exposing the dark side of adoption
Register Log in

End of a long legal road

public

Rodney Lenny and Therese Martel trial in Alberta

University of Alberta, Legal Resource Centre

People who live in Alberta get used to the phenomenon of the ominous black clouds that build up on the horizon late in the afternoons of summer days. Slowly they gather, the bright sunlight dims and thunder growls. Another of our precious summer days is spoiled by their appearance. To Albertans who have followed the Lenny case, its reappearance yet again before the courts was reminiscent of those ominous summer clouds.

The Lenny and Martel case is one of the most notorious matters in recent Alberta legal history. Rodney Lenny and Therese Martel (formerly Lenny) were charged in 1990 with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life in connection with injuries to 21 month old Jason Carpenter. They maintained that Jason had suffered severe head injuries when he fell out of a shopping cart and fell again out of the family's van when they got home. They claimed that he was developmentally slow and fell more than other children. Jason had been taken away from his biological mother and placed with the Lennys, who were approved by the Alberta Department of Social Services as foster parents.

In the course of the `90s, the two accused had been through two jury trials and two successful appeals. Their own four children had been taken away from them because of a permanent guardianship order under the Child Welfare Act. During these proceedings, the case received widespread media attention. Court records showed that over 240 newspaper articles were published by the two local newspapers over the years as well as 10 magazine articles. Now, in the fall of 1998, they faced a third jury trial, due to begin in the spring of 1998 and scheduled to last for five weeks. Faced with this prospect, the Lennys asked the Court of Queen's Bench to order a stay of proceedings of criminal charges against them under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Justice Costigan heard the application. He exhaustively reviewed the law concerning sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter. Section 7 speaks of the rights of all Canadians to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 11(b) talks about the rights of an individual when charged with a criminal offence and, specifically, the right to trial within a reasonable time. With regard to the s.11 argument, Justice Costigan decided after looking at many factors such as the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the accused, that there was not an unreasonable delay from the laying of the charges to the anticipated end of the third jury trial. He therefore rejected that argument for staying the charges. However, he decided that the accuseds' application under section 7 of the Charter should succeed and that he should use his discretionary power to order a stay of proceedings to remedy this breach of their Charter rights. He considered factors such as

  • the possibility of a third trial

  • the seriousness of the charges

  • time already spent in custody and under restrictive bail conditions

  • the publicity, trauma and stigmatization of the accused

  • delay

  • expenditure of resources

  • the safety and well-being of the accuseds' children.

It was this last factor that particularly weighed upon the Judge's mind. A psychologist's report filed with the court indicated that the life of one of the Lenny's children could be at risk if a third trial ensued. The boy had attempted suicide and been hospitalized in the summer proceeding the application. His condition was deteriorating as the date of the third trial approached. Justice Costigan referred to the child's plight as a "unique and significant factor of great concern to me..." and said "This is evidence I cannot ignore or minimize. The effect of it is that if the trial proceeds, Adam's life will be seriously at risk and his liberty will likely be restricted in a secure treatment centre."

After consideration of all these factors, Justice Costigan stated, "The combination of factors in this case is exceptional and unique. Compelling the appellants to stand trial a third time in light of the intense and prolonged publicity, the effect of the children's circumstances on the Applicants from their children; the 20 months in custodial time served on the sentence of 6 years and the decrease in the number and seriousness of charges following the second trial, would likely affect the public's sense of fair play and decency and harm the image of our justice system. However, even if the combination of all of those factors was not sufficient to affect the public's sense of fair play and decency, the additional factor of a serious risk to the life and liberty of an innocent child, when considered in combination with all of the other factors, must affect the public's sense of fair play and decency and harm the image of our justice system."

The long legal road of the Lennys that has clouded the Alberta legal horizon for so long began with the plight of one small boy and ended, in part, because of the plight of another.

1998 Apr 1