Citation: R v. M.E., 2026 ONSC 2681

Court File No. CR-24-11405243-000

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

5 HIS MAJESTY THE KING

v

10

M.E.

15

R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T

DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. E. ROGER

on April 28, 2026, at OTTAWA, Ontario

20

25

APPEARANCES:

C. Bouzane

M. Godoy

Counsel for the Provincial Crown Counsel for M.E.

30

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026

R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N

5 ROGER, J. (Orally):

The accused is charged with three counts of attempt murder and one count of uttering a threat to cause death. The facts are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a

10 reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The accused was a single mother. At the time, she

15 lived alone with three of her five children, who were six, seven and eight years old. During the late evening of May 16 or early morning of May 17, 2024, the accused woke her children and told them that she was going to kill them. She gathered her

20 children in the same room, repeated that she was

going to kill them, and she choked each of her children and also smothered one of her children. This happened on the bed of one child where she had gathered the children. This left redness or red

25 marks on the children’s necks.

The accused choked the first child, then the second, then she choked and smothered the third. We do not know how long this lasted. Then the

30 accused, “just stopped by herself and then she told

me to call the cops, so I did”, said the eight-

year-old child. The child called 911 as instructed and the recording of that call is in evidence.

Two children testified by their admitted police

5 statement. Both are smart and articulate for their age. Each described the above, which, as indicated, is not disputed by the accused who did not cross-examine the children.

10 On the 911 call, the oldest child says, “My mom is going crazy...she’s trying to kill us”. The child answers the 911 operator’s questions, says, “She was choking us”, and answers questions about their name and age when the accused is heard to say,

15 “Make sure they come”. The operator continues asking the child some questions when the accused is heard saying, “I made sure they called”. The accused sounds intoxicated, her speech is slurred.

20 The operator realized that the accused is now on the phone and the accused repeats, “I made sure they called”, and adds, “because I’m not okay right now”. The accused says that they do not need an ambulance, but adds, “I’m not okay, my brain is not

25 okay”. The accused answers questions and is polite

with the 911 operator. The accused repeats that she is “not okay right now. I am not good. But you going to take my kids.” The accused is asked whether she wants to hurt her children and she

30 answers, “No...I want to hurt myself”. The accused

sounds confused and says that she is “not going to hurt myself”. She says that she has been drinking

and asks for the police to attend. She says that she wants to see the police “and get my kids taken...for the night”.

5 The accused opened the door to allow the police in her dwelling and her behaviour changes as soon as the police are in attendance. She says to the police that she is not okay with this, she blames the police, and she is belligerent with the police

10 throughout.

ISSUE

As indicated above, considering the admissions, the

15 only issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had an intent to kill.

ANALYSIS

20

Persons accused of a criminal offence are presumed innocent and the Crown bears the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused testified and the W.(D.) analysis is applicable,

25 albeit only the third prong of that analysis is

relevant as the accused testified that she has no recollection of these events and of her intention when she choked each of her three children.

30 The act of attempt murder, choking, is admitted by the accused. As well, the accused admits that she endangered the life of each of her three children

within the meaning of section 268 of the Criminal Code. The accused concedes that aggravated assault and uttering a threat to cause death are proven.

During the accused’s closing submissions, her

5 lawyer explained that the accused accepts that when she choked her children, intoxicated by alcohol as she was, the accused did not appreciate what she was doing or the degree of force she was applying

and therefore endangered the life of her children.

10

However, the accused disputes that:

(i) She was capable of forming the specific intent to kill because of advanced intoxication; and

15 (ii) In all the circumstances she disputes that it

is appropriate to infer that she intended to kill her children.

