No decisions registered on the OCJ website and nothing on CanLii. No change to Facebook page since 2013. It's quite possible that it hasn't gone to trial yet. Not unusual for it to take 2+ years in criminal charges.
|
|
|
Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)
- Thread starter DECIMIS
- Start date
No decisions registered on the OCJ website and nothing on CanLii. No change to Facebook page since 2013. It's quite possible that it hasn't gone to trial yet. Not unusual for it to take 2+ years in criminal charges.
DECIMIS
Well-known member
Update from Wednesday (6/18/2014) - Jury has questions:
The jury in the Emma Czornobaj trial appeared to be having difficulty grasping some of the concepts involved in the difficult choices they have to make.
Czornobaj, 25, a Laval resident, is charged with two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. On June 27, 2010, she stopped her Honda Civic in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 and exited the vehicle to try to rescue a group of ducklings. While her car was stopped, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle driven by 50-year-old André Roy, with his 16-year-old daughter Jessie on the back, slammed into the back of the car. Both died as a result of the injuries they suffered.
The presiding judge, Superior Court Justice Éliane Perreault, instructed the jury earlier this week on how the Crown is required to have convinced them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it met three criteria in order for them to convict on either charge. While on the surface that might sound simple, the language involved in reaching that criteria is full of nuances that can leave anyone confused and on Wednesday it was clear the jury was.
"Even for lawyers, it's not easy to understand," Perreault said at one point while the jury was absent.
During the trial, the jury was told Roy was likely travelling at a speed estimated to be between 113 and 129 kilometres per hour before he braked and tried to avoid the Civic. The first question the jury asked the judge during its deliberation, late Tuesday afternoon, concerned whether they could consider Roy's speed as having contributed "to the cause of death."
While Perreault was trying to sort out the complicated issue Wednesday morning, with defence lawyer Kathryn Gauthier and prosecutor Annie-Claude Chassé, the jury submitted three more questions for the judge.
"You write (questions) faster than I can answer," the judge told the jury at one point.
The jury has asked five questions in all so far. Two concerned the use of the term "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others" — which is part of the definition of criminal negligence causing death. In another question, a juror sought further explanation of the difference between criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The simplest question was a request for the judge to read both sections of the Criminal Code to them.
While explaining the criminal negligence charge again, Perreault said: "Criminal negligence requires more than carelessness on Emma Czornobaj's part. It must be a marked and substantial difference from what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same circumstances."
She further explained that the Crown has to prove this in either of two ways. In one, they had to prove the accused was aware of the danger or the risk of safety to the lives of others and acted anyway. In the other, the Crown had to prove Czornobaj "gave no thought to the possibility that any such risk existed."
While explaining what applies to the other charges, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, Perreault said: "The Crown must satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Emma Czornobaj acted in a way that is a marked departure from what a reasonable and prudent driver would do in the same circumstances."
"You must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances should have been aware of the risk and the danger involved in Emma Czornobaj's conduct."
In terms of Roy's speed, Perreault said the jury has to consider whether the victim's actions were so negligent that what Czornobaj did can't be considered a significant cause of his death.
The jury will resume its deliberation on Thursday.
(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Jury+trial+Emma+Czornobaj+more+questions/9950894/story.html)
The jury in the Emma Czornobaj trial appeared to be having difficulty grasping some of the concepts involved in the difficult choices they have to make.
Czornobaj, 25, a Laval resident, is charged with two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. On June 27, 2010, she stopped her Honda Civic in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 and exited the vehicle to try to rescue a group of ducklings. While her car was stopped, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle driven by 50-year-old André Roy, with his 16-year-old daughter Jessie on the back, slammed into the back of the car. Both died as a result of the injuries they suffered.
The presiding judge, Superior Court Justice Éliane Perreault, instructed the jury earlier this week on how the Crown is required to have convinced them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it met three criteria in order for them to convict on either charge. While on the surface that might sound simple, the language involved in reaching that criteria is full of nuances that can leave anyone confused and on Wednesday it was clear the jury was.
"Even for lawyers, it's not easy to understand," Perreault said at one point while the jury was absent.
During the trial, the jury was told Roy was likely travelling at a speed estimated to be between 113 and 129 kilometres per hour before he braked and tried to avoid the Civic. The first question the jury asked the judge during its deliberation, late Tuesday afternoon, concerned whether they could consider Roy's speed as having contributed "to the cause of death."
While Perreault was trying to sort out the complicated issue Wednesday morning, with defence lawyer Kathryn Gauthier and prosecutor Annie-Claude Chassé, the jury submitted three more questions for the judge.
"You write (questions) faster than I can answer," the judge told the jury at one point.
The jury has asked five questions in all so far. Two concerned the use of the term "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others" — which is part of the definition of criminal negligence causing death. In another question, a juror sought further explanation of the difference between criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The simplest question was a request for the judge to read both sections of the Criminal Code to them.
While explaining the criminal negligence charge again, Perreault said: "Criminal negligence requires more than carelessness on Emma Czornobaj's part. It must be a marked and substantial difference from what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same circumstances."
She further explained that the Crown has to prove this in either of two ways. In one, they had to prove the accused was aware of the danger or the risk of safety to the lives of others and acted anyway. In the other, the Crown had to prove Czornobaj "gave no thought to the possibility that any such risk existed."
While explaining what applies to the other charges, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, Perreault said: "The Crown must satisfy, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Emma Czornobaj acted in a way that is a marked departure from what a reasonable and prudent driver would do in the same circumstances."
"You must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances should have been aware of the risk and the danger involved in Emma Czornobaj's conduct."
In terms of Roy's speed, Perreault said the jury has to consider whether the victim's actions were so negligent that what Czornobaj did can't be considered a significant cause of his death.
The jury will resume its deliberation on Thursday.
(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Jury+trial+Emma+Czornobaj+more+questions/9950894/story.html)
Last edited:
I thought it was just me being in a hurry.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Lots of interesting opinions.
The bottom line that the judge has drawn - So the motorcycle was going over the speed limit... even taking that fact into consideration... Was the motorcycle rider negligent? were the girl's actions a significant cause of his death?
"In terms of Roy's speed, Perreault said the jury has to consider whether the victim's actions were so negligent that what Czornobaj did can't be considered a significant cause of his death."
Framed like that, she has to be found guilty of criminal negligence IMO, but even if she does, I do not feel very comfortable with the thought.
The bottom line that the judge has drawn - So the motorcycle was going over the speed limit... even taking that fact into consideration... Was the motorcycle rider negligent? were the girl's actions a significant cause of his death?
"In terms of Roy's speed, Perreault said the jury has to consider whether the victim's actions were so negligent that what Czornobaj did can't be considered a significant cause of his death."
Framed like that, she has to be found guilty of criminal negligence IMO, but even if she does, I do not feel very comfortable with the thought.
Which is where, as you pointed out, that the jury could fall back onto the dangerous with its lessor punishment.
They likely will, since a conviction for criminal negligence causing death is a life sentence.
220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
- (a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
- (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
DECIMIS
Well-known member
Update from Thursday (6/19/2014) - Jury has another question:
The jury in the trial of Emma Czornobaj has asked a question that indicates they are weighing the accused’s actions versus those of one of the victims.
Czornobaj is charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. On June 27, 2010, Czornobaj, now 25, stopped her car in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 and got out of the Honda Civic to rescue some ducklings. A Harley-Davidson motorcycle, driven by André Roy, 50, with his 16-year-old daughter Jessie sitting in the back, crashed into the Civic. Both died as a result of the injuries they suffered in the collision.
Thursday morning, the jury sent Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault, the presiding judge, their sixth question since beginning deliberation on Tuesday. The jury asked: If they agree, as a whole, that stopping her car in the left-hand lane is a significant factor in the collision, can it be considered a cause of death?
The question suggests the jury is trying to factor in what role Roy’s speed played in the collision. It is estimated the motorcycle was travelling at a speed between 113 and 129 kilometres per hour.
The use of the word “significant” in the question is an apparent reference to how Perreault instructed the jury on how to deal with the question of Roy’s speed on Wednesday.
To reply to their question, Perreault replied: “It can be considered together with all the other facts of the case which you accept as a cause of death.”
The jury also has the option of finding the accused guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
The jury in the trial of Emma Czornobaj has asked a question that indicates they are weighing the accused’s actions versus those of one of the victims.
Czornobaj is charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. On June 27, 2010, Czornobaj, now 25, stopped her car in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 and got out of the Honda Civic to rescue some ducklings. A Harley-Davidson motorcycle, driven