

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Recording February 7, 2020 – Can’t Do Them All Night.

164B

Crown

Transcript.

November 17, 2025

165

Crown – Tendered through Witness Faisel MODHI

January 30, 2020 Investigation.

166

Crown – Tendered through Witness Faisel MODHI

Faisel Modhi 28/12/2022 00:25 Hours Audio.

November 21, 2025

167

Crown – Tendered through Witness J

Photograph from May 13, 2022 of child near the counter of the bathroom.

168

Defence and Crown – Tendered through Witness J

The insides of the 2 refrigerators from January 17, 2023.

169

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

Photographs of the schedule tags taken on January 17, 2023.

Laminated and velcro tags for scheduling – e.g., outdoor play, drawing, puzzle, chore, etc.

170

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

Series of photographs and videos that were shown to J.

171

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

Photographs of meals shown to J.

Various food photos, some with boys.

During her direct examination, Ms. Hamber confirmed that the meals shown were all for the boys – different years, some in 2022. For some of the photos, she would agree that those were “typical” foods fed to the boys. As outlined during the direct examination, there were some issues with dates regarding these photos.

172

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

The photographs and the videos that were shown to J of exterior matters.

173

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

2 photographs of the calendars from November 2022 and December 2022.

174

Defence – Tendered through Witness J

Photographs that were shown to J of alleged damage in the bedrooms.

November 28, 2025

175

Crown – Tendered through Witness Terra BOVINGDON

Package of material that was referred to during Ms. Bovingdon’s evidence.

December 1, 2025

176

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Bags of zip ties from garage at 505 Karen Drive.

177

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Wetsuits seized from 505 Karen Drive on January 17, 2023.

178

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

The photograph of the black item in the shed taken on January 17, 2023.

179

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Agreed Statement of Fact – seized devices.

This exhibit outlines the devices that were seized by Halton Regional Police Services and forensically examined (at least in part), which had relevant evidence to this case. These devices included an iPhone 8 belonging to Ms. Cooney – seized upon arrest for charges involving J on January 17 2023; an iPhone XR belonging to Ms. Cooney – seized upon arrest for charges involving L on February 29, 2024; an iPhone 13 belonging to Ms. Hamber – seized from the house when she was arrested for charges involving J on January 17, 2023 – phone remains locked though, cannot obtain all data from it; and an iPad 6 belonging to Ms. Hamber – seized from the house during the execution of the search warrant on January 17, 2023.

December 4, 2025

180A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio video statement of Becky Hamber dated January 17, 2023 given to Officer Derek Golba.

180B

Transcript of the audio video statement of Becky Hamber dated January 17, 2023 given to officer Derek Golba.

December 5, 2025

181

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Notepad entry made by Ms. Hamber dated June 14, 2023 from Mr. Meldrum’s computer.

Ms. Hamber talks about the death of L sticking out as one of the most distressing traumatic events that has occurred in her life. In the entry, she states that the cause of L’s death is a “jumble of reasons” but that she and Ms. Cooney are not responsible. She claims that they are the reason L “survived as long as [L] did” in their home despite L’s efforts to end his life “almost daily”.

She puts blame on the child welfare system. Noted inconsistent decisions of different Ontario Children’s Aid Societies. She also claims that the mental health system for children is “broken” – ignoring eating disorders due to a child’s age, “flip flopping between a child’s genetics and their trauma”, just supplying medications without supplemental programs, missing or being late to appointments with parents and children.

She also noted that L had a binge eating disorder that evolved into rumination syndrome. She said that food was a comfort to L. She strongly believes that the eating disorder is the physical reason for L’s death – though says that she may never know.

182A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on May 1, 2023.

182B

Transcript of the audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on May 1, 2023.

183A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on June 5, 2023.

Moments of a “lightbulb” going off after having a conversation with someone. Conspiracy theory video.

2 children placed in your home, cultural match. She had quotation marks for her fingers when she said the word “cultural”. Said that the kids are allegedly First Nation.

Challenging children to raise. 5 years go by – still not finalized with the children. Wanted proof that the children were Indigenous – asking for that for 5 years.

Stated that she almost died in prison.

5 years asking for Indigenous heritage and proof of that – wanted that to be able to raise the kids in an appropriate manner. They were being told many different things about their heritage that were wrong.

She claims that she has nothing to lose and neither does her wife, but CAS has everything to lose. There is a publication ban. Police and Crown have been used by CAS to cover up the fact that for 5 years, they failed to confirm that these children were placed at a home with Indigenous heritage while not being Indigenous. Whether they just did not confirm or whether they knew outright that the children were not Indigenous – not being accountable. Throwing these “criminal free” women under the bus.

