Twenty years ago, in a child-abuse case that made headlines for the shocking
nature of the crime, a crack-addicted Toronto mother was convicted of repeatedly
feeding her young son cocaine, based on drug-testing evidence from two Motherisk
In his reasons for judgment, the judge cited test results of the 4-year-old’s
hair, which purported to show “sustained use over a three-month period.”
In many respects, Joyce fit this profile: she was a single mother and an
admitted crack addict, who relied on public assistance. But this was not a
child-protection case. She was on trial for a serious crime.
Joyce served nine months in jail before she was released on probation. After
decades of being maligned and disbelieved, she assumed she would have to
carry the weight of her conviction for the rest of her life.
That changed last month, after her case was unearthed by the Star as part of
investigation into the drug-testing scandal at the Hospital for Sick
Children’s former Motherisk lab. Despite efforts by Ontario’s attorney
general to identify and review criminal cases involving Motherisk’s hair
tests, which were discredited
in 2015, Joyce’s conviction was missed.
The oversight raises questions about the comprehensiveness of the
government’s internal review, and whether other convictions based on
Motherisk testimony have gone unnoticed.
Nearly four years after serious concerns about the reliability of the
once-trusted hair tests emerged, her story shows how difficult it is to
trace or measure the lasting damage caused by Motherisk’s flawed
Joyce is now fighting to clear her name with the help of veteran
wrongful-conviction lawyer James Lockyer, whose defence
of another Toronto mother convicted of similar charges first raised
doubts about Motherisk’s hair tests in late 2014.
“I will do all I can to quash her conviction for a crime that now I have
every reason to believe she didn’t commit,” Lockyer said.
A spokesperson for the attorney general has confirmed that a review of
Joyce’s case is underway.
In an interview, Joyce said, “When I was going to court, I knew I didn’t
do it, but nobody believed me. Nobody listened to me. It’s about time
James Lockyer is working with Joyce to try to have her conviction reviewed. (LUCAS
Court records depict Joyce as a troubled young mother, struggling to manage
the hyperactive, aggressive behaviour of her son when she was charged in the
summer of 1996.
The 28-year-old had battled crack addiction since her late teens, following
a traumatic childhood in Toronto, marked by physical abuse and neglect, and
the “complete rejection” of Joyce by her mother, a pre-sentencing report
But Joyce was a loving and caring mother, according to the boy’s father,
David, who maintained an on-and-off relationship with Joyce, provided
financial support and visited her downtown apartment regularly.
During Joyce’s preliminary inquiry, David testified that she was “always
attentive” to her son, even when she was using.
“She was good with him,” David told the court. “Lots of times she’d be
reading him books, calming him down.”
Child welfare workers had visited Joyce’s apartment on two occasions, after
receiving complaints, but both times they determined the concerns were
“They came to my house and found that I was a good mother,” she said in an
interview. “I had food in my fridge. My house was clean.”
By the time her son was 3, Joyce was having trouble controlling him. She
also worried about his speech and communication skills, which appeared to be
She sought treatment at various hospitals with little success. After seeing
a TV program about Ritalin, used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder, she took matters into her own hands. She bought Ritalin from a
friend, and started giving it to her son. She believed the pills were
In April 1996, while in the care of a babysitter, the boy somehow got into
the Ritalin bottle and took two or three pills. Worried that he had
overdosed, the babysitter took the child to Toronto Western Hospital. The
doctor determined he was not displaying overdose symptoms, but after
speaking with Joyce, who expressed concerned about the boy’s behaviour and
development, referred him to a clinic at Sick Kids.
There, Joyce admitted to buying Ritalin from a friend. Pediatrician Dr.
Patricia Parkin expressed concern that the high dose Joyce had been giving
the boy could be dangerous in young children, who were not typically
prescribed the drug until age 6.
