BACKGROUND: (My transcription of a CBC News video. HL) Mark Kelly; The Fifth Estate: CBC'S flagship investigative journalism program. Two years ago): "That was Tammy Bouvette in 2012 charged with 2d degree murder after the child she was baby-sitting, 19-month-old Iyanna Teeple, drowned in a bathtub...The RCMP saw no foul play. But the case changed after the medical medical examiner Dr. Evan Matshes said he saw extensive bruising on the girl which he determined was typical of abused children. Bouvette pleaded guilty to criminal negligence and told the Fifth Estate that was to avoid a possible life sentence for murder. What her defence didn't know was a panel of experts had determined Dr. Matshe's conclusions about what had happened in this house were unreliable, and that was never disclosed to Bouvette's lawyers. That expert report has since been set aside by the courts and today's decision (BC Court of Appeal) makes clear that today's decision was not evaluating the work of Dr. Matshes. Still Bouvette's lawyers argued she would not have pleaded guilty if she had known about the undisclosed report. Now the BC Court of Appeal is calling her conviction a miscarriage of justice, the BC prosecution service admits mistakes were made and lessons were learned, but stops short of an apology… In 2020 the Fifth Estate unearthed that expert report supporting Bouvette's innocence but by then Bouvette was homeless, struggling with drug addiction, her four children taken from her custody."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/b-c-woman-s-conviction-for-killing-toddler-quashed-1.6808853
-------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: My congrats to The CBC's Fifth Estate for its stellar contribution to Tammy Bouvette's exoneration. I am hoping that the Supreme Court's decision bodes well for others in Canada who, like Tammy Bouvette, have had their futures darkened by the label 'judicial stay of proceedings' after suffering a miscarriage of justice, and who deserve the acquittal which will truly clear their names and pave the way for the compensation they deserve.
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "While the minority opinion may not carry the decision, James Lockyer believes it will hold substantial sway in upcoming cases. A partner at Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh, he represented Innocence Canada as an intervener in this case “The first thing is, it’s wonderful news for Tammy Bouvette, who, after all this time, finally gets her well-deserved acquittal… In terms of the systemic consequences of a decision, I think it’s a shame that the majority did not delve into generally when an appeal court should exercise its discretion and enter an acquittal on appeal in a wrongful conviction case. But it’s good to see that four of the judges in their minority judgment did that, and they did it in a way that I think is very important for the disposition of wrongful convictions in the future.” In particular, he believes that “they have presented a broad basis for the entering of an acquittal in wrongful conviction cases” based on the hallmarks mentioned above.
————————————————————————————————
SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Beyond not addressing the discretionary question, Lockyer is at odds with the majority due to its take on how an acquittal can help heal the pain from wrongful convictions. “It really does remove the stigma for them, and it’s how the wrongly convicted view it that matters most. And knowing many of them, I know how important it is that they walk away from the process that has done them so much harm with an acquittal. It’s fair to say that the four justices in the minority recognize that, and in their judgment, make it clear that we should be ready to acquit people who have been wrongly convicted more readily than we have to date, and we need fixed rules, or better-fixed rules about when acquittal should be entered.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court of Canada grants acquittal to Tammy Marion Bouvette in miscarriage of justice case, by Caroline Gruske, a talented scribe on Canada's legal system, and published by 'Canadian Lawyer' (a very fine national magazine which I helped to found many decades ago), on June 6, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "Majority did not address broader discretionary question about when courts of appeal should issue acquittals."
PHOTO CAPTION: "James Lockyer represented Innocence Canada as an intervener in the case."
GIST: "The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that Tammy Marion Bouvette deserves to be acquitted."
All nine members of the court agreed to this conclusion despite a five-to-four split regarding the legal reasoning behind the decision.
There was no dispute that Bouvette was a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Both the Crown and Bouvette’s legal team jointly held the position that she deserved to be acquitted – however, the British Columbia Court of Appeal didn’t do that when overturning her conviction for criminal negligence causing death in the case of a 19-month-old infant who drowned in the bath while Bouvette was babysitting.
Instead, the BC court issued a stay of proceedings after it was determined that the Crown withheld vital information in the case, including how medical peers found that the conclusions put forward by the coroner who performed the autopsy on the baby (Dr. Evan Matshes HL) were unreasonable.
By that point, Bouvette had already served her whole sentence.