183B

Crown

Transcript of the audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on June 5, 2023.

184A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer September 26, 2023.

184B

Crown

Transcript of the audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on September 26, 2023.

Ms. Hamber refers to zip tie on J’s tent overnight so that he cannot get out.

Ms. Hamber never mentioned the coat restraint system when trying to explain why J alleged that they tied him up.

She never mentioned boys being locked in bedrooms when she talks about the doors being locked at the foster home.

185A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on October 5, 2023.

See notes on Exhibit 204 for more information about the pertinent content of this video and transcript. This recording was tendered twice.

185B

Crown

Transcript of the audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on October 5, 2023.

186A

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on October 24, 2023.

186B

Crown

Transcript of the audio recording of Ms. Hamber speaking into the computer on October 24, 2023.

187

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

The files derived from the electronic devices of the accused persons that were put to Sgt. Powers.

Some of these were also put to Ms. Cooney during her examination-in-chief and cross-examination (parts of this exhibit); and to Ms. Hamber (parts of this exhibit).

Files put to Ms. Cooney in Examination-in-Chief:

November 20, 2022 search – hypothermia – “how to bring someone out of hypothermia”. “Should a person with hypothermia sleep” was another search.

Searched: “How many milligrams is an overdose for Effexor for a child?”

December 18 search – many searches on that date. Included “children with special needs”.

“I hate my child” search.

After L’s death, Ms. Cooney searched “what is murder”, “what is manslaughter”, how to erase footage on cameras, how to get that footage back.

Files put to Ms. Cooney During Cross-Examination:

July 17, 2022 audio played in court – agreed that it was her and her father. At the beginning of the exchange, Ed Cooney states “It’s almost like you’ve done it before”. Ms. Cooney denied that the sound in the audio is her zip tying the tent.

Audio from December 10, 2021 – L asking why he cannot be free in the house. Discussion of the camping toilet – also stating that he had free access to a toilet in his tent before and he still peed on himself.

Video from August 19, 2022 – L in his room, sitting on the floor with his back to the wall by the door. Ms. Cooney claims that this is a regurgitation video.

Video from September 24, 2021 – L is very thin – can see his hip bones, his ribs, his arms are like sticks. He is on a portable toilet right in front of the downstairs bathroom.

Files put to Ms. Hamber:

September 2021 video – video of L on commode. She agreed that he was very thin and that you can see his bones in the video.

Video where L seemed to be saying, “It’s not fair, it’s not fair”. Ms. Hamber stated that she made this video. Wanted to show Ms. Cooney what she was experiencing throughout the day. L had a pushpin in his hand. Also stating that he is hungry. Says at one point that they are withholding breakfast.

Another one with L in his room in the basement doing burpees.

December 10, 2021 recording – “one of you puts effort in and one doesn’t” – Ms. Hamber said this to L. She also tells L to his face that he just subtracts value from everyone’s lives.

188

Defence – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Audio Recording 36 on the iPhone 8 dated August 22, 2021.

189

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

The Agreed Statement of Facts with regard to Ottawa Police Records – these are related to the police investigation concerning RW.

December 8, 2025

190

Crown – Tendered through Witness Julie POWERS

Agreed Statement of Facts regarding searches and web history.

Search terms from Ms. Cooney’s and Ms. Hamber’s iPad 6 and iPhone 8.

Searches included “how to bring someone out of hypothermia”, “should a person with hypothermia sleep?”

December 10, 2025

191

Crown – Tendered through Brandy COONEY

Home Safety Checklist (Adoption/Foster Care/Kin/Customary Care Applicants in Ontario) – signed on June 3, 2016 by Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney.

Based on the cross-examination by the Crown of Ms. Cooney, the most pertinent content in this document seemed to be the requirements under “Sleeping Arrangements.”

One of the requirements in the form read: “Bedrooms occupied by children do not have external door locks. Locks from inside are made inoperable.” During cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney acknowledged that when this assessment was done, they did not have external locks on the doors of the boys’ bedrooms. Also acknowledged that on the date she signed this, she understood that CAS did not permit external locks on bedroom doors for children.

Another requirement in the form read: “Each child has a bed with a clean mattress that is suitable for the age of the child and with bedding that is appropriate to the weather and climate, allowing for variations according to cultural traditions (e.g. bedrolls).” During cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Cooney also acknowledges that for some time, L did not have a proper bed in their home. Also acknowledged that even when L did have a bed, he did not, at times, have a mattress. Further acknowledged that sometimes J did not have a mattress and that L slept on a cot at times too.