Parkin prescribed a much lower dose with an eye toward weaning him off the
medication, and attempted to set up a community support plan to help with
parenting skills. Joyce agreed to bring in her son for regular checkups,
including urine screening, and to stick to the new prescription. (Parkin
declined to comment for this story, citing doctor-patient confidentiality.)
At a follow-up appointment, on June 5, 1996, the boy’s urine tested positive
for cocaine. The positive urine screen was a red flag, an indication that
the child was exposed to cocaine in the past few days.
The hospital notified children’s aid. The boy was apprehended, and a sample
of his hair was collected for another type of drug testing at Sick Kids that
held the promise of tracing the boy’s long-term history of cocaine exposure,
including the amount in his system and how it got there.
There is some uncertainty about how the hair-testing was performed in
Joyce’s case. The available court records contain few details about the
procedures the lab used, and the Motherisk experts who testified —
former lab manager Julia Klein and former lab director Dr. Gideon Koren
— declined to provide this information to the Star.
In a recent email, Klein said, “I do not remember testifying 20 years
ago in the … case and I cannot answer your questions about the case.”
Koren, who founded Motherisk in 1985, did not respond to a request
Sick Kids also declined to respond to questions, citing ongoing
litigation, except to say that hospital CEO Dr. Michael Apkon and Dr.
Denis Daneman, who retired last year as pediatrician in chief, “were not
aware of (Joyce’s) case.”
There is good reason to doubt the reliability of any hair-testing
evidence the lab produced before it was closed in 2015.
As a Star/CBC investigation revealed last year, a Colorado
court threw out Motherisk’s evidence in a pretrial hearing in a
murder case in 1993. In that case, in which Klein testified, the lab was
criticized by the prosecutor, judge and two scientists for: failing to
verify preliminary results with a confirmation test; not following
standard procedures; operating as a forensic lab without proper
accreditation; and not meeting the high bar for evidence presented in
These same concerns were identified 22 years later in a
government-commissioned review of Motherisk’s hair tests from 2005 to
2015. Retired Ontario judge Susan Lang concluded the testing was
“inadequate and unreliable” for use in criminal and child protection
cases. She said it had “serious implications for the fairness of those
proceedings,” and recommended a review of those cases.
Last summer, an Ontario government committee completed a review of six
criminal convictions involving Motherisk’s hair tests, including the
case of Tamara Broomfield, who was convicted in 2009 of feeding her son
cocaine. Broomfield’s successful appeal of the drug-related charges blew
the lid off the Motherisk scandal. (Koren provided the hair-testing
evidence at her trial.)
Aside from the Broomfield case, the attorney general has said there were
serious concerns about only one other conviction, but has refused to
identify the cases reviewed, although criminal charges are on the public
record. Earlier this year, the ministry declined the Star’s request
through freedom-of-information legislation for a copy of a report on the
committee’s review. The Star is appealing.
A spokesperson for the attorney general confirmed that Joyce’s case was
“not referred to the (committee) during its initial review,” and that it
will now be examined.
In general, he said the ministry’s search for affected criminal cases
included canvassing Crown law offices and obtaining information from the
Motherisk lab. He declined further comment.
But there is at least one source of historical information the
government apparently failed to consider: newspapers.
The Star stumbled across Joyce’s case by chance, while combing through
the paper’s archives for stories about Motherisk’s experts.
“Boy’s hair samples loaded with cocaine,” read the headline from Joyce’s
June 1998 trial.
It was one of several stories published in the Star on the case, which
was also covered by the Toronto Sun, Canadian Press and Globe and Mail.
The articles don’t contain the word Motherisk, but the Sick Kids experts
who testified about hair testing they performed in the case are
identified as Julia Klein and Gideon Koren.
The court records make clear that the hair-testing evidence played a
pivotal role in Joyce’s conviction.
According to the transcript, Klein testified that after washing the hair
sample repeatedly to eliminate “external” contamination, she detected
levels that would typically be found in “adult chronic users of
cocaine,” which she defined as someone who uses three times a week for
at least three months.
