What the defence has argued so far

Closing arguments start in case of Ontario boy allegedly killed by couple trying to adopt him

Closing arguments are underway in the case of two would-be adoptive parents facing first-degree murder and other charges. The case in Milton, Ont., has raised questions about why the boy and his brother remained in their care despite numerous red flags raised by professionals. The case has advocates calling for urgent changes to the child welfare system.

Defence lawyers Kim Edward and Monte MacGregor argued Monday that Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney didn’t seek to harm the brothers.

Justice Clayton Conlan noted that L.L. was malnourished, which has been linked to L.L.’s death, but MacGregor said the women had no “calculated scheme.” MacGregor and Edward said that essentially, the couple’s actions showed intent to keep L.L. and J.L. safe. 

Both lawyers suggested L.L. likely had an electrolyte imbalance caused by refeeding syndrome, but there’s no way the couple would have known he was at risk for that. When the 12-year-old died on Dec. 21, 2022, he was about the weight he was when he was half his age.

Edward said Hamber and Cooney only ever restrained the brothers using zip ties to keep them from harming themselves, and that if Conlan finds they broke the law in doing so, she would raise a defence of necessity.

MacGregor focused much of his arguments on what he described as inaction and a lack of urgency by L.L.’s primary caregivers. In testimony, he said, the child’s physician and psychiatrist showed they did not understand the urgency of L.L.’s condition. 

If those medical professionals didn’t know he was at risk, he argued, how can anyone say Hamber and Cooney should have known he needed to go to a hospital? 

Court heard that while vulgar text messages Cooney and Hamber exchanged about the brothers were “disgusting,” they don’t prove an intent to kill. 

MacGregor pointed to an August 2022 email sent from Hamber to the Children’s Aid Society about five months before L.L.’s death. He called that email one of the most “critical” pieces of evidence in this case. It said the boy had developed rumination and that, pending results from medical appointments, she and Cooney would push to get him into an eating disorders clinic.