My very first observation, after the very first day of Gideon Fekre’s trial for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, was that things happen quickly on the road. Terrible things, with horrifying consequences. As lawyers wrapped up their arguments before the Ontario Superior Court on Monday, that theme carried through to the end. Under questioning by Mr. Justice Peter Bawden, both lawyers acknowledged that the behaviour under scrutiny in this case lasted for, at most, a few seconds. It could actually be less than a second, depending on how you judge the evidence.That’s the time Fekre’s attention was diverted by a water bottle that had fallen to his feet. He reached down to grab it and diverted his eyes from the road just as his car approached a curve in Dundas St. East As a result, his car mounted the sidewalk and struck Kristy Hodgson, 31, who had been walking her dogs. Hodgson died of her injuries later.That moment of inattention caused her death. How it is interpreted will decide if Fekre is criminally responsible, subject to a possible prison sentence of up to 14 years.As the lawyers cited case law Monday, and Justice Bawden interjected with questions and clarifications, it became clear that the key decision before the court is whether Fekre’s reaction in the course of those few seconds is a “marked deviation” from what a “reasonably prudent” driver would do under the circumstances. In the words of Justice Bawden, he must find the behaviour “morally blameworthy” as opposed to “human error.”Or, as the layman might put it, the verdict hinges on whether this is normally bad driving or criminally bad driving.This is a standard laid out by the Supreme Court. “Even good drivers are occasionally subject to momentary lapses of attention…. But they generally will not rise to the level of a marked departure required for a conviction for dangerous driving,” the cour ...
|
