We have previously written in this blog about the criminal case involving the Alberta couple, David and Collet Stephan, who were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 19-month-old son Ezekiel, who died in 2012. At their second trial, a judge last week found the couple not guilty.
The Stephans testified that they believed their son was suffering from an upper airway infection (i.e. croup). They treated him at home with natural remedies, which included a smoothie made of garlic, onion and horseradish. They also used cool air and a humidifier to help with his breathing. Ezekiel’s condition seemed to get better one day, then worse the next day, then better again.
On March 12, 2012, Ezekiel’s body remained stiff and he was unable to drink on his own. Terry Meynders, a registered nurse, attended at the Stephans’ home and suggested to the couple that Ezekiel may have viral meningitis and that he should be taken to a doctor.
On March 13, 2012, after Ezekiel stopped breathing a few times, the Stephans called for an ambulance. The breathing equipment available in the ambulance was too large for a small child and he went without oxygen for nine minutes. Ezekiel attended two area hospitals and was then transported to Alberta Children’s Hospital Calgary, where he was put on life support and died a few days later.
HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
At their original trial in 2017, a jury convicted the Stephans of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son contrary to section 215(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. David Stephan was sentenced to four months in jail and his wife was sentenced to three months of house arrest.
This trial decision was upheld on appeal and the ruling was further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The highest court in Canada quashed the Stephans’ convictions and ordered a new trial (please see our blog regarding this decision).
A new trial began on June 3, 2019 before Justice Terry Clackson of the Court of Queen’s Bench, without a jury, lasting over three months.
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE STEPHANS’ SECOND TRIAL?
Although it was established that Ezekiel had meningitis, the following issues were in dispute at trial:
- Whether Ezekiel had bacterial or viral meningitis;
- Whether Ezekiel’s death was the result of meningitis or hypoxic injury (damage to cells resulting from decreased oxygen tension);
- Whether the Stephans knew Ezekiel had meningitis;
- Whether the Stephans, knowing that Ezekiel had meningitis, ought to have sought medical intervention.
Based upon the evidence before the court, Justice Clackson came to the following conclusions:
- Ezekiel had viral meningitis;
- Ezekiel did not die from meningitis, but from the lack of oxygen;
- The Stephans did not know Ezekiel had meningitis, but were aware of the possibility and were monitoring his symptoms.
Given these findings, Justice Clackson found that the Stephans were not guilty of the charge against them.
According to Justice Clackson, section 215 of the Criminal Code does not impose a duty on parents or guardians to seek medical attention for every sick child. A duty is imposed when there is a risk to the child. Justice Clackson found that, based on the evidence before him, the viral meningitis that Ezekiel suffered from did not constitute a risk to his life.
Justice Clackson ruled that there was no physical evidence that Ezekiel died of meningitis, thus the Crown had failed to prove its case. The evidence before the court informed that there is no specific means to effectively treat viral meningitis. Therefore, the Crown did not prove that medical attention could have or would have saved Ezekiel’s life. Clackson stated:
I have concluded that the Stephans knew what meningitis was, knew that bacterial meningitis could be very serious, knew what symptoms to look for … They thought their son had some sort of croup or flu-like viral infection. … The physical evidence supports … [the] conclusion that Ezekiel died because he was deprived of oxygen. That occurred because he stopped breathing and the resulting oxygen deprivation lasted long enough to lead to his death.
In response to the verdict, the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service issued the following statement:
We respect the decision of the court. This has been a challenging case for everyone involved. The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service will review the decision to determine the next steps. As such, no further comment will be provided.
We will continue to follow the developments in this case and will provide updates on this blog when they become available.
In the meantime, if you are facing criminal charges or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.