R. v. Samonas, 2026 ONSC 2992

Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Samonas, 2026 ONSC 2992

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-40000685-0000

Date: 2026-05-25

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

EVA SAMONAS

Counsel: C. Jenkins and M. Boissonneault, for the Crown E. Samonas (self-represented) A. Wine, Amicus Curiae

HEARD: March 23, 24, 25, 27, 30; April 1, 7, 10, 2026

KELLY J.

Reasons for Judgment

Overview

1Ms. Eva Samonas is charged with three criminal offences involving the death of her 96-year-old mother, Ms. Vasiliki Atanasovski. All offences are alleged to have occurred between January 4 and 6, 2024.

2Ms. Samonas shared a home with her mother on Broadview Avenue in Toronto. On January 4, 2024, Ms. Atanasovski fell from the couch to the hardwood floor in the living room. Ms. Samonas attempted to lift her mother from the floor. She could not do so. She asked for help on January 4 and 5, 2024. All three people consulted recommended Ms. Samonas call 911. She did not. It was only on January 6, 2024, when Ms. Samonas noticed that her mother’s right arm was cold, her knee was swollen and she was mumbling, that she called 911. This was three days after her fall.

3When Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) arrived, Ms. Atanasovski was lying naked on the hardwood floor. There was urine and feces both on the floor and on Ms. Atanasovski. The home was cluttered, dirty, and unkempt, resembling a home occupied by hoarders. Because the home was so cluttered, EMS called for the assistance of the fire department to take Ms. Atanasovski to the ambulance.

4When EMS and a member of the fire department rolled Ms. Atanasovski on to her side they observed significant injuries to her back. They noticed a large lower back open wound (a pressure ulcer) that was black in colour. It was so deep that the sacral and coccyx bones were exposed. Other parts of her back were red, likely caused by urinary and/or fecal soiling. A horrible smell emanating from Ms. Atanasovski was overwhelming.

5Ms. Atanasovski was taken to Michael Garron Hospital where she died the following day. Paramedic Timothy Driver suspected elder abuse and alerted Toronto Police Services. Ms. Samonas was arrested at the hospital.

6The cause of death was described in the pathology report as “complications of prolonged immobility in a woman with pulmonary thromboembolism and atherosclerotic heart disease”. In summary, various injuries that led to the death of Ms. Atanasovski can be traced to the pressure ulcer that developed on her back because of Ms. Atanasovski’s prolonged immobility from January 4 to 6, 2024.

7Ms. Samonas now stands trial for the following offences regarding the death of her mother:

Count 1: Fail, without lawful excuse, to provide the necessaries of life to Ms. Atanasovski contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code.

Count 2: Criminal negligence by her failure to provide the necessaries of life, thereby causing the death of Ms. Atanasovski contrary to s. 220 of the Criminal Code.

Count 3: Unlawful killing of Ms. Atanasovski by failing to provide the necessaries of life contrary to s. 222(5) of the Criminal Code.¹

8Ms. Samonas pleaded not guilty. She proceeded to trial before me without a jury. Although self-represented, Ms. Samonas was assisted by Amicus Curiae, Mr. Aaron Wine.

Nature of the Proceedings

9At the commencement of the proceeding, a pre-trial application was heard regarding the voluntariness of a statement provided by Ms. Samonas to investigating officers following her arrest. Partway through the application, it was agreed that the trial would proceed by way of a blended hearing so that the witnesses did not have to testify twice.

10I ruled that the statement was admissible, and it was filed as an exhibit to be considered as evidence forming part of the Crown’s case. Several witnesses were called by Crown counsel, including officers who attended the scene and took photographs. First responders testified, including two witnesses from EMS and a firefighter. Also called as witnesses were Dr. Rajani Vairavanathan (the attending physician at Michael Garron Hospital) and Dr. Andrew Williams, (a forensic pathologist).

11Audio recordings of the 911 call were played. Also filed were a diagram and several photographs of the home where Ms. Atanasovski was located and of Ms. Atanasovski herself. Medical records of Ms. Atanasovski from 2017 to 2022 and 2024 were filed on consent.

12Ms. Samonas testified. She was under no obligation to do so. It is not her onus to raise a reasonable doubt or otherwise disprove the charges against her. I have considered her evidence consistent with the principles and jury instructions recommended in R. v. W. (D.).²

13While I accept much of Ms. Samonas’ evidence, I do not believe her evidence that she did not understand the peril her mother was in when she fell to the floor on January 4, 2024, and as a result did not call 911 until January 6, 2024. Nor does her evidence leave me in a reasonable doubt on this issue.

14Having considered all the evidence, in light of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, I am satisfied that Crown counsel has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas had the necessary mens rea in relation to the failure to provide the necessaries of life offence. I am also satisfied that she showed a wanton and reckless disregard for her mother’s life and at least ought to have known that by failing to obtain medical assistance for her mother there was a risk that her mother might die. I am also satisfied that her conduct in failing to provide the necessaries of life to her mother during this time was a significant contributing cause to her mother’s death.

Analysis

15Each of the offences charged address different sections of the Criminal Code. However, there is substantial overlap because each count alleges that Ms. Samonas failed to provide the necessaries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, resulting in her death. As such, I will commence my analysis with Count 1, failing to provide the necessaries of life.

Count 1: Failure to Provide the Necessaries of Life

The Charge

16The indictment provides as follows:

Eva Samonas stands charged that she on or between the 4th day of January and the 6th day of January 2024 being the caregiver of Vasiliki Atanasovski did fail without lawful excuse to provide the necessaries of life contrary to s. 215(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The General Legal Framework

17The relevant portions of s. 215 of the Criminal Code provide as follows:

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty if

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

18The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Naglik,³ defined the purpose of s. 215 and held that the conduct of the accused be assessed on an objective basis to support such a purpose. It held as follows, at pp. 141-142:

[T]he language of s. 215 referring to the failure to perform a “duty” suggests that the accused’s conduct in a particular circumstance is to be determined on an objective, or community, standard. The concept of a duty indicates a societal minimum which has been established for conduct: as in the law of civil negligence, a duty would be meaningless if every individual defined its content for him or herself according to his or her subjective beliefs and priorities. Therefore, the conduct of the accused should be measured against an objective, societal standard to give effect to the concept of “duty” employed by Parliament.

