Supreme Court rules in R. v. B.F. attempted murder case

Law360 Canada (December 5, 2025, 3:53 PM EST) --

John L. Hill

When someone has provided a person with the means to take their own life, and that person makes an independent and autonomous choice to do so, the question arises: how are we to distinguish between the offences of culpable homicide and aiding suicide?

B.F., a surgical nurse, married A.N. in 2016, and they had a daughter, E. The couple separated when E. was about three months old, and B.F. moved with the child to her parents’ apartment. The relationship between B.F. and A.N. deteriorated further, leading to ongoing criminal and family law proceedings. In 2018, both parents applied for custody and access. Around the same time, A.N. pleaded guilty to uttering threats and criminal harassment against B.F. In June 2019, the court granted B.F. interim sole custody of the daughter and supervised access to the father, A.N., which prompted B.F. to seek a stay and leave to appeal. It was against this troubled background that an unusual situation arose.

On June 12, 2019, after failing to contact his family, B.F.’s father asked a neighbour to check the apartment. The neighbour found the 19-month-old daughter, E., unresponsive in her crib. Both B.F. and her mother, I.F., were unconscious on the bed. Emergency responders discovered five empty insulin pens. Although B.F. and I.F. recovered, E. sustained catastrophic and permanent injuries, including severe brain and organ damage, leaving her with a shortened life expectancy and a lifelong need for intensive medical care.

B.F. was charged with two counts of attempted murder (Criminal Code, s. 239(1)(b)) and two counts of aggravated assault (s. 268(2)).

At trial, the Crown alleged that B.F. used her nursing skills to inject her mother and child, motivated by the contentious custody litigation. She then attempted to take her own life. The empty insulin pens and a handwritten note, believed to be a suicide note, were found. The defence suggested that the accused’s mother might have administered the insulin to all three. Both B.F. and I.F. claimed at trial to be the author of what has been referred to as a suicide note. Both B.F. and I.F. denied any knowledge of how insulin pens came into the dwelling.

Regarding the attempted murder charge against the mother, the trial judge instructed the jury that the Crown could establish the actus reus either by demonstrating that the accused injected her mother herself or by providing her mother with the insulin pens, intending that her mother use them on herself. The mother’s willingness did not eliminate liability. For the counts related to the child, the jury was also instructed on alternative liability scenarios if the mother was found to have administered the injections.

The jury found B.F. guilty of attempted murder of both her child and her mother, as well as aggravated assault against the child. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial only for the attempted murder charge related to the mother. It held that the jury should have been instructed on the difference between attempted murder (s. 239) and aiding suicide (s. 241(1)(b)), since the mother might have voluntarily injected herself (R. v. B.F., 2024 ONCA 511). The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which released its decision on Dec. 5 (R. v. B.F., 2025 SCC 41). B.F. also appealed and asked the court to set aside her convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault against E.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (Justices Suzanne Côté, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicholas Kasirer, Mahmud Jamal and Michelle O’Bonsawin; with Justices Richard Wagner C.J., Andromache Karakatsanis, and Mary Moreau dissenting in part) upheld the trial judge’s conviction. The majority determined that no instruction on aiding suicide was necessary. Aiding suicide was not charged. It is not considered a lesser-included offence, and the record showed no “air of reality” to the theory that the accused simply assisted her mother in a suicide attempt. The convictions related to the child were also upheld.

The court highlighted that appellate review of jury instructions is practical. The key question is whether, when considered as a whole, the charge accurately and adequately equipped the jury to decide the case (R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19; R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6). Trial judges must always instruct on the essential elements of the offences. However, they should only advise on defences or included offences where there is an evidentiary basis, giving the theory a realistic appearance (R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29). Without such grounding, instructing on speculative theories can confuse and unnecessarily complicate the charge.

The court did not express a general opinion on whether a person who voluntarily attempts suicide can be considered the victim of attempted murder; such guidance would only be necessary if the suicide-attempt theory had some basis in reality based on the evidence.

The dissent by Justices Karakatsanis and Moreau expressed their belief that an air of reality existed at trial that B.F. provided I.F. with the insulin pens, which I.F. then independently and autonomously administered to herself to commit suicide. There was evidence that permitted a reasonable inference that I.F. chose to inject herself. Such an inference did not preclude a conviction for attempted murder, but it did require further jury instruction. A trial judge has a positive duty to instruct a jury on all relevant questions of law arising from the evidence (R. v. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32).

There was no direct evidence that B.F. deceived or coerced I.F. into self-administering the insulin. A common-sense view is that people are generally assumed to intend the consequences of their actions (R. v. Tatton, 2015 SCC 33). The minority would have upheld B.F.’s conviction but ordered a new trial on the attempted murder charge regarding I.F.

The fact situation in this case points up the difficulties in determining if the intention was murder or aiding in suicide.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Editor's note: headline has been updated.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.