There were also high levels of cocaine metabolite, which is produced
when the drug is broken down by the body, suggesting the cocaine had
been consumed, she said.
Koren testified that out of hundreds of samples the lab had tested in
recent years, the levels of cocaine found in Joyce’s son’s hair were “in
the highest range ... we have encountered.
“(It) is much more likely that cocaine was incorporated in the hair
through the bloodstream that nourished the hair and much less likely
from the environment,” Koren said. (The hair testing did not measure the
Ritalin in the boy’s system.)
Joyce told the court that she smoked crack only after her son was in
bed, opening the apartment windows and tucking a towel under his door.
She testified that the boy may have been exposed through second-hand
smoke or accidentally eating “a crumb off the floor,” the Star reported
at the time.
“I just said, ‘I never did that. I never gave it to him,’ ” she recalls.
“They kept saying I force-fed my son cocaine. They kept saying it and
kept saying it, and I just told them I wasn’t going to talk to them
Nobody believed her “because I was a drug addict,” she said. “Drug
addicts are liars and thieves, that’s what everybody thinks.”
Joyce was acquitted of the charges related to Ritalin. Justice Hamilton
found Joyce had always been up-front with doctors about giving the
medication to her son and “at all times was seeking help.” He also found
no evidence that the boy had suffered bodily harm.
But because the cocaine was detected in the boy’s urine as well as in
his hair at levels that could not have come from second-hand smoke,
Hamilton concluded that “he must have obtained this drug from within the
“As (Joyce) is the only source, I find that she must have administered
the drug to him,” he wrote. “As Dr. Koren said, cocaine is not meant to
be given to children and is a dangerous and noxious drug and the amount
found in the son was a dangerous amount and thereby, by giving it to him
or allowing him to get it, she endangered his life, and I find her
Joyce’s lawyer argued for house arrest, but Hamilton was not swayed.
“Such conduct of giving a young child cocaine cannot be rewarded with a
conditional sentence. The public would be outraged,” he said. “This is a
serious violation to the victim and (Joyce’s) conduct does not justify
She was sentenced to the maximum jail term of two years less a day.
Prison was tough on Joyce. She said she was targeted by other inmates,
who did not look kindly on those convicted of hurting kids.
“They know all about you before you even get in the front door,” she
said. “I got hurt many, many times. I was scared every day that I was
going to get killed.”
In an interview, David said he was “mad as hell” when Joyce was
convicted, and tracked down the “best lawyer” to handle her appeal.
That lawyer was James Lockyer.
In a 1998 letter filed in court, Lockyer told David that the trial judge
“may have wrongly excluded the possibility that the cocaine in (the
boy’s) hair was a consequence of second-hand cocaine smoke.” But to
render a solid opinion on the merits of a conviction appeal, he said he
would need to consult an independent expert on the hair evidence and
obtain a full trial transcript — which he estimated would cost roughly
However, Lockyer said he had enough information to “strongly recommend”
a sentence appeal, in part because Joyce had no previous criminal
record. David took him up on the offer. In April 1999, the Court of
Appeal reduced Joyce’s sentence to time served and three years’
“The commission of this offence is difficult to comprehend,” Justice
Marc Rosenberg wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel in a unanimous
decision. “It does not appear that (Joyce) bore any ill will towards her
child or that she was unconcerned for her child’s welfare.”
Joyce’s problems persisted. She continued to struggle with crack, and
the nature of her conviction made it tough to find work. Before her
conviction, she and David consented to their son becoming a Crown ward.
She had supervised visits with her son for several years, but the visits
stopped when he started questioning her about why he was taken away.
“Children’s aid ... said it’s not appropriate for him to know. I feel
that if he asks me a question about himself that I should answer. He has
the right to know,” she said.
“They started telling me he wasn’t available,” she said of her son.