The policy goals of the provision support this interpretation. Section 215 is aimed at establishing a uniform minimum level of care to be provided for those to whom it applies, and this can only be achieved if those under the duty are held to a societal, rather than a personal, standard of conduct. While the section does not purport to prescribe parenting or care-giving techniques, it does serve to set the floor for the provision of necessaries, at the level indicated by, for example, the circumstances described in subs. (2)(a)(ii). The effects of a negligent failure to perform the duty will be as serious as an intentional refusal to perform the duty. [Emphasis in original.]

19Section 215 of the Criminal Code criminalizes conduct that is “a marked departure from an objectively reasonable standard of care”. Where the failure to provide the necessaries of life objectively exposes a person in their charge to a risk of danger to their life, or to permanent danger to their health, the caretaker becomes criminally liable.⁴

20Considering this legal framework, I must address the following essential elements of the offence of failure to provide the necessaries of life:

i. Was Ms. Samonas under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski?

ii. If so, did Ms. Samonas fail to provide her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, with the necessaries of life that endangered her life?

iii. If so, does the conduct of Ms. Samonas represent a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in all the circumstances?

i. Was Ms. Samonas under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski?

21The first essential element requires answering the following question: Did Ms. Samonas owe her mother a duty of care? The answer is “yes”.

The Legal Framework

22Section 215 of the Criminal Code provides that a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life arises when one person is under the other’s charge. The requirement of “under his charge” imposes a duty where: (i) one person is under another’s charge; (ii) the person is unable to withdraw from that charge; and (iii) the person is unable to provide himself or herself with the necessaries of life.⁵

23The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Peterson, reviewed factors to be considered in determining whether a person is under the charge of another, at para. 40:

First, the relationship of the parties to each other is among the factors to consider in determining whether a person is in the charge of another. The dependency of the parent under a disability on an independent adult child is justified not only by their past course of dealing in which the parent supported the child but also by their relationship to one another in which an element of trust will usually be present.

24The Court of Appeal, in Peterson, continued with its definition of “charge”, adding, at para. 42, that “the word ‘charge’ connotes, among other things, the duty or responsibility of taking care of a person or thing”. There is “the exercise of an element of control by one person and a dependency on the part of the other”. Another consideration is whether the person “publicly [acknowledged] to others in the community by words or conduct an assumption of responsibility”.⁶

25Necessaries of life includes not only food, shelter, care and medical attention necessary to sustain life. It also includes protection of the person from harm.⁷

Analysis

26There is much evidence that supports the finding that Ms. Samonas was under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski.

i. One person is under another’s charge.

27The evidence supports the fact that Ms. Atanasovski was under the charge of her daughter, Ms. Samonas. Ms. Samonas testified that from 2020 to 2024, she was her mother’s full-time caretaker. Her brother, Mike, did not wish to take any responsibility for their mother, despite her repeated requests that he do so.

28Ms. Samonas testified that during this four-year period, she did not want to leave her mother alone for too long, supporting that Ms. Atanasovski was under her charge. The only time that she left her mother alone was to buy groceries. She took care of her mother’s daily needs such as cooking and cleaning. Hygiene was more difficult because her mother did not wish to take a bath.

29There is further evidence that Ms. Atanasovski was under the charge of Ms. Samonas:

i. The medical records show that since 2017, Ms. Samonas was listed as her mother’s emergency contact and next of kin. Ms. Samonas testified that she authorized surgery for her mother in 2017. Further, she signed medical documentation describing her mother as “a dependent adult” and that she was her mother’s “caregiver”.

ii. Ms. Samonas testified that she became aware of her mother’s diagnosis of dementia in 2017, testifying that “mentally she was not herself” and “she was slowly declining”. For example, Ms. Samonas testified that she was aware that, on one occasion, her mother was knocking on a neighbour’s door because she was lost and could not find her way home.

iii. Ms. Samonas testified that after her retirement from the University Health Network and shortly before the COVID pandemic (in 2020), she moved into the home located on Broadview Avenue. The purpose of her move was to care for her mother because her mother was “declining”. Prior to that, from 2014, she was visiting her mother regularly to “make sure she was doing all right”.

iv. In 2022, Dr. Eric Roy noted that Ms. Samonas was the “contact person” for her mother’s appointments and her primary caregiver.

v. Ms. Samonas was asked if a social worker had been recommended to assist in caring for her mother. Ms. Samonas testified that her mother would not allow anyone into the home because she feared they would “steal her stuff”. Ms. Samonas’ brother did not assist in caring for their mother as he suffered back problems. Ms. Samonas was her mother’s main caregiver, as others were unable to assist.

vi. On January 6, 2024, Ms. Samonas confirmed to Dr. Vairavanathan, that she was her mother’s primary caregiver. On that day, Ms. Samonas made decisions for her mother, including the decision to implement palliative care measures. She also supported a “do not resuscitate” directive, although she also asked that her brother be contacted.

vii. When giving her statement to Det. Gibson and P.C. Ferguson on January 6, 2024, Ms. Samonas confirmed that she was her mother’s primary caregiver. She had lived with her mother for several years because her mother “started to get dementia” and “shouldn’t be alone”. She also advised that she knew that in January 2024, her mother did not “know how to care for herself”.

30For these reasons, I am satisfied that Ms. Atanasovski was under Ms. Samonas’ charge.

ii. The person is unable to withdraw from that charge.

31Further, there is evidence to support that Ms. Atanasovski could not withdraw from Ms. Samonas’ charge:

i. The medical records support that there was a cognitive decline in Ms. Atanasovski between 2017 and 2024. As I have stated, Ms. Samonas moved in with her mother prior to the COVID 19 pandemic to care for her because she knew that her mother could not be left alone.

ii. Ms. Samonas was aware that her mother suffered from dementia. There were times that Ms. Atanasovski went missing and got lost. Ms. Samonas advised that her mother could not be left alone.

iii. Ms. Atanasovski had no contact with the world outside of her home other than for medical appointments (which were non-existent after 2022) and infrequent walks around the neighbourhood, to the mall or to Sobey’s accompanied by Ms. Samonas. Further, no one could see into the home from the street because the windows were covered in paper. As such, the only person who could identify that Ms. Atanasovski required help was Ms. Samonas as Ms. Atanasovski could not do so herself. Ms. Atanasovski was isolated and reliant on Ms. Samonas.

iv. Most, if not all, care was provided by Ms. Samonas to her mother before January 4, 2024, but particularly after her fall on January 4, 2024.

