C. M.

Case Summary

Jane Doe (Jane’s real identity is protected by a publication ban) was 21 when she went into the bathroom of her family's home in Pickering, Ontario, with what she thought were stomach cramps. At about 10 p.m. on November 8, 1992, she gave birth to a boy.1

Jane’s parents found her in the early hours of the next morning, covered in blood. Ambulance attendants found Jane’s baby, Baby M, in the toilet. Renowned pathologist Dr. Charles Smith performed an autopsy later that morning and concluded Baby M’s cause of death was “[a]sphyxia (Infanticide).”2 That evening, police charged Jane with second degree murder.3

In the lead-up to her trial, Jane Doe’s lawyer had difficulty retaining a forensic pathologist who was willing to challenge Dr. Smith's findings in court as he was considered the leading authority in Canada in the field of paediatric forensic pathology.4 Given this, Jane Doe’s lawyer negotiated a plea deal with the Crown: in exchange for pleading guilty to the lesser offense of manslaughter, Jane would be given a suspended sentence (as opposed to a custodial sentence) and three years' probation, in addition to 300 hours of community service.5 Jane felt she was a burden on her family, was terrified of going back to jail, afraid of the consequences of a murder conviction, and believed that Dr. Smith's opinion would be accepted over her story.6 So, in July 1994, she accepted the plea deal.7 Despite this, Jane always maintained that she did not know she was pregnant, that her baby was stillborn, and that she had not seen any signs of life in the baby.8

In 2005, Baby M’s case, among others, was re-examined when complaints about Dr. Smith’s work led to a review of his cases by the Ontario Coroner’s Office.9 The review found that Dr. Smith had made questionable findings in 12 cases that had led to criminal convictions by mishandling autopsies, misdiagnosing causes of death, and misrepresenting evidence in court. In 2007, a public inquiry was led by Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Goudge.10 The Goudge Inquiry Report revealed a staggering list of severe issues with Dr. Charles Smith’s methodology and impartiality.

The inquiry report concluded that Dr. Smith’s training in forensic pathology was “woefully inadequate,” and that he was only trained as a pediatric pathologist.11 The report also illustrated that despite his flawed methodology, Dr. Smith presented his opinion in a “dogmatic and certain manner” when the evidence was far from certain.12 13 Of particular importance to Jane Doe, the report’s findings demonstrated that there was never any reliable pathological evidence to support Dr. Smith's conclusion that the cause of Baby M’s death was asphyxia.14 In particular, the report noted that because there was no pathological evidence to support any one conclusion as to the cause of death, there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion of mechanical asphyxiation.15 The Inquiry report also highlighted that including the legal term "infanticide" in Dr. Smith's report was beyond the mandate of a pathologist and speculative. Justice Goudge found that by making a legal conclusion in a report of post-mortem examination, Dr. Smith had the potential to interfere with the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.16

Given this new evidence, Jane Doe appealed her guilty plea and the Crown jointly agreed with her that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial ordered.17 On October 20, 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside her guilty plea and manslaughter conviction.18 In its ruling, the Court of Appeal noted that it “wish[ed] to acknowledge the terrible suffering that [Jane Doe] and her family […] experienced as a result of her guilty plea.”19   

Crown counsel assigned to the case, Alison Wheeler and Jennifer Woollcombe, ultimately withdrew charges and Doe did not endure a trial. The basis for withdrawing the charge was fresh pathology evidence that, contrary to Smith’s conclusion, Baby M may have died from hemorrhaging or strangulation by umbilical cord. As her final court appearance adjourned, Doe told the media, “I’m happy with the way things worked out and I appreciate what the court said.”20


[1] R. v. M. (C.), 2010 ONCA 690 at para 3 [R. v. M. (C.)].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jill Mahoney, “14 cases tainted by Charles Smith's evidence” (The Globe and Mail (Online), 2010) <https://www.proquest.com/canadiannews/docview/2385579213/B825BACAFAF64B4CPQ/1?accountid=14771> accessed January 28, 2021 [14 Cases Tainted].
[4] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 4.
[5] 14 Cases Tainted, supra note 3.
[6] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 5.
[7] Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario: Volume 4 (Government of Ontario, 2008) <https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/report/v4_en_pdf/Vol_4_Eng.pdf> accessed January 28, 2021, page 954 [Goudge Inquiry Report].
[8] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 5.
[9] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Goudge Inquiry Report, supra note 7 at page 117.
[12] Goudge Inquiry Report, supra note 7 at page 126.
[13] Goudge Inquiry Report, supra note 7 at page 183.
[14] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 2.
[15] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 6.
[16] Ibid.
[17] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 1.
[18] R. v. M. (C.), supra note 1 at para 11.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Kirk Makin, “Women cleared over pathologist’s errors” Globe and Mail (21 Oct. 2010) A. 8 at <https://www.proquest.com/canadiannews/docview/759299848/4E2EB25B3B5D4660PQ/1?accountid=14771>

Case Details

  • Full name:

    C. M.

  • Gender identity:

    Female

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    21

  • Charges - specific offences:

    Second degree murder

  • Date of conviction:

    1994-07-27

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    2010-10-20

  • Sentence - total time served:

    Unknown

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    New evidence on first appeal

  • Status of alleged crime:

    No Crime Occurred

  • Compensation Received?

    No

  • Guilty plea?

    Yes

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    The wrongful conviction was largely due to disgraced former doctor Charles Smith's flawed forensic pathology evidence. C. M. believed that pleading guilty was her only real option since Smith was then held in such high regard that his faulty conclusions could not be meaningfully challenged.