Maria Hosannah

Matinah Hosannah died at 27 months of age on February 25, 2011. At that time, she weighed only 19 pounds, “less than the 3rd percentile for her age.”¹ Her father, Sean Hosannah, had called 911 shortly before 2:00 that morning, stating that she was not breathing. He was performing CPR on Matinah when first responders arrived. Police observed that both Sean and Maria Hosannah, Matinah’s mother, “appeared concerned and distressed.”² Matinah was taken to the hospital, but could not be resuscitated. She was pronounced dead later that morning.³

The coroner who examined Matinah’s remains concluded that she had died of a cardiac arrest. However, a second autopsy performed by the Chief Forensic Pathologist for Ontario, Dr. Michael Pollanen, “found evidence that [she] . . . suffered from malnutrition due to inadequate feeding and a diet deficient in protein and vitamins.”⁴ The Hosannahs, a Black couple who were followers of the Nation of Islam,⁵ were charged with manslaughter based on the alleged unlawful act of failing to provide their daughter with the necessities of life.⁶

At the Hosannahs’ trial, Dr. Pollanen gave expert testimony that Matinah had died due to “a combination of asthma and malnutrition,” specifically, protein and vitamin deficiencies.⁷ He stated that she had been critically ill due to her poor diet when she suffered an asthma attack, causing her death due to oxygen deprivation to her brain. In addition, he testified that Matinah had very low levels of Vitamin D, which is “necessary for bones to absorb calcium,” and as a result her bones were “so soft and weak that normal handling could fracture [them].”⁸ The jury also heard evidence that Matinah suffered from anemia caused by a Vitamin B12 deficiency.⁹

Dr. Pollanen testified that he had “ruled out” potential alternative explanations, including genetic susceptibility, for Matinah’s nutrient deficiencies.¹⁰ Outside the court system, an increasing volume of research has shown that Black people develop Vitamin D deficiency at disproportionately high rates, which has generally been attributed at least in part to genetic factors.¹¹ Black children have been found to be at elevated risk for Vitamin D deficiency rickets.¹²

In addition to the expert testimony, the jury heard Maria’s police statement regarding Matinah’s diet and her family’s eating habits. In this recording, Maria said that the family ate organic vegetarian food and that she shopped at Whole Foods.¹³ She discussed “the importance of . . . eating healthy pure foods” while avoiding sugar, processed foods, and preservatives, and said that the family had “stopped eating fish . . . due to reports of mercury poisoning.”¹⁴ Maria stated that Matinah “ate the same food[s that] the other family members ate” and described healthful, high-protein meals she had served, such as bean soup and navy bean pie.¹⁵ However, the jurors also heard that the Hosannahs followed the “eat to live” diet advocated by the late NOI leader Elijah Muhammad, who wrote that “[w]e eat too much and too often”; Maria would later retweet quotes from Muhammad, after her conviction.¹⁶

The Crown also argued at the Hosannahs’ trial that they failed to provide Matinah with medical care “by failing to follow up on a referral to a pediatrician 11 months before her death.”¹⁷ Maria and Sean maintained that no referral had been made; there were no contemporaneous records to support the Crown’s claim.¹⁸ Agreed facts did, however, include that Matinah had been transferred to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit because “doctors were concerned about her blood sugar being low and her having a possible infection,” after which she was monitored as an outpatient at a community health clinic.¹⁹ Her parents also took her to the doctor several times due to a skin condition (eczema). Nonetheless, both grounds were left to the jury.²⁰

The Brampton jury convicted both parents of manslaughter on October 8, 2014, after an eight-day trial. Maria told the judge that “my husband and I have been wrongfully convicted.”²¹

At the Hosannahs’ sentencing hearing, the prosecutor sought four to six years’ imprisonment, while defence counsel requested three years’ probation and time served prior to the trial (three months).²² The judge, Justice Sproat, found Sean and Maria to be equally culpable in Matinah’s death. He observed that neither had a criminal record, both “appear[ed] in all other respects to have been decent law abiding members of the community,” and there was “no evidence that the offence was committed [due to their] . . . preferring their own desires and interests” over Matinah’s.²³ He stated: “I do not know why the Hosannahs ignored medical advice and warning signs[,] but I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they did. Distrust of medical professionals may have been a factor.”²⁴ Justice Sproat found “no evidence that the Hosannahs intended or wanted Matinah to die,”²⁵ but rather, “in terms of choices of food, [they] . . . believed they were doing the right thing but it turned out to be horribly wrong.”²⁶

Sean, then aged 42, was sentenced to two years less a day in prison, to be followed by three years’ probation, with the conditions that he attend “counselling . . . respecting child care and nutrition” and ”provide meal and parenting plans for any children in his care.”²⁷ Maria, 31, was instead sentenced at the request of her defence lawyer to two years exactly, on the basis that she was pregnant and would receive better services in a federal penitentiary (whereas sentences of under two years are served in provincial prisons).²⁸

The Hosannahs appealed their convictions, and after spending several months in prison were released on bail pending appeal. Children’s Aid had seized custody of their surviving children.²⁹

Sean and Maria sought to challenge Dr. Pollanen’s opinion that they had caused Matinah’s death. Maria’s lawyer, Jack Gemmell, pointed to potential problems with Dr. Pollanen's analysis as well as the underlying medical evidence, which in his view demonstrated that “the expert's opinion is only as good as the facts on which it is based.”³⁰ For instance, Dr. Pollanen’s report relied on the low level of the protein albumin found in Matinah’s blood plasma, which can indicate malnourishment. Gemmell argued that this result was misleading since she had been given IV saline during resuscitation efforts, thus diluting the protein in her blood.³¹

In 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal received new expert evidence from Dr. Shkrum, a forensic pathologist, and Dr. Miller, a pediatric clinical geneticist specializing in bone disorders. Both disagreed with Dr. Pollanen’s trial evidence.³² In Dr. Shkrum’s opinion, Matinah had died of heart failure due to Vitamin D deficiency and anemia resulting from Vitamin B12 deficiency. He found “no compelling evidence” that she had protein malnutrition and observed that her “weight was low for her age, but appropriate for her height.”³³ He disagreed that asthma had played a role as Matinah had “no characteristic signs of acute asthma at autopsy.”³⁴ In response, Dr. Pollanen changed his evidence and now opined that Matinah’s cause of death was solely malnutrition.³⁵ 

Dr. Miller’s evidence was that Matinah had severe Vitamin D deficiency rickets—“a systemic disease affecting not only bones, but also the heart, muscles and immune system”—and that Dr. Pollanen had underestimated the impact of this condition.³⁶ In his opinion, Matinah’s small size could have resulted from rickets, rather than protein malnutrition.³⁷ The distinction is significant in light of Dr. Miller’s published research on the risk of misidentifying rickets symptoms as signs of child abuse: his work sets out numerous, non-culpable risk factors for rickets and other bone disorders, including genetic differences predisposing some children to these problems, and environmental factors such as low levels of maternal Vitamin D during pregnancy.³⁸ Dr. Pollanen again changed his opinion in response to this evidence and “now agree[d] that at trial, he had not considered the deleterious functional effects” of Matinah’s Vitamin D deficiency.³⁹

The Court of Appeal, with the Crown’s consent, admitted the new evidence on the basis that it consisted of well-qualified experts’ opinions “on issues within their respective fields of expertise” that were “reasonably capable of belief” and “could reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial.”⁴⁰ The court found this evidence to be especially significant in that: “[a]lthough the jury could have concluded that reasonable parents would be aware of the absence of protein in their child’s diet and the risk that it posed”—meaning that failure to provide protein would be a criminal act—they could, conversely, “conclude that a reasonable parent may not realize that their child’s diet lacked adequate vitamins D and B12.”⁴¹

Notably, as Justice Sproat observed, the Hosannahs “avoided commercial milk products[,] which by law must be fortified with Vitamin D” in Canada.⁴² Matinah was breastfed throughout her life, but breast milk does not protect against rickets as it contains little Vitamin D.⁴³ Nutrition scientists have described a growing number of instances where children developed rickets and other nutrient deficiency disorders, not from food scarcity or parental neglect, but because they were not given cow's milk due to “perceived health benefits” and/or a lifestyle decision not to consume animal products.⁴⁴ (Fish such as salmon and tuna, which the Hosannahs had stopped eating due to health concerns, are another, natural source of Vitamin D.⁴⁵

Finally, the Court of Appeal briefly dispensed with the alleged failure to follow up with a pediatrician, finding that there were “evidentiary problems . . . with this basis of liability.”⁴⁶

In September 2020, the court overturned the Hosannahs’ convictions and ordered a new trial.⁴⁷ Their lawyers asked that the trial judge “be mindful of the dangers of racial bias and systemic, unconscious discrimination,” noting that doctors had become suspicious of “a young Black couple” whom they concluded had “abused their daughter and contributed to her death.”⁴⁸

A hearing was held in advance of the retrial to determine whether Dr. Pollanen’s evidence was sufficiently reliable for the court to receive it. After a few days of cross-examination, the Crown announced that it would withdraw the charges against the Hosannahs. Defence counsel, referring to Dr. Miller’s expert report, had challenged Dr. Pollanen’s conclusion that “there was no evidence of an underlying disease” in regards to Matinah’s nutrient deficiencies.⁴⁹ Dr. Pollanen “conceded that a ‘cascade’ of events involving genetics and other factors was ‘reasonable’ and couldn’t be ruled out,” but said that he had not “read the relevant literature closely enough to be able to make an informed opinion” about this possibility.⁵⁰

The Crown maintained that Dr. Pollanen’s evidence was still admissible and there was still a reasonable prospect of conviction, but stated that it was no longer in the public interest to prosecute Sean and Maria “‘given the passage of time and given the fact that the Hosannahs have been otherwise’ held accountable ‘for the death of their daughter.’”⁵¹