Another requirement was that: “No bedroom designated for a child is in a building detached from the home, an unfinished attic, unfinished basement, or a stairway hall.” Crown counsel brought this to Ms. Cooney’s attention, claiming that L’s bedroom initially, although the basement was somewhat finished, was not an actual room. Needed a contractor to build walls and a door.

This document was also put to Ms. Hamber during her cross-examination by the Crown. Requirements discussed were bath water temperature, fire evacuation plan, and sleeping arrangements.

December 12, 2025

192

Crown – Tendered through Brandy COONEY

Ottawa Police Service General Occurrence Report with Regard to March 28, 2019.

This occurrence report was shown to Ms. Cooney during her cross-examination by the Crown.

Report Transcribed:

On March 28, 2019 at 1028 hours I had a conversation with Ms. Cooney. Ms. Cooney advised that she was very upset that Mr. Fletcher had attended the interviews in Toronto. I explained that this is a joint investigation with CAS and that CAS was working within their mandate to have a representative attend the interviews.

Ms. Cooney went on to say that CAS Ottawa does not care and has provided no support to her family. She feels CAS is not going to verify the abuse so they do not have to be liable for anything. Ms. Cooney described the CAS investigation as a “sketchy case” and stated that Mr. Fletcher is in no way objective. Ms. Cooney further stated that CAS screwed with this case purposely to make the case a big fat lie. Ms. Cooney then asked me if there was any way I could see if the interviews had been tampered with as she feels Mr. Fletcher could have done this. She also believes it is possible that someone could have paid off Ms. Kirkland-Burke, that this is how bad the situation is.

Ms. Cooney stated that if the case gets “washed”, meaning the allegations are unverified, there will be a massive lawsuit. Ms. Cooney also stated “CAS is so liable it’s unbelievable-they hide things, they ignore us.” She went on to say that Ottawa CAS do not care, and she is scared they (Ottawa CAS) have done something to this case and are doing what they can to make it go away. She described Mr. Fletcher as an “arrogant prick”.

193

Crown – Tendered through Brandy COONEY

Emails between Holly Simmons and Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney – July 3, 2019.

Ultimately, the most pertinent content in the email from Ms. SIMMONS is her notes that no zip ties are allowed on the tents because of fire safety issues. Simmons clarifying with Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney whether they are zip tying the outside of the children’s tents. She states that the tent cannot be zip-tied as it would be a fire safety hazard.

Ms. Cooney forwards the email to Christine Buchan saying:

“What is your suggestion around hollys [sic] email

Not…he will break all in the house…drink shampoo and mouthwash

Pee and poo all over

Hang himself with stuff in the house

Eat everything in the house

And kill both cats

Buchan writes back to Ms. Cooney saying SIMMONS’ concern with the zip ties is understandable. Says the tents cannot be zip-tied – fire safety standards must be met. Makes suggestions for how to address the other behaviours mentioned by Ms. Cooney.

January 12, 2026

194

Defence – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Fridge photos from March of 2022 – 3 photos that are similar.

Photo of inside of fridge with black cat. As per Ms. Hamber during her direct examination, also inside the fridge is maple syrup, eggs, containers full of food, cups, baby bottles, juice, and other food items. This would be food for the two boys – also a few things that would be for Ed Cooney.

January 13, 2025

195

Defence – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Photos of L damaging closet in bedroom.

Black and white photo – Ms. Hamber claims that the photo is of L’s room downstairs in their home – L kicking the slats of the closet in the room. Believes this was a photo taken from the Wyze camera in the bedroom.

Coloured photo – Ms. Hamber claims that it is downstairs in L’s room. L with one of the slats, several slats lying on the ground. Wearing a blue and black wetsuit. Taking panels out of closet door.

January 14, 2025

196

Defence – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Photo of Becky Hamber with black eye.

Photo of Ms. Hamber – side of her face, the left side of her face with bruising around her eye area. During her direct examination, Ms. Hamber stated that this was a time where she was punched by one of the boys, could not recall which one.

197

Defence – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Text exchange between Ms. Hamber and her friend from April 2022.

“Is it wrong to want my child to leave?”

“He’s a horrible, horrible, disgusting child who appears to never want to change”.

198

Defence – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Photographs that were shown to Ms. Hamber of the start of allergic reactions on her skin.

These were only included for the sake of the record, just because they were shown to Ms. Hamber in direct examination.

199

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Holly Simmons’ case notes from the disclosure meeting in Ottawa in August 2017.

Fourth paragraph down – “[L] at times will attempt to destroy things”. Part of the notes discuss some violent tendencies of the boys – indications of violence committed by kids.

There are also some portions that speak about both boys being runners.

January 19, 2026

200

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Resume of Becky Hamber prepared in 2023.

Prepared in 2023 while living at residence on bail. Living in Ian Meldrum’s home.

Worked as a School Tour Guide from September 2019 to October 2020 at the Springridge Farm. Senior Therapist/Social Skills Program Coordinator at Atlas Behaviour Consultation from July 2012 to March 2015. A Social Programs Coordinator/Health and Safety Representative/Instructor Therapist at Missing Links Autism Ltd from January 2008 to July 2012. A Recreation Coordinator with the City of Burlington, Parks, and Recreation Dept from 2005 to December 2007. Education Assistant with the Halton Catholic District School Board from October 2003 to 2005.

KidLogic missing – Ms. Hamber said that was an error on her part.

201

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Becky Hamber’s LinkedIn profile.

Location says “Burlington, Ontario, Canada”. Tagline says “Pridefully enjoying part-time employment.” About section says “I have had a lot of experience in various fields that include education, recreation, and much more. I believe in a balanced life that ensures happiness is met. My experiences have made me a patient and passionate professional who believes in hard work and loyalty”. Under Education, it says she went to school at Bishop’s University and got a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Psychology.

Worked as a Behavior Specialist from January 2016 to Feb 2023 (7 years and 2 months).

202

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

The electronic communication from Mr. Cross to Ms. Cooney and Ms. Hamber from September 7, 2016.

Subject of email is “Homestudy approval”. Stephan Cross emailed Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney stating that they are unable to approve their home study at this time. Ms. Hamber and Ms. Cooney ask why they were not approved. The email from Stephan states that “there are a number of concerns in approving your family to adopt at this time.” It then lists some concerns:

“Becky to have an awareness of the impact of how trauma of childhood maltreatment and abuse may be possible triggers for grief she may experience.”

“At the current time, your family’s financial ability to support a child or children is questionable, given the fact that only one of you has employment and the overall family income is too low to support raising a child or children.”

Recommended that both attend the enhancing attachment workshop.

It concludes by saying “If I were to complete your home study at this time, I would not be recommending that your family should be approved to adopt, given the above noted concerns.”

Lynn Rheault who is CC’d replies and tells Stephan to organize a transfer of this case to Holly Simmons.

203

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

The document that was put to Ms. Hamber of Mr. Cross.

LinkedIn profile of Stephan Cross. Tagline says “Family Mediator, Coach, Assessor”.

Went to the University of Waterloo, Conrad Grebel College.

About description says, “Stephan Cross is an Accredited Member of the Ontario Association of Family Mediators. … Stephan has particular expertise in the area of high-conflict separation and divorce…”

He worked at the Halton Children’s Aid Society as a Child Protection Worker for less than a year in 1999 and then worked as an Adoption Worker from March 1998 – present.

204A

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Private video recording dated October 5, 2023 of Becky Hamber.

In the video, Ms. Hamber says that J was “severely underweight and undersized” – like a 3-year-old. This would have been initially when the boys came.

Also said in the beginning of the video that this was a note in case anyone is interested – this was a topic in the cross-examination of Ms. Hamber by the Crown.

204B

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Transcript of the private video recording dated October 5, 2023 of Becky Hamber.

205

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

The photograph of Ms. Hamber and the two children December 25, 2017 from the iPhone 8 and the iPhone XR.

Ms. Hamber reading in bed with L and J.

206

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

October 5, 2017 photo of Ms. Hamber and the two boys at the Burlington Pier.

This was taken on the day the boys arrived to Burlington.

207

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

The still photograph of L at the top of the stairs from August 21, 2021.

L wearing an orange and green wetsuit and red gloves/mittens.

The most pertinent content from this photo seems to be L’s size and how thin he appeared.

208

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

L’s bedroom with red walls.

Photo of L’s bedroom with red painted walls.

209A

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Recording from Mr. Meldrum’s computer – September 26, 2023 at 9:58AM.

Self-video of Ms. Hamber. She swears on Holy Bible in video. Says on video that the blisters on J’s feet were caused by soccer on driveway.

Ms. Hamber says that they tried shoes on J overnight (without zip ties), but he did not stop picking at his toes.

She also stated that J had picked quite far down.

On the video, there is no mention of Ms. Cooney being there when the zip ties are put on J’s shoes.

She also says on the video that there were light abrasions on the tops of J’s feet.

209B

Crown – Tendered through Becky HAMBER

Transcript of recording from Meldrum’s computer – September 26, 2023 at 9:58AM.