Dr. Brian Nadler acquitted of murder, negligence charges

Article content

Dr. Brian Nadler’s defence lawyers called it “a day of vindication” as the former Hawkesbury doctor was acquitted Tuesday of four first-degree murder charges and four counts of criminal negligence causing death.

Nadler’s high-profile murder trial was set to commence Tuesday, but he was acquitted of all counts after the Crown declined to call any evidence or witnesses to testify on behalf of the prosecution.

Article content

Nadler replied, “Not guilty,” as each of the eight charges was read into the court record.

After the Crown elected to call no evidence, Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips entered an acquittal on all charges.

“You are innocent of these charges,” the judge told Nadler. “You are free to go.”

Nadler was charged with four counts of first-degree murder and criminal negligence causing the deaths of Albert Poidinger, 89; Claire Brière, 80; Lorraine Lalande, 79; and Judith Lungulescu, 93 — all elderly patients at the Hawkesbury & District General Hospital, where Nadler worked as an internal medicine specialist at the time.

During a pretrial hearing last week, Phillips ruled that a volume of expert evidence should be excluded from the Crown’s case. That left the prosecution with no reasonable prospect of a conviction against Nadler, Crown attorney Robin Flumerfelt told the court Tuesday.

According to Nadler’s defence lawyers, the Crown’s prospective witness was disqualified as an expert by the judge and the evidence was ruled inadmissible.

Following Tuesday’s hearing, defence lawyer Brian Greenspan said the judge “properly found” the expert was not qualified to speak to the issue of the four elderly patients’ causes of death, which was “central to this case.”

Article content

Flumerfelt said the Crown reviewed its case after the judge’s decision, and concluded “this court’s rulings, including the exclusion of the Crown’s expert evidence, have made it impossible to continue the prosecution at this point,” he told the court. “For all practical purposes, these rulings have decided the case against the Crown.”

Flumerfelt requested Nadler be arraigned, meaning his eight charges were read aloud, and Nadler entered not guilty pleas, in order to preserve the Crown’s right to appeal.

“In response to that we will call no evidence and ask for a directed verdict of acquittal,” Flumerfelt said.

The Crown can’t appeal when charges are withdrawn or stayed, but can lodge an appeal in the case of an acquittal. Flumerfelt suggested to the judge that an appeal may already be in the works.

Phillips said Nadler had been “shrouded in the presumption of innocence” since the beginning of the case, “and that innocence has not been rebutted in any way.”

Hawkesbury OPP were first called to the hospital where Nadler worked on March 25, 2021, to investigate Poidinger’s death. Nadler was charged in Poidinger’s death within 24 hours, and at the time, police said the investigation pointed to multiple suspicious deaths at the hospital. Three additional murder charges were laid in 2022. Police said Brière, Lalande and Lungulescu died “on or about” the same date that Poidinger died in 2021.

Article content

Following Nadler’s acquittal, his legal team made a brief appearance outside the Ottawa courthouse. Nadler himself did not speak.

Greenspan said the acquittal was “a day of vindication,” for Nadler, and an unprecedented outcome in his 50 years of practising law.

Greenspan successfully argued the Crown’s prospective expert witness was not properly qualified to speak to issues “that were central to this case, namely the cause of death,” he told reporters.

The Crown’s expert witness was a hematologist, who diagnoses, manages and treats blood disorders.

“Not a pathologist, not a toxicologist, but a hematologist,” Greenspan said.

Greenspan said postmortem exams of the four deceased determined they died of COVID-19 or had pre-existing conditions before contracting the virus in the midst of an outbreak of the Delta variant at the Hawkesbury hospital, calling these “critical facts which, until today, were the subject of a publication ban.”

The Crown did not provide forensic pathological evidence to the contrary, he added.

Greenspan said the defence was prepared to call its own expert to rebut the findings of the Crown’s expert.

Article content

“In addition, had the trial proceeded, the jury would have heard from an eminent Canadian clinical toxicologist, who concluded after a detailed review of each of the four cases that the medications administered by Nadler would not have caused, or contributed substantially to any of the four deaths.”

Keara Lundrigan, a partner at Ottawa-based AGP LLP, a firm that specializes in criminal trials and appeals, said it’s “incredibly rare” for an expert witness to not be accepted by the court.

But, she added, it’s become more commonplace in recent cases after a “bombshell” decision from Ontario’s Court of Appeal. R v. Hanson was released in May and places expert evidence under the microscope.

“As report after report have demonstrated, such evidence may result in miscarriages of justice that can impose severe and unjustified consequences on accused persons. These risks can sometimes exist even in cases involving highly experienced expert witnesses,” reads the decision from Chief Justice of Ontario Michael Holland and Justices Lorne Sossin and Jill Copeland.

“While all justice system participants have a responsibility to guard against these risks, judges are the last line of defence. By carefully scrutinizing expert evidence and issuing decisions concerning its admissibility and weight, they alert everyone in the justice system to concerning red flags regarding particular experts.”

This newspaper has asked the Crown if it intends to appeal Nadler’s acquittal, but did not immediately receive a response.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General declined to comment on the case, saying, “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Greenspan said Nadler’s legal team would “respond to an appeal accordingly.”

Article content