The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered that an acquittal should be entered for a Cranbrook woman seeking to clear her conviction in the case of toddler who drowned in her care in 2011.
Tammy Bouvette pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death, after initially facing a second-degree murder charge, and was later sentenced to 12 months鈥� imprisonment and probation.
However, a decade later, a special prosecutor recommended a court review to determine if there had been a miscarriage of justice after finding the Crown did not disclose evidence to Bouvette prior to her guilty plea. That evidence included an external peer review of the child's autopsy report, which determined the forensic pathologist's conclusions were unreasonable.
In 2021, Bouvette sought orders to vacate her guilty plea, quash her conviction and enter an acquittal. The B.C. Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in 2023 but ruled to enter a stay of proceedings instead of an acquittal. A stay of proceedings essentially halts criminal proceedings but doesn't necessarily end them, while an acquittal is a not-guilty finding by the court.
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision to order an acquittal was unanimous between the nine justices, however, the court was split between two different legal pathways arriving at an acquittal ruling.
Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing on behalf of five judges, noted that if the case went to a retrial, the Crown's position is that it would not call evidence and that the trial court would have to order an acquittal.
"The Crown鈥檚 position is therefore plain that it would invite the trial court to acquit," wrote Kasirer. "If this Court were to order new trial and the Crown were to conduct the prosecution in this way, Ms. Bouvette would be acquitted. Rather than forcing the parties to go through pro forma proceedings to achieve this result, proceedings that would cause further delay and anxiety for Ms. Bouvette, or standing in the way of this result by entering a judicial stay, the just result is for the acquittal to be entered now."
Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for four concurring justices, wrote that the remedies available to the case weighed heavily in favour of an acquittal.
"Based on a consideration of all the relevant factors in the case before us, the interests of justice dictate an acquittal, and not a stay of proceedings, as the appropriate order," wrote Martin. "On the evidence before this Court, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Ms. Bouvette would be acquitted at a putative new trial.
"Further, unlike a stay, this final order alleviates the unfairness and stigma that this miscarriage of justice has caused to Ms. Bouvette. An acquittal is further justified in light of the significant equities that undermine the public鈥檚 interest in ordering a new trial.