32Ms. Samonas’ evidence of what occurred in January 2024 and from January 4 to 6, 2024 also supports that Ms. Atanasovski could not withdraw from her daughter’s charge:

Wednesday, January 3, 2024

a. Ms. Atanasovski fell to the floor but got back up. By this point, Ms. Samonas was accompanying her mother to and from the bathroom.

Thursday, January 4, 2024

b. Ms. Samonas testified that she took her mother to the bathroom then left her there and went to the living room. When her mother returned to the living room, she was no longer wearing her pajamas. Ms. Samonas placed her mother on the couch and then went to the bathroom. She discovered her mother’s pajamas soiled in urine and feces. She put them in a bag and disposed of them in the backyard. When she returned to the living room, her mother was on the floor.

c. Ms. Samonas testified that she tried to lift her mother on to the couch but could not do so. She believed that it was serious for her 96-year-old mother to be lying on the floor. She called her brother and begged for help, but he refused because of a sore back. He told her to call an ambulance, but she did not do so for two reasons: she did not believe her mother was in distress and because her mother did not wish her to do so. Ms. Atanasovski was afraid of dying in the Michael Garron Hospital, where her husband had died.

d. Ms. Samonas left her mother lying naked on the floor but covered her with a blanket.

e. Ms. Samonas gave her mother something to eat, so that she would have more energy. She placed her mother on a cushion, and she stayed beside her on the couch.

f. Ms. Samonas testified that she asked her mother if she wanted to get off the floor, but her mother said “nope”.

g. On Thursday evening, Ms. Samonas intended to drive to her brother, Mike’s house to ask him for help. She went outside the home. She saw “Armando” walking by the home. She asked him to come inside the house to pick her mother up off the floor. Armando agreed. Ms. Atanasovski remained naked under the blanket when Armando visited.

h. When Armando saw Ms. Atanasovski, Ms. Samonas testified that he said, “Oh, I don’t think I should pick her up because she’s elderly”. He said that she was “frail” and he “didn’t want to break her bones”. Ms. Samonas testified that she respected his opinion and could understand Armando’s concerns. He told her to call an ambulance, she agreed but did not do so because her mother did not wish to go to the hospital. She gave him $20.

i. Ms. Samonas continued to try to lift her mother onto the couch, but she was not physically able to do so. Further, her mother kept telling her, “Leave me alone”. Ms. Samonas gave her a boiled egg, toast, and a glass of milk. In the afternoon, she made her mother “mac and cheese”, which she seemed to enjoy.

j. Ms. Samonas testified that she tried to put Depends (a diaper) on her mother as she lay on the floor. Her feet were underneath the coffee table so that she could not get the diaper under her. As a result, she “pushed her bum” and put it underneath her. She did her best to keep her mother clean, giving her a sponge bath. She did not see any pressure ulcer on her mother’s back as she testified that she only saw it when the photographs of her mother were disclosed after having been charged criminally.

k. Ms. Samonas testified that she did not call the ambulance on Thursday, January 4, 2024, because her mother was “fine”. She testified that she admits that she made a mistake, not calling 911 but added, “Deep down inside I know she was going to be okay, but she did not want to go to the hospital. I should have ignored that.”

Friday, January 5, 2024

l. Ms. Samonas noticed that the cushion her mother was lying on was wet, so she pulled it out. She put another one under her mother and replaced the Depends. She had baby wipes and “tried to clean her in the back and then also on the floor”. Again, Ms. Samonas did not notice a pressure ulcer on her mother’s back at this time.

m. Ms. Samonas also called Mr. Bendoff, a family friend, to help. He came to the house “right away”. When he saw Ms. Atanasovski, Ms. Samonas testified that he said that he was afraid to pick up Ms. Atanasovski because she was “fragile”. He might break her bones. Mr. Bendoff told Ms. Samonas to call an ambulance. She said that she would but did not because her mother did not wish her to do so.

n. Ms. Samonas testified that she thought of calling 911 but her mother said, “No, no, they’re gonna kill me there.” She was worried that she was going to die in the Michael Garron Hospital because that is where her stepfather had died. She did not wish to upset her mother by calling 911.

o. Ms. Samonas testified that her mother stopped eating on Friday and that she only wanted something to drink.

Saturday, January 6, 2024

p. Ms. Samonas testified that she noticed a “big change” in her mother. As she was wiping her mother’s right arm, she noticed it was cold. Her mother was mumbling. Her mother’s knee was swollen. That is when she started to panic, believing that something was wrong. She called 911.

q. When EMS arrived, Ms. Atanasovski was naked. Ms. Samonas testified that it was hard “to put something on her when she was on the floor”. Her mother was wearing a pajama top before EMS arrived, but Ms. Samonas had taken it off because she was cleaning her. She denies noticing the gaping wound on her mother’s back when she did so. She did not smell urine nor feces. She reasoned that she had a bad cold at the time which may have prevented her from smelling the odours.

r. When asked if she noticed the pressure ulcer on her mother’s back, Ms. Samonas said, “No. If I had seen that, I would have certainly done something. No, I did not see that because she always had her pajama top on”. (The evidence that “she always had her pajama top on”, is contradicted by other evidence to which I have referred.) Ms. Samonas testified that she never turned her mother over to check her back.

s. The first time Ms. Samonas says she saw the horrid state of her mother’s back was when she saw the pictures produced in disclosure. Even she expressed disbelief when she saw them. The pictures were shown at trial. Words cannot adequately describe the state of Ms. Atanasovski’s back. The photos of the pressure ulcer in the sacral area were particularly grotesque and startling.

33There is no question that Ms. Atanasovski could not withdraw from the care of Ms. Samonas, particularly after her fall on January 4, 2024.

iii. The person is unable to provide himself or herself with the necessaries of life.

34Lastly, there is evidence that Ms. Atanasovski could not provide herself with the necessaries of life:

a. As I have stated, Ms. Samonas testified that she was aware her mother was suffering from dementia when Ms. Atanasovski was in her early 90’s.

b. The state of the home itself supports the conclusion that Ms. Atanasovski could not provide herself with the necessaries of life. The home is properly described as that occupied by hoarders. The home was unsanitary, cluttered, and difficult to navigate. For example, it appeared difficult to travel to the bathroom from the living room due to the clutter that was piled along the way. And when one got to the bathroom, it was exceptionally dirty. The sink was of little use because it was full of dishes and other items. The toilet was full of refuse and, again, appeared inoperable. The bathtub appeared inaccessible. There were dead bugs in the refrigerator. The state of the home was unsanitary and dangerous for a 96-year-old woman.

c. Ms. Samonas testified that she was unable to change the state of the clutter in the home because her mother was abusive. Her mother would notice that something had been moved and hit her with a stick. As a result, she stopped trying to improve the condition of the home. While I accept Ms. Samonas’ evidence, the state of the home made it difficult for Ms. Atanasovski to navigate and operate. Further, it does not explain why the home was unsanitary with dirty dishes piled in the bathroom sink and dead bugs in the refrigerator.

d. Ms. Atanasovski rarely left the home on Broadview Avenue. On occasion, in the summer, she and Ms. Samonas would go to the mall and walk in the neighbourhood. She could not shop for herself or do much else.

e. Ms. Atanasovski’s son did not come to visit. It was only Ms. Samonas who was aware of her condition up until her fall on January 4, 2024. Ms. Atanasovski’s isolation heightened her reliance on Ms. Samonas, particularly for the necessaries of life.

f. When Ms. Atanasovski did fall, her immobility left her entirely in the charge of her daughter, Ms. Samonas. She could not help herself. She was entirely dependent on Ms. Samonas for her basic needs: feeding, dressing, and keeping herself clean. Ms. Atanasovski, by this point, was entirely at the mercy of her daughter, Ms. Samonas, unable to provide herself with the necessaries of life.

g. While Ms. Samonas called on others to assist her with her mother after the fall, she did not take their advice once given. All three people she consulted (two of whom observed Ms. Atanasovski) advised Ms. Samonas that she should call 911. She said that she would. She did not. Again, this left her mother completely at her mercy.

h. It was not possible for Ms. Atanasovski to call for help herself. Even if she did have access to a phone, it would have likely been impossible for her to use it, in her frail state.

35The inability of a person to appreciate his or her need for the necessaries of life and his or her unwillingness to cooperate is not a defence for an accused person charged with failure to provide the necessaries of life. As stated in Peterson, at para. 43, “If the parent is otherwise in the child’s charge and the child cannot care for the parent due to the parent’s refusal to accept care, the child is obliged to seek the help of a community agency.”

36For these reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas had a duty of care to provide the necessaries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, before the fall and particularly after it. Ms. Atanasovski was under Ms. Samonas’ charge. Ms. Atanasovski was unable to withdraw from that charge, particularly when she fell and was unable to get up. It is obvious that between January 4 and 6, 2024, Ms. Atanasovski was unable to provide herself with the necessaries of life. Medical assistance was needed before January 6, 2024. None was provided.

ii. Having found that Ms. Samonas had a duty of care, did Ms. Samonas fail to provide her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, with the necessaries of life that endangered her life?

37The next consideration is this: Having found that Ms. Samonas had a duty of care, did Ms. Samonas fail to provide her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, with the necessaries of life that endangered her life? Again, the answer is “yes”.

The Legal Framework

38As stated above, the requirement of “necessaries of life” includes not only food, shelter, care, and medical attention necessary to sustain life but also includes protection of the person from harm.⁸ Harm, or risk of harm, “refers to harm, or risk of harm, that is reasonably foreseeable and more than minor or transitory”.⁹ The court has also held that “the presence of feces, urine, insects, and rotting garbage” creates a risk of harm.¹⁰ Finally, in R. v. S.J., the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that “medical attention is a necessary of life within the meaning of s. 215(1) of the Code”.¹¹

39The term “endangers” includes “exposing someone to danger, harm or risk” and “putting someone in danger of something untoward occurring”.¹² It does not, however, “connote actual injury or damage”.¹³ It means “exposing someone to danger, harm or risk”.¹⁴

40The court, in R. v. Pertab, citing R. v. Thornton, found that, “[e]ven in the absence of symptoms … a triggering incident or event may itself be of such a nature as to reasonably raise the prospect of serious and permanent endangerment of health”.¹⁵

Analysis

41The evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Samonas failed to provide her mother with the necessaries of life by not seeking medical attention. This exposed her mother to danger, harm, and/or risk:

a. Ms. Samonas knew how to access medical care and that her mother was medically vulnerable. For example, Ms. Atanasovski had broken her hip because of falling in 2017. Medical care was sought at the hospital, and Ms. Atanasovski engaged in physiotherapy. At this time as well, Dr. Black told Ms. Samonas that her mother had spots on her right lung. Because of her age, they would not operate because “he wasn’t sure if she would make it”.

b. In 2018, Ms. Samonas was aware of the services accessible by calling 911 when the need arose. In 2018, Ms. Samonas was unable to find her mother and phoned 911 for assistance. Because of her mother’s decline, that is when she spoke to a doctor about the resources available for people with dementia. Ms. Samonas also testified that she was advised her mother’s heart “wasn’t doing too well”. The doctor told her to keep her mother “calm” and not to “upset” her.

c. In 2022, her mother went missing for approximately six hours. Ms. Samonas phoned 911 and her mother was found in their backyard.

42By January 4, 2024, Ms. Samonas was aware of her mother’s frailties and had called 911 when her mother went missing. She had accessed medical assistance for her mother in the past but did not do so at the critical time:

a. On January 4, 2024, Ms. Atanasovski fell to the floor and could not get up on her own. She was particularly vulnerable at 96 years of age. Even this small risk of harm in leaving her mother on the floor constituted a danger requiring Ms. Samonas to act.

b. While Ms. Samonas says that she propped her mother up, giving her food and fluids, she did not move her mother or roll her over to properly clean her. Had she done so, she would have noticed the significant injuries to her back, particularly the pressure ulcer. Failure to move her to properly clean her exposed Ms. Atanasovski to risk of harm that will be discussed further below.

c. While it is impossible to say, with certainty, when Ms. Atanasovski developed the open pressure ulcer on her back, it is obvious that it was before Ms. Samonas called 911 because the wound was observed almost immediately after EMS arrived at 12:16 p.m. on January 6, 2024. They likely smelled the injuries before they saw them as they described a strong odour in the living room. By ignoring these signs, Ms. Samonas exposed her mother to risk.

d. It is obvious, from the evidence, that Ms. Samonas did not adequately clean her mother after she voided waste where she lay. This led to Ms. Atanasovski lying in urine and feces, which, again, exposed her mother to a risk of harm.

e. Ms. Samonas realized that her mother should get up from the floor and called her brother. He told her to call 911, but she did not. She then asked for assistance from Armando. He, too, told Ms. Samonas to call 911, but she did not. Lastly, she asked Mr. Bendoff for help. Like the two others, he told Ms. Samonas to call 911, but she did not. By failing to do so, she exposed her mother to danger, harm, and risk.

f. As I will explain further below, the cause of death arose from Ms. Atanasovski’s immobility.