“After that I just stopped calling them. I got the hint.”
Fifteen years after Joyce’s sentence appeal, Lockyer would play a key
role in exposing the problems at Motherisk, by producing fresh expert
evidence in Broomfield’s appeal that criticized the reliability of the
Lockyer did not initially make
the connection between Joyce’s case and the flawed hair tests, but as
soon as he read his old file last month, he could see that “this was
another case in which Motherisk ... had caused a miscarriage of
justice,” he said.
Within 24 hours, Joyce was in his office, hashing out a plan to overturn
Joyce had no idea about the problems at Motherisk.
“I was shocked. I was overwhelmed. I was angry,” she said. “I keep
wondering, why didn’t (the government) tell me or say anything? I’ve had
to live with this for 20 years.”
Lockyer said he has asked the Crown to join him in an application to the
Court of Appeal to quash Joyce’s conviction. His preliminary
conversations with the other side suggest the Crown is “concerned about
this case and that it hasn’t been resolved,” he said.
Michael Lacy, the president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’
Association, said the fact that Joyce’s case was overlooked by the
attorney general raises doubts about the “legitimacy of the internal
Lacy is urging the province to appoint a reviewer who is “independent of
the ministry” to cast the net wider, and examine affected convictions in
a transparent, impartial way.
However, the search for additional cases will be a formidable challenge
for any reviewer, because there is no tracking system for various types
of forensic evidence admitted in individual cases, and some of the key
players at Motherisk have not been forthcoming.
During Justice Lang’s review of Motherisk, in which participation was
voluntary, both Koren and Klein declined requests to be interviewed,
choosing to respond to Lang’s questions in writing. When asked whether
he had testified in any cases besides that of Broomfield, Koren replied:
“I do not recall testifying in other cases regarding hair testing.”
Klein, for her part, told Lang that she was called to testify in court
beginning in 2002, although both the 1993 Colorado case and Joyce’s 1998
trial pre-date that period.
Joyce, 50, now lives in a rooming house in North York, where she is
recovering from the crack addiction that has dogged her for more than
half her life. She is taking a computer course and relies on public
But for the first time in decades, she has hope — that she will be able
to reconnect with her son, now 26, and start anew.
“It would be nice to have a clean record. Then I can get a real job,”
she said. “I want to put on an application, ‘No criminal record.’ That’s
what I’d like.”
Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre
Injustice and wrongful convictions fill Ontario's jails.
One of the primary causes is the
sheer criminal mentality by the Judiciary, prosecutors and police
who place themselves above the law and have utter contempt for the
fundamental principles of justice.
In Ottawa, the worst similar example is by Dr David Alexander McClean,
psychiatrist for the Children's Aid Society at Ottawa General Hospital.
This lowest form of Criminal fabricates evidence to assist the
politically powerful, the
criminal elite of Ottawa namely, the Judges of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice who are largely former lawyers for Ontario's collection
of Criminal Organizations called "The Children's Aid Societies of
Ottawa Children's Aid Society this child abusing lowest form of life
David Alexander McClean to
fabricate evidence, and then direct the Police to STAY charges against
known child abusers while instructing or directing the Ottawa Police and
the Crown Attorneys of Ottawa to lay charges against anyone they
Its called revenge, its called intimidation, is all very serious
criminal offences run by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, the
Ottawa Police supported by the very worst of Ontario's most criminal,
the Judges of Ottawa at the Superior Court of Justice and the Provincial
Court of justice called
"The Ontario court of justice" .
You only have to look at the two most recent Supreme Court of Canada
decisions to understand that
absolute power corrupts and its the Judges at the top of the Criminal
Feeding Chain who bear the responsibility for this wide spread practice
of failing to disclose, relevant evidence, ignoring evidence and failing
to supply exonerating evidence.
If you have information on this worst of the worst child abusing
criminals, David Alexander McClean, please email
or call 613 797 3237