Case Summary
Tamara Broomfield was convicted in 2009 of aggravated assault and administering a noxious substance—a potentially lethal dose of cocaine—to her two-year-old son, Malique.1
Broomfield had taken her unconscious son to hospital on July 31, 2005 and said that he had a seizure, which resulted in permanent brain damage.2 He was soon transferred to the prestigious Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Toronto, where testing performed on Malique detected cocaine in his body. Doctors also observed multiple rib and arm fractures on Malique.3
Broomfield was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and administering a noxious substance in relation to cocaine, and assault causing bodily harm and failing to provide the necessities of life in relation to the fractures. She was held in pre-trial custody for 7 months. In her police statement, Broomfield denied using cocaine and stated that she did not know how Malique had been exposed to the drug. She made similar statements to Children’s Aid Society personnel and to Malique’s daycare provider.4
Dr. Gideon Koren, then head of the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at SickKids, testified at Broomfield’s trial that he had never seen a child with such high levels of cocaine based on analysis of hair obtained from Malique.5 Koren claimed that the laboratory’s hair testing method was “widely accepted”, highly sensitive and specific, and “published a lot in hundreds of scientific papers and in books and used in courts and in other jurisdictions.”6 In his opinion, the hair analysis indicated that “the cocaine levels in the child’s body were so high that they could not have resulted from accidental exposure or ingestion.”7 Rather, Koren concluded that Malique “had been exposed to cocaine continually over the preceding 14 months.”8
Broomfield’s trial judge found that she had “deliberately and repeatedly” given her son crack cocaine over a 14-month period and on the day that she brought Malique to the hospital, where nonetheless she had not indicated that the child had ingested cocaine.9 The judge concluded that Broomfield “was indifferent to her child’s suffering and to her duty as a parent.”10
Broomfield’s pre-sentencing report was unfavourable in part because she maintained her innocence, stating that she “did not administer any substance” to her son.11 At sentencing, the trial judge found that Broomfield had “exhibited no remorse for her conduct. Although lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor, there is concern that her lack of insight may affect her prospects for rehabilitation.”12 Moreover, the trial judge concluded that:
There is nothing in her background to explain her actions. There is no suggestion that she suffers from any cognitive disability, diminished mental capacity, or substance abuse. She has professed throughout that she does not consume cocaine. One is left to infer that she made conscious decisions to obtain cocaine to give to Malique for her own selfish purposes.13
Broomfield, who was 28 years old and had no prior offences, was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment in relation to the cocaine offences, with a concurrent two-year sentence for the violence offences.14
In 2010, Broomfield was denied bail pending appeal. Justice Weiler of the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that Broomfield’s grounds for appeal were not strong. Justice Weiler found that her proposed challenge to Koren’s evidence that her son “had been given cocaine over a 14 month period, [lost] . . . a considerable amount of its thrust” because Joey Gareri, the Motherisk lab manager, had given the same evidence at her preliminary inquiry.15 Justice Weiler therefore concluded that it would not be in the public interest to grant Broomfield bail, given the “extremely serious nature” of her conviction for “endangering the life of a two year old child by the administration of a potentially lethal dose of cocaine with the tragic consequence that he is now severely disabled.”16
In 2014, represented by James Lockyer, Broomfield appealed her convictions for the cocaine-related offences. Counsel presented fresh evidence from Dr. Craig Chatterton, the Alberta Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s deputy chief toxicologist, questioning the methodology used by the Motherisk program.17 Dr. Chatterton’s evidence was that the test used for Malique’s hair analysis was only a screening mechanism that “could not provide accurate quantitative results.”18 Moreover, the concentrations found in this case were so high as to raise questions about their validity. There was also no record of Malique’s hair sample being washed prior to testing.19
The Crown consented to the admission of this evidence, and the Ontario Court of Appeal expressed concern that no evidence had been tendered at trial to challenge Koren’s methodology:
The trial judge made her decision unaware of the genuine controversy among the experts about the use of the testing methods relied upon by the Crown expert at trial to found a conclusion of chronic cocaine ingestion, [and] thus, its administration by Ms. Broomfield.20
The Court of Appeal quashed the cocaine related convictions and ordered a new trial. However, given that Tamara Broomfield had served a 49-month sentence—double that related to the fracture counts—the Court of Appeal accepted the prosecution’s invitation to enter a stay of proceedings on the basis that a new trial would not be in the interests of justice.21
Two reviews of the Motherisk hair testing program were subsequently held as a result of this case.22 These reviews: identified serious deficiencies in Motherisk’s drug testing results and methodology; observed that neither Koren nor Gareri had any training or experience in forensic toxicology; and criticized the program’s lack of proper record-keeping, oversight, and accreditation. Motherisk hair analysis results played a role in six cases, including Broomfield’s, that resulted in criminal convictions, and thousands of child protection proceedings that disproportionately affected Black and Indigenous families.23
The Motherisk program was eventually shut down by the Hospital for Sick Children because “grants and donations [had] . . . been reduced to zero.”24 Faced with a College of Physicians and Surgeons disciplinary investigation, Gideon Koren surrendered his medical licence in 2019 and agreed that he would never again practice medicine in Ontario.25