43I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas failed to provide her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, with the necessaries of life and so endangered her mother’s life. The fact that Ms. Samonas did not phone 911 when her aging and frail mother fell and became immobile, then failed to provide her mother with basic care for the next three days, was a failure to provide the necessaries of life, thus endangering her mother’s life.

iii. Did the conduct of Ms. Samonas represent a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in all the circumstances?

44The next essential element is as follows: Did the conduct of Ms. Samonas represent a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in all the circumstances? The answer is “yes”.

Legal Framework

45To determine whether Ms. Samonas’ conduct was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person, the Crown counsel must prove:

i. A reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused would have foreseen that their conduct would lead to a risk of danger to life, or a risk of permanent endangerment to the health of the person under their charge; and

ii. The accused’s conduct represented a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.¹⁶

46This consideration is based on an objective assessment, considering all the circumstances. It includes consideration of the objective signs that would have been apparent to a reasonable person in the circumstances and what steps they would have taken in response.¹⁷

Analysis

47Ms. Samonas testified that she did not call 911 because her mother told her that she did not want to go to the hospital and that until January 6, 2024, she did not believe her mother was at risk. In hindsight, she wishes that she had done so. She is right.

48The evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Samonas’ conduct (i.e., her inaction) was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person. An examination of the evidence leads to that conclusion:

i. Ms. Atanasovski, a 96-year-old woman with a medical history of dementia and a heart condition, fell to the hardwood floor in front of a couch. She was unable to get up on her own or with the assistance of Ms. Samonas.

ii. This fall was different than others. She had previously fallen and broken her hip and help was provided. The day before, she had fallen as well (on January 3, 2024). On that occasion, she got up. On this occasion, she did not, which would have suggested to a reasonable person that help was needed.

iii. Ms. Samonas, herself, told Det. Gibson and P.C. Ferguson that she was worried and upset that her mother was on the floor. She was so worried that she could not sleep but failed to call 911.

iv. The state of the home created issues. Ms. Samonas testified that she was unable to put a diaper on her mother because her legs were underneath the coffee table. There is no suggestion that Ms. Samonas attempted to move either the coffee table or her mother to allow her to do so. Rather, she left her mother on the hardwood floor, allowing feces and urine to accumulate underneath her.

v. It is obvious that Ms. Samonas believed it was a bad idea to leave her mother on the floor, which contradicts her testimony that she believed that her mother was “fine” after having fallen to the floor. She called her brother. Although he did not see his mother, he gave Ms. Samonas reasonable advice in the circumstances: call 911. As such, even had she not thought of the idea herself, she was advised to call 911 for help but she did not do so.

vi. Armando (a neighbour) and Mr. Bendoff (a family friend) were asked to come into the house and assist Ms. Samonas in getting her mother off the floor on January 4 and 5, 2024 respectively. Again, this is inconsistent with Ms. Samonas’ evidence at trial, that she believed that her mother was fine. Both men were in the house. They saw the state of Ms. Atanasovski. Both came to the same conclusion. Both advised Ms. Samonas to call 911, but she did not do so.

vii. Ms. Samonas explained that she did not wish to call 911 because her mother did not want to take an ambulance and feared she would die at the hospital. Neither is a reason to have failed to call 911, especially for her mother, who lived with dementia.

viii. When EMS attended, they immediately concluded that medical help was urgent:

a. Paramedic Timothy Driver testified he saw Ms. Atanasovski and noted a strong smell of ammonia. She was naked, covered by a blanket. She was lying in her own urine and feces. He determined that Ms. Atanasovski was “incredibly sick”. She was cold to the touch. Her breathing was laboured. She could not speak. When he rolled her over, he noticed “profound tissue breakdown” on her back.

b. Paramedic Afifa Khan testified that in addition to seeing urine and feces on Ms. Atanasovski, she could smell it. She also observed that Ms. Atanasovski’s left knee and lower extremities were swollen. She described the wound on Ms. Atanasovski’s back as “large” with the sacral and coccyx bones exposed. She, too, recognized the gravity of the situation.

ix. Fire Captain Mark Thornhill testified that Ms. Atanasovski appeared unconscious to him. He also observed feces and urine on her body.

x. P.C. Nicholas Lundell, who took ante-mortem photos of Ms. Atanasovski at the hospital, described the smell of dead skin on Ms. Atanasovski. He recognized such a smell from attending crime scenes.

xi. Dr. Vairavanathan testified about the condition of Ms. Atanasovski when she arrived at the hospital:

a. She observed that Ms. Atanasovski appeared “quite unwell” and “severely ill”. She described her as “not overly responsive, quite frail”. She could not “voice any sounds or words”. She looked “malnourished”, “quite dehydrated”.

b. When she walked into the room where Ms. Atanasovski was located, she smelled a “strong foul odour”. While smells of urine and feces are not uncommon in the emergency department, she noticed a “distinct smell” of “tissue necrosis” (i.e., skin dying) that made her “really concerned about the wellness” of Ms. Atanasovski.

c. When she rolled Ms. Atanasovski over, she noticed skin peeling from her upper and lower back. There were areas that were “deeper”, which she described as “craters or ulcers” from which the bad smell was emanating.

d. The left arm of Ms. Atanasovski was “swollen and cold”.

e. Ms. Atanasovski’s bladder was almost the size of that in a woman who was five months’ pregnant. She could not empty her bladder from trauma or a medical condition.

f. There was peeling and blistering of the vaginal or labial skin. A thick discharge and foul odour were also emanating from there.

49The signs of medical deterioration following the fall were obvious to Ms. Samonas’ brother, a neighbour, and a family friend who do not appear to have had medical training. Medical deterioration was also obvious to the first responders, police witnesses, and medical staff. It was obvious as to what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances: call 911. Every hour that Ms. Samonas left her mother on the floor was a further departure from what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances. One did not need medical training to come to such a conclusion.

50Based on the entirety of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the circumstances of Ms. Samonas would have foreseen that her conduct would lead to a risk of danger to life, or a risk of permanent endangerment to the health of her mother under her charge. I am also satisfied that Ms. Samonas’ inaction (i.e. her failure to obtain medical treatment earlier) was a marked departure from what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the same situation.

Conclusion re: Failure to Provide the Necessaries of Life

51Based on the evidence considered as a whole, I am satisfied that Crown counsel has proven the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. Ms. Samonas owed her mother a duty of care.

b. Ms. Samonas failed to provide her mother with the necessaries of life that endangered her life following her mother’s fall to the floor.

c. Ms. Samonas’ conduct represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.

52For these reasons, Ms. Samonas is found guilty of failing to provide Ms. Atanasovski with the necessaries of life committed contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code.

Count 2: Criminal Negligence Cause Death

The Charge

53The indictment provides as follows:

Eva Samonas stands further charged that she on or between the 4th day of January 2024 and the 6th day of January 2024 did by criminal negligence to wit fail to provide the necessaries of life thereby causing the death of Vasiliki Atanasovski contrary to s. 220 of the Criminal Code.

The Legal Framework

54The offence of criminal negligence cause death is set out in s. 220 of the Criminal Code. However, criminal negligence is defined as follows in s. 219 of the Criminal Code:

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

55Pursuant to s. 220 of the Criminal Code, every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. A person found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for life.

56The actus reus of the offence was defined in R. v. Javanmardi, at para. 19, as follows: “The actus reus of criminal negligence causing death requires that the accused undertook an act – or omitted to do anything that it was his or her legal duty to do – and that the act or omission caused someone’s death.”¹⁸

57The mens rea of the offence requires that Crown counsel establish “that the accused’s conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the accused’s circumstances (the fault element)”.¹⁹

58The applicable test for criminal negligence was described by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. A.D.H., at para. 61, as follows:

[P]roof of intention or actual foresight of a prohibited consequence is not required. Rather, criminal negligence requires a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in circumstances in which the accused either recognized and ran an obvious and serious risk or, alternatively, gave no thought to that risk: R. v. J.F., 2008 SCC 60, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 215, at paras. 7-11.²⁰

59Based on the applicable law, Crown counsel must prove the following essential elements of criminal negligence causing death beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. Ms. Samonas had a legal duty to her mother, and she failed to perform that duty.

b. Ms. Samonas showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother.

c. Ms. Samonas’ conduct caused her mother’s death.

Analysis

a. Did Ms. Samonas have a legal duty to her mother, and did she fail to perform that duty?

60This essential element requires consideration of the following question: Did Ms. Samonas have a legal duty to her mother, and did she fail to perform that duty? The answer is “yes”.

61For the reasons I have set out above, I have concluded that Ms. Samonas had a legal duty to her mother. She was her mother’s primary caregiver. When her mother fell to the floor on January 4, 2024, and could not get up, she had a legal duty to get her mother medical care. She failed to perform that duty.

62I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas had a legal duty to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, and that she failed to perform it.

b. Did Ms. Samonas show a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother, Ms. Atanasovski?

63The next question that requires consideration is this: Did Ms. Samonas show a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother, Ms. Atanasovski? Again, the answer is “yes”.

64To prove that Ms. Samonas showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother, Crown counsel does not have to establish that Ms. Samonas meant to kill or seriously harm her mother, Ms. Atanasovski. Rather Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct:

i. Showed a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and

ii. A reasonable person in these circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a serious risk to the life or safety of Ms. Atanasovski.²¹

Ms. Samonas’ conduct is measured against the standard of what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen in the circumstances.

65For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother. A reasonable person in these circumstances would recognize that leaving Ms. Atanasovski on the floor for three days without medical support and basic care is not acceptable. A reasonable, prudent person would anticipate the risk to Ms. Atanasovski’s life by neglecting to provide care and by delaying in obtaining medical attention. Such a person would understand the necessity of calling for medical attention (i.e., 911) to care for Ms. Atanasovski.²² The reason for her failure to call 911 (i.e., that her mother did not want to go to the hospital because she feared dying there) is not an acceptable excuse.²³

66Merely providing her mother — a 96-year-old woman who had fallen, and who had a medical history as described above — with fluids and small bites to eat; propping her up against the couch while failing to properly clean her after voiding; rejecting the advice of three other people to call 911; and not doing so until she noticed her mother’s right arm was cold, her knee was swollen and she was mumbling “falls unacceptably short of the standard of care expected of individuals” in the position of Ms. Samonas. ²⁴ Ms. Samonas did not fulfill the minimum requirements established for a daughter in her role as primary caregiver for her mother.

67Ms. Samonas demonstrated a reckless disregard to the life of her mother when a simple call to 911 would have sufficed. It was such a logical and simple thing to do. By failing to do so, Ms. Samonas ran a serious risk to her mother’s life. As I will discuss further below, her decision to expose her mother to such a risk led to her mother’s death.²⁵

68I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas failed to provide the necessaries of life for her mother, which she had a legal duty to do. Her conduct was a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances. Further, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in these circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct (i.e. failing to call 911) posed a serious risk to the life or safety of Ms. Atanasovski.

c. Did Ms. Samonas’ conduct cause Ms. Atanasovski’s death?

69To prove that Ms. Samonas caused her mother’s death, Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct contributed significantly to Ms. Atanasovski’s death.

70A person’s conduct may contribute significantly to another person’s death even though that conduct is not the sole or main cause of death. The court is required to consider all the evidence concerning Ms. Atanasovski’s death in determining whether Crown counsel has proved that Ms. Samonas’ conduct contributed significantly to Ms. Atanasovski’s death.

71I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct contributed significantly to Ms. Atanasovski’s death. The forensic pathologist described the cause of death as follows: “complications of prolonged immobility in a woman with pulmonary thromboembolism and atherosclerotic heart disease”.²⁶ [Emphasis added]

72Dr. Williams is a forensic pathologist. He was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on cause of death as well as mechanisms and impact of injuries on cause of death. He testified and explained the cause of death at trial. While there were several injuries observed during the autopsy, the following are the most relevant to the conclusion regarding Ms. Atanasovski’s cause of death:

a. Present on the sacral area of Ms. Atanasovski was a stage four pressure ulcer above her buttocks. Dr. Williams testified that if a person was to lay on their back on a hard surface for a period, the pressure of their body on the bone compresses the skin, fat, and muscle, causing an insufficient blood supply to that area and creating a pressure ulcer. Such pressure ulcers can start “relatively quickly” if the person is not moving around. He testified that the stage four pressure ulcer would be visible because it was black in colour and it was deep, extending down to the bone of the sacrum. Such a pressure ulcer could have occurred within a day or two because of prolonged immobility.

b. Dementia presents a risk factor for pressure ulcers to develop. That is because those living with dementia may not move around as frequently. Further, advanced age is a factor because the skin and soft tissues may be “more fragile and more prone to injury”.

c. Also present on the back of Ms. Atanasovski, in the torso area, was “dermal/skin breakdown”. The top layer of the skin had “peeled off”, which is common when “the skin gets inflamed from a moisture dermatitis”. Such damage can be caused by “a relatively short exposure” to urine and/or feces.

d. There were pressure injuries on Ms. Atanasovski’s elbows. The injury on the left was defined as a “stage three” pressure injury, with the one on the right being less impressive and defined as “stage 2-3”. There was no bone exposure on either elbow but there was necrotic tissue (i.e., it was black and dead).

e. The injuries to the left elbow and the sacrum would have been visible to the naked eye because of the black discolouration.

f. There is evidence that Ms. Atanasovski’s kidneys were not functioning well at the time of her death. It was concluded that there was evidence of rhabdomyolysis which is a breakdown of skeletal muscle that releases proteins into the bloodstream that can be toxic to the kidneys. Rhabdomyolysis is associated with prolonged immobility. This was not unexpected because of Ms. Atanasovski’s prolonged immobility together with the pressure ulcer in the sacral area that involved skeletal muscle that was dead and likely the cause of rhabdomyolysis causing toxicity to her kidneys.

g. The blood supply to Ms. Atanasovski’s heart was “not normal and could have contributed to death by not being able to pump or supply the heart with sufficient oxygen and nutrients because of the narrowing of the vessels”.

h. A blood clot had previously traveled to the lungs and was present for a period of time. Then, there was a second blood clot in the lower leg of Ms. Atanasovski (the pulmonary thromboembolism). It travelled from her leg into the pulmonary artery on the left side of her lungs and lodged on top of the previous clot. This decreased the ability of the heart to supply blood to the lungs to be reoxygenated and recirculated to the body. This “creates additional strain on the total physiology of the body and would increase risk of death”. Dr. Williams was unable to say when the blood clot formed but did testify that it could cause dizziness and shortness of breath. However, Dr. Williams did testify that a blood clot could progress with “further immobility”, although he cannot say that the immobility caused the blood clots.

i. Blood culture samples from the sacral pressure ulcer, the left femoral head area, and the labia of the genitalia all showed bacterial growth. Several bacteria typically found in urine or feces were growing in the blood itself. This supports that “sepsis” (an infection of the blood) occurred, and that such infection involved the pressure ulcers.

73After testifying about these observations, Dr. Williams concluded the following about the cause of death of Ms. Atanasovski:

[T]he cause of this woman’s death was complications of prolonged immobility which would have led to the pressure injuries in addition to some other findings, but the pressure injuries is a big portion on the background of a woman who had a pulmonary thromboembolism and background heart disease … So she’s medically fragile to begin with and on top of that she has suffered pressure injury to her back which has led to infection and additionally strained her physiology and put her at a greater risk of death.

[T]here are a constellation of factors conspiring against her normal physiology at the end of her life. The pressure ulcers are significant as they’re injuries to the body themselves, and they’re a source for systemic blood infection in the context of these other findings including the heart disease and the pulmonary thromboembolism … I would tie the rhabdomyolysis in with the pressure injuries … it is all related to the pressure.

The prolonged immobility would be the cause of the pressure injuries and the associated rhabdomyolysis which then led to a blood born infection. All of these things were significant contributors in the totality of things that landed her in hospital and ultimately caused her death. [Emphasis added]

74Dr. Williams testified that “various things are conspiring against continued life”: a bad heart; pulmonary thromboembolism; stress by the presence of the pressure ulcer and skin breakdown; and bacterial infection in the blood. While he cannot say what happened when her heart stopped, all of those things were present. Dr. Williams agreed, “ [Ms. Atanasovski’s death] all goes back to the pressure wounds” and her prolonged immobility.

75I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct — her failure to provide medical care and leaving her mother immobile — were significant contributing causes to her mother’s death.

Conclusion re: Criminal Negligence Causing Death

76Based on the evidence considered as a whole, I am satisfied that Crown counsel has proven the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. Ms. Samonas had a legal duty to her mother, and she failed to perform that duty.

b. Ms. Samonas showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of her mother.

c. Ms. Samonas’ conduct caused her mother’s death.

77For these reasons, Ms. Samonas is found guilty of criminal negligence causing death committed contrary to s. 220 of the Criminal Code.

Count 3: Unlawful Act Manslaughter

The Charge

78Ms. Samonas is charged as follows:

Eva Samonas stands further charged that she on or between the 4th day of January 2024 and the 6th day of January 2024 did unlawfully kill Vasiliki Atanasovski by failing to provide the necessaries of life contrary to s. 222(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Legal Framework

79The relevant portions of section 222 of the Criminal Code provide as follows:

222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;

(b) by criminal negligence;

80Unlawful act manslaughter does not require a specific intention to kill. Crown counsel must prove the following essential elements of unlawful act manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. That Ms. Samonas committed an unlawful act;

b. That Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act was dangerous in the circumstances; and

c. That Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act caused Ms. Atanasovski’s death.

a. Did Ms. Samonas commit an unlawful act?

81While it is not always a crime to cause another’s death, it is a crime to cause the death of another by an unlawful act. Manslaughter can be committed by a failure to do something so long as there is a legal duty of care.²⁷ The unlawful act alleged to have been committed in this case, is that Ms. Samonas failed to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

82For the reasons set out above, I have found that Ms. Samonas did commit the offence of failing to provide the necessries of life to her mother, Ms. Atanasovski, beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas committed an unlawful act.

b. Was Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act dangerous in the circumstances?

83The question for consideration regarding the essential element of whether the unlawful act was dangerous in the circumstances raises this question: whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have realized that he or she was exposing someone else to a risk of bodily harm. “Bodily harm” is any hurt or injury that interferes with a person’s health or comfort that is more than just brief or minor.

84In deciding what a reasonable person would have realized, the court must not take into account Ms. Samonas’ individual characteristics or experiences.²⁸ Further, Crown counsel need not prove that a reasonable person would realize the unlawful act would likely kill the other person.²⁹

85For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as Ms. Samonas would have realized that he or she was exposing Ms. Atanasovski to a risk of bodily harm. Ms. Samonas’ failure to obtain medical care for her 96-year-old mother over a period of three days after she fell, constitutes more than just a brief or minor oversight. As such, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act was dangerous in the circumstances.

c. Did Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act cause Ms. Atanasovski’s death?

86In dealing with this essential element, Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct caused Ms. Atanasovski’s death. This essential element addresses the issue of causation.

87In deciding whether Ms. Samonas caused Ms. Atanasovski’s death, Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas’ conduct contributed significantly to Ms. Atanasovski’s death.³⁰ A person’s conduct may contribute significantly to another person’s death even though that conduct is not the sole or main cause of death. In other words, Ms. Samonas’ actions need not be the only cause of death or even the direct cause of death.

88Crown counsel must prove factual and legal causation:

Factual causation considers how the victim died in a “medical, mechanical, or physical sense” and the accused person’s contribution to that death.

Legal causation considers whether the accused person is legally responsible for the death.³¹

89The factual cause of Ms. Atanasovski’s death was set out above referring to the evidence of Dr. Williams, the forensic pathologist. I rely on the totality of that evidence in concluding that the prolonged immobility caused the pressure ulcers that contributed significantly to Ms. Atanasovski’s death.

90The legal causation question considers whether Ms. Samonas’ inaction in obtaining medical help for her mother significantly contributed to her death.³² Crown counsel is only required to prove that the lack of treatment played more than a minor or trivial, or de minimis role in her mother’s death. Other medical concerns (i.e., Ms. Anatasovski’s pulmonary thromboembolism and artherosclerotic heart disease) do not inherently sever causation.³³ These additional contributing causes had no impact on legal causation and the fact that failure to obtain medical attention in the circumstances contributed to Ms. Atanosovksi’s death.

91I find that Ms. Samonas’ failure to provide the necessaries of life (and, in particular, her failure to seek medical treatment) played more than a minor, trivial, or de minimis role in her mother’s death. Her conduct (or lack thereof) significantly contributed to Ms. Atanasovski’s death.³⁴ The fact that Ms. Atanasovski also suffered pulmonary thromboembolism and artherosclerotic heart disease does not absolve Ms. Samonas of her responsibility to address the medical issues that were obvious from sight and/or smell.

92I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Samonas failed to provide necessary medical attention, a necessary of life. This conduct was unlawful. It significantly contributed to her mother’s death.

Conclusion re: Unlawful Act Manslaughter

93Based on the evidence considered as a whole, I am satisfied that Crown counsel has proven the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. That Ms. Samonas committed an unlawful act.

b. That Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act was dangerous in the circumstances.

c. That Ms. Samonas’ unlawful act caused Ms. Atanasovski’s death.

94For these reasons, Ms. Samonas is found guilty of the unlawful act of manslaughter committed contrary to s. 222(5) of the Criminal Code.

Conclusion

95For the abovementioned reasons, I find Ms. Samonas guilty of failing to provide her mother with the necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing her mother’s death, and unlawful act manslaughter.

Kelly J.

Footnotes

1. 1Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
2. 21991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
3. 31993 64 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 122.
4. 4R. v. Goforth, 2022 SCC 25, at para. 27.
5. 5R. v. Peterson, 2005 37972 (ON CA), 201 C.C.C. (3d) 220 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 34, leave to appeal refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 539.
6. 6Peterson, at para. 44.
7. 7Peterson, at para. 34.
8. 8Peterson, at para. 34.
9. 9R. v. Doering, 2022 ONCA 559, 162 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 37, leave to appeal refused, [2022] S.C.C.A. No. 338.
10. 10R. v. C.O. and N.P., 2020 ONSC 4076, 151 O.R. (3d) 436, at paras. 42 and 54, aff’d 2022 ONCA 103, 412 C.C.C. (3d) 184.
11. 112015 ONCA 97, 124 O.R. (3d) 595, at para. 66, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 146.
12. 12R. v. Thornton (1991), 1991 7212 (ON CA), 1 O.R. (3d) 480 (C.A.), at pp. 487-488, aff’d 1993 95 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 445.
13. 13R. v. Pertab, 2004 47791 (ON SC), 27 C.R. (6th) 126 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 38.
14. 14R. v. L.M., 2024 ONSC 6551, at paras. 41, 68.
15. 15Pertab, at para. 37.
16. 16Goforth, at paras. 28-30.
17. 17R. v. Briggs and McElroy, 2025 ABKB 574, at para.88.
18. 182019 SCC 54, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 3, at para. 19.
19. 19Javanmardi, at para. 23.
20. 202013 SCC 28, [2013] 2 SCR 269.
21. 21R. v. J.F., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 215, 2008 SCC 60, at paras. 7-11; R. v. Siwicki, 2019 MBCA 104, 382 C.C.C. (3d) 174, at paras. 52-54, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 503.
22. 22Biggs, at para. 121.
23. 23Peterson, at para. 43.
24. 24Biggs, at para. 122.
25. 25Biggs, at para. 123.
26. 26Dr. Robyn Ndikumana conducted the postmortem examination of Ms. Atanasoski and authored the report disclosed. She was not available to testify at trial. Dr. Williams testified that he reviewed the file regarding Ms. Atanasovski. Based on that review, he was prepared to adopt the contents of the postmortem report as written and to provide expert testimony pertaining to the case.
27. 27R. v. Alexander, 2011 ONSC 980 at paras. 2-3
28. 28Naglik, at p. 148, per McLachlin J. (concurring).
29. 29R. v. Creighton, 1993 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 43.
30. 30R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, at para. 71.
31. 31Nette, at paras. 44-45.
32. 32Alexander, at para. 8
33. 33Alexander, at para. 53
34. 34Alexander, at para. 58