The issue in the case focused on which of three remedies a court of appeal may grant after setting aside a conviction due to a miscarriage of justice: an acquittal, a new trial or a judicial stay.
Those remedies especially need to be considered in light of the court recognizing that “The difference between an acquittal and a judicial stay is said to lie in the residual stigma for the accused, because an acquittal represents a conclusion of not guilty that a judicial stay does not, although the difference in terms of stigma should not be exaggerated.”
Justice Kasirer wrote the majority’s reasons for the judgment, with Justices Wagner, Côté, Rowe and Jamal concurring.
Justice Martin penned the concurring reasons on behalf of Justices Karakatsanis, O’Bonsawin and Moreau.
For Justice Kasirer, the path leading to an acquittal was easy to find.
He wrote: “I acknowledge that, where applicable, these are three paths that could authorize an appellate court to enter an acquittal under [Criminal Code] s. 686(2). The first — an acquittal rooted in the lack of evidence to ground a reasonable conviction — is not available on the facts of this case. The second — an acquittal justified by the Crown’s undertaking to the appellate court not to call evidence at a new trial — is available and not controversial. The third path — the so-called ‘discretionary acquittal’ based on the interests of justice notwithstanding evidence justifying a new trial — presents a jurisprudentially more uncertain route. I am inclined to the view that this is not an appropriate appeal in which to consider the framework for discretionary acquittals or to set aside Truscott as the parties urge us to do. That case concerned circumstances, ‘outside of the norm’ (para. 259), that are markedly different from those of Ms. Bouvette.”
Justice Martin felt that discretionary cases, including this one, need the court's attention, especially since lawyers explicitly asked for guidance on this point
“Both parties and all interveners — the AGO, Innocence Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Independent Criminal Defence Advocacy Society — implored the Court to bring some clarity and coherence to this underexamined but fundamentally important area of the law. They seek a clear framework for appeal courts to apply when confronted with the appropriate remedy for a miscarriage of justice. They have presented argument, in their written and oral submissions, about the considerations which should inform the exercise of this discretion and argue about their relative merits and disadvantages.”
She continued, arguing that “There are many reasons why this Court is obliged to provide the very guidance that all the parties and interveners have requested. This Court has a ‘responsibility . . . to provide clear and authoritative statements of law and guidance to lower courts’
It is designed and operates to serve “the community’s interest in obtaining an authoritative settlement of questions of law of importance to the whole nation”
Justice Martin also addressed that cases needing legal remedies from the courts often display “hallmarks of wrongful conviction” — factors that “may come before a court of appeal in different ways, and often after a significant passage of time.” She said these can include:
- 1. state non-disclosure of material information;
- 2. unreliable scientific or expert evidence;
- 3. eyewitness and cross-racial misidentification;
- 4. improper police investigations;
- 5. Crown and police tunnel vision;
- 6. false confessions;
- 7. false guilty pleas; and
- 8. systemic discrimination.
According to Justice Martin, Bouvette’s “case features many of these procedural and substantive hallmarks,” and those hallmarks “associated with wrongful convictions weighs heavily in favour of an acquittal.”
While the minority opinion may not carry the decision, James Lockyer believes it will hold substantial sway in upcoming cases. A partner at Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh, he represented Innocence Canada as an intervener in this case
“The first thing is, it’s wonderful news for Tammy Bouvette, who, after all this time, finally gets her well-deserved acquittal… In terms of the systemic consequences of a decision, I think it’s a shame that the majority did not delve into generally when an appeal court should exercise its discretion and enter an acquittal on appeal in a wrongful conviction case. But it’s good to see that four of the judges in their minority judgment did that, and they did it in a way that I think is very important for the disposition of wrongful convictions in the future.”
In particular, he believes that “they have presented a broad basis for the entering of an acquittal in wrongful conviction cases” based on the hallmarks mentioned above.
Beyond not addressing the discretionary question, Lockyer is at odds with the majority due to its take on how an acquittal can help heal the pain from wrongful convictions.
“It really does remove the stigma for them, and it’s how the wrongly convicted view it that matters most. And knowing many of them, I know how important it is that they walk away from the process that has done them so much harm with an acquittal. It’s fair to say that the four justices in the minority recognize that, and in their judgment, make it clear that we should be ready to acquit people who have been wrongly convicted more readily than we have to date, and we need fixed rules, or better-fixed rules about when acquittal should be entered.”
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
————————————————————————————————-----
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