The Crown argues that although the accused had

20 consumed alcohol and was no doubt intoxicated, it was not to the level of advanced intoxication and the accused was capable of forming the intent to kill. Amongst others, the Crown points to the accused being able to answer the questions posed by

25 the 911 operator and being able to walk when

escorted to and at the police station. The Crown argues as well that the accused was not credible and made up that she was in a state of blackout, that she was not truthful when she said that she

30 has no memory of these events. The Crown argues

that the accused realized what she had done, changed her mind, and asked her child to call 911

in an effort to show herself in a more positive light. The Crown argues that the accused switched from being polite with the 911 operator to being belligerent with the attending police officers in

5 an effort to worsen the appearance of her state of intoxication.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Crown has not established, beyond a reasonable

10 doubt, that the accused had the intent to kill her

children.

To start, I found the accused to have been a fairly credible witness. The accused made important

15 admissions, and I accept her explanation about

giving one of her children to the father because that explanation makes sense. The accused answered questions about this quickly during her examination-in-chief and the fact that she

20 voluntarily gave that child to the father at the

father’s insistence does not impact her credibility because the father was threatening that the child would otherwise be removed. That is not a contradiction that puts the accused’s credibility

25 into question. When I read my reasons for

decision, I omitted to mention that I did not accept the Crown’s arguments of motive because I found these not supported by the evidence and speculative.

30

However, although I accept that the accused has a blackout about these events, I do not accept that

the accused was in a state of advanced intoxication. I arrive at this conclusion because the accused was able to answer the 911 operator’s questions and, more so, because during the exchange

5 with the 911 operator the accused showed that she understood that she posed a risk to her children. The accused knew that something was wrong with her. She wanted her children taken by the police that night because, as is apparent from the 911

10 recording, she wanted to protect her children.

This shows that the accused had the ability to appreciate the probable consequences of her acts.

I nonetheless accept that the accused has a

15 blackout about these events because her evidence about this is corroborated by the 911 call. Indeed, during the 911 call the accused is intoxicated and confused. She does not appear to remember that she tried to choke her children, she

20 refused an ambulance despite having done this, and,

more so, she blamed everything on the police attending at her residence when she is the one who tried to choke her children and insisted that the police be called.

25

The accused said that the police were to blame for everything that happened and became angry at the police. This supports her evidence that she does not remember. Moreover, in the circumstances of

30 how events unfolded, I find it improbable that the

accused had the foresight and was able to quickly devise a plan to exonerate herself by asking her

child to call 911, dishonestly said what she said to the 911 operator, and purposefully switched from polite to aggressive when the police attended.

5 However, that is not the end of the analysis. The Crown must prove intent to kill. Considering all the circumstances, this is not a case where it is appropriate to infer that the accused intended to kill her children because the natural consequences

10 of her actions are, to cite from the decision in

R v S.R. 2008 35680 (ONSC), “too nebulous”

to prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike the situation in R v Innocent, 2008 2751 (ONSC), the probable consequences of the

15 accused’s actions are not apparent, at least not

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dr. Kepron was an excellent witness, testifying knowledgably and candidly. A little amount of

20 pressure can cause death. However, pressure will

have varying effects, depending on the amount of pressure, how sustained the pressure is, and how long the pressure is applied. Endangering their life is not the same as intending to kill them. An

25 intention to kill is not proven beyond a reasonable

doubt by all the circumstances.

The accused repeatedly said that she was going to kill her children, a stated intent to kill. As

30 well, the accused choked and smothered her

children. On the other hand, the accused stopped herself and told her child to call 911. She might

have changed her mind, as argued by the Crown, but then she showed an intent to protect her children and, on the other hand, might never have had the intent to kill her children. She wanted the police

5 to come and take her children for the night because “my brain is not okay”. The accused recognized that she posed a risk to her children and wanted her children removed and protected from the risk she appreciated that she posed. Overall,

10 considering all the circumstances, the Crown has

not proven the required intent.

Consequently, the accused is found (1) not guilty of attempt murder at each of counts one, two, and

15 three of the indictment, but for each she is found

guilty of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault; and (2) guilty of count number four, uttering a threat to cause death of the children.

20 * * * * * * * * * *

25

30