Ontario women found guilty of killing boy in their care and confining his sibling

MILTON — Two Ontario women hated and resented two young brothers they were seeking to adopt, abusing them until the older child died, a judge concluded Tuesday as he found the couple guilty of first-degree murder and other offences.

Gasps could be heard in the Milton, Ont., courtroom as Ontario Superior Court Justice Clayton Conlan handed down his ruling in the case of Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney, who took in the two Indigenous boys in 2017 after the children left another foster home.

The judge did not read out the reasons for his decision during the brief hearing Tuesday morning, but said in a written ruling that the women intended to kill the older sibling and confined, assaulted and failed to provide food and medical care to the younger one out of “ill will” and “to punish and deprive their child.”

At the time of his death in December 2022, the older boy was so small that first responders struggled to understand how the “razor-thin boy lying on the floor in the basement room was really 12 years old,” Conlan wrote.

His surviving brother, now 13, testified at trial, describing years of abuse both siblings endured in the couple’s Burlington, Ont., home.

The boy told the court he was locked in his bedroom for long periods of time, unable to even go to the bathroom without someone opening the door from the outside, the ruling said. He recalled being forced to wear a wetsuit that was fastened to his feet with zip ties, which left deep cuts on the tops of his feet, and being denied food at times for days, the document said.

Court heard the two women referred to the boys by names that included “douche,” “loser” and “moron,” with Cooney testifying she had an issue with “frustration language” and was referring to the boys’ behaviour rather than the children themselves, according to the ruling.

Conlan rejected that explanation.

“I find that these disgusting labels for the children were habitually used by both accused because they hated the boys. They loathed them. They deeply resented them having come into their lives and not having turned out to be what was expected,” he wrote.

Defence lawyers for the women argued their clients had no intention of harming either of the children, who they said had significant behavioural issues.

They argued the older boy’s malnutrition was caused by an eating disorder that likely led to an electrolyte imbalance and cardiac arrest. His cause of death was not determined.

In his ruling, Conlan said he did not believe the accused’s testimony, finding each woman’s account to be “replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and things lacking in common sense.”

Outside court after the ruling, Crown attorney Monica MacKenzie said she hopes the verdict will bring “some measure of accountability” even though no outcome could repair the harm caused by the women’s actions.

“This was an exceptionally tragic case with a profound impact on many people. A child’s life was taken and another child suffered significant abuse over a number of years,” she said, reading from a prepared statement.

“Nothing that was done here today or during the trial could lessen the depth of that loss” for the boys’ family and their communities, she said.

Monte MacGregor, who represents Hamber, said his client maintains her innocence and her love for both boys, as well as her commitment to their well-being.

The defence lawyer said he was a little surprised by the ruling in light of the evidence that his client had called the doctor the day before the boy’s death and that the women had sought help from specialists, which he said “spoke of their true intentions.”

“I believed at the very least we had achieved the objective of getting murder off the table, which requires intent and purpose to take another life. And His Honour disagreed with our position,” he said outside court, adding they will be looking for possible avenues for appeal.

The underlying facts of the case are “tragic, if not horrific,” MacGregor said.

“I think at the heart of it as well, aside from our client’s guilt that was determined today, there was a wholesale systemic failure by the Children’s Aid Society, by the doctors that were involved, and by the people that showed up when it was too late to do something for this young boy and his brother,” he said.

“And I hope that that family can now move on and have some solace and some peace of mind, and I hope that the members of the institutions and the government that oversee these institutions take heed as to what happened here because it is an absolute tragedy that there wasn’t more direct oversight, more involvement by those that are supposed to carry the responsibility of the protection of children.”

The Halton Children’s Aid Society said in a statement last year that it conducted “a number of reviews” after the boy’s death and had co-operated fully with police in the investigation.

In a statement emailed by her lawyer, the boys’ mother said Tuesday’s ruling “represents the first step down a very long path.”

“Justice has been rendered and the trial is over. But for our family this our life. And the horrific nightmare that began for us long ago will forever now be etched in the memories of many,” she said.

“Never again will we hold (the older boy) again. Never embrace him, or share the milestones of life. This verdict does not bring our child back to us. But it does help us move forward.”

Neither the children nor their mother can be identified under a publication ban.

A sentencing hearing will be held at a later date. First-degree murder carries an automatic sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 5, 2026.

Maan Alhmidi and Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press