Ontario couple in murder trial had no 'calculated scheme' to harm boys in their care, defence argues

Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney, left wing wing and endorse from left, sit around in separate prisoner's boxes as Cooney's lawyer, Kim Edward, started closing arguments.

The court reporter for the trial of Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney is pictured in this courtroom sketch in Milton, Ont., March 23, 2026.

Ontario's former child advocate says children's aid societies made 'bad decisions' leading up to death of boy

Closing submissions begin today in Milton, Ont., at the trial of the Burlington couple accused in the death of a 12-year-old and crimes against his younger brother.

Becky Hamber, 46, and Brandy Cooney, 44, are alleged to have abused and neglected the brothers, who had been living with the couple for about five years after the brothers were with foster parents in Ottawa.

The Indigenous boys' identities are protected under a publication ban. For our coverage, we're referring to the older boy, who was 12 when he died on Dec. 21, 2022, as L.L. And his younger brother as J.L.

The couple have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder of L.L., as well as not guilty to confinement, assault with a weapon — zip ties — and failing to provide the necessaries of life to J.L. 

The judge-alone trial, which began in mid-September in Superior Court, is before Justice Clayton Conlan.

Over seven months, the trial has heard from dozens of witnesses, including social service workers, health professionals, educators and police. Hamber, Cooney, and J.L., now 14, also testified over multiple days. 

Evidence includes thousands of deleted text messages that police accessed, hours of audio recordings and hundreds of images, including from security cameras the women used to surveil the boys.

Witness testimony wrapped Jan. 23, with Conlan calling the trial "lengthy and difficult." Closing arguments are scheduled after today for March 27.

After closing arguments, Conlan will likely decide Cooney's and Hamber's fate sometime this spring. 

MacGregor tells Conlan he needs at least an hour to finish his closing defence arguments.

Conlan says he doesn't want court to go late tonight and asks Crown lawyer Monica MacKenzie if she's OK for MacGregor to continue when the trial resumes Friday.

They agree to start at 9 a.m. That day to ensure there's time for the Crown's arguments and for the defence to reply.

Do Cooney and Hamber's actions speak to a "calculated scheme" to "kill this boy for no reason," MacGregor asks. Again, he says, there's no intent.

"This isn’t planned and deliberate,” he argues.

"Why would they do this?"

The Crown has suggested the couple had a financial motive for keeping children they didn't want because the CAS sent them money to care for them. 

MacGregor says the couple was in bad financial shape and didn't benefit from L.L.'s death.

The texts are the strongest evidence the Crown has, MacGregor says, but they don't prove the case.

He restates that while the Crown might argue Hamber and Cooney were negligent in not taking L.L. To hospital, there are a number of cases where the couple took him to doctors who "failed to recognize" the severity of the boy's condition.

Some of the couple’s texts to each other about the boys were "disgusting," MacGregor says, but their actions paint a different picture.

He reads more documentation from a CAS worker in 2022 who described hearing about a family party, and more about the couple seeking treatment for L.L.'s physical and mental health.

The trial has seen thousands of deleted texts between Hamber and Cooney, including many in which the pair used vulgar and dehumanizing language to describe the boys. 

The women testified the messages were expressions of frustration, not indications of hatred.

MacGregor reads from another note in which a CAS worker said L.L. Told her he had been peeing himself on purpose and that Hamber reported both children were displaying signs of rumination.

He also reads the worker describing Hamber's recollection of an appointment with Dr. Dhaliwhal and her intention to book further appointments for L.L.

"How does that gel with an intent to harm?" he says. 

MacGregor describes the email as an admission that the couple expressed needing professional help.

The Crown might argue they made up the concerns, MacGregor the lawyer, but he disagrees.

"This speaks of their complete lack of intent to harm and only to try and get what was necessary.”

MacGregor shifts to a new topic: Hamber's actions. 

He starts by referring to child services records reading from a June 2021 note in which a Halton CAS worker recounted speaking with L.L. About food his prospective adoptive parents would make him.

In another note MacGregor reads, the CAS worker mentions L.L.'s weight had declined and recalled asking Cooney to schedule a doctor's appointment, as he hadn't been to the doctor's for two years.

In a December 2021 note MacGregor reads out, a CAS worker says the couple reported L.L. Hoarding food. 

Concerns about L.L.'s food and weight were noted and discussed, MacGregor says.

Next, he reads from an August 2022 email he calls one of the most "critical" pieces of evidence in this case.

The email from Hamber to a CAS worker said L.L. Had developed rumination and that pending results from medical appointments, she and Cooney would be pushing to get him into an eating disorders clinic.

"Despite our best efforts, [L.L.] remains unhealthy," MacGregor reads from Hamber's email.

MacGregor gets loud in asking “why, why?” Dhaliwal would recommend the ER for L.L. Despite not knowing much about refeeding syndrome. 

He gestures toward Hamber, arguing again that it was the doctors, not Hamber, who failed to recognize the severity of L.L.’s condition. 

"There's too many faults with her credibility and I think you should disregard what she says," MacGregor tells Conlan.

He seems to have affected the gallery, where quiet chatter has started again.

Dhaliwhal was "lying" when she testified she kept telling the women to take L.L. To the ER, MacGregor says.

She testified she didn't know much about refeeding syndrome or what risks the child may be facing, so why would she recommend that, he wonders aloud.

Dhaliwhal, L.L.’s psychiatrist, was "evasive" at times while testifying, MacGregor contends. 

He notes Dhaliwhal maintained she told the couple to take L.L. To the ER.

If they'd listened, "We wouldn’t be going through this and the boy would be alive,” she testified in October.

Pointing to different parts of her testimony, MacGregor says the psychiatrist frequently suggested other specialists needed to make decisions or diagnoses. 

“She keeps passing the buck on what’s required.”

Conlan asks what MacGregor wants him to do with Duncan’s and Dhaliwhal's evidence.

“If I conclude actions or inactions even contributed to L.L.'s demise, that conclusion would not defeat the causation argument,” the judge puts to MacGregor, referring to the malnutrition that may have contributed to the boy’s death.

The question, MacGregor responds is whether his client intended to cause bodily harm by not feeding L.L.

Cory’s and Brown's testimonies show doctors missed the urgency of L.L.'s condition, he contends. 

The Crown argues the couple should have taken the child to the ER, but in multiple communications Hamber had with doctors before he died, health professionals did not recommend that, MacGregor says.

He says he's not blaming doctors, but is trying to show how the average person with no medical training would respond in Hamber's situation.

Court is now on a 15-minute break.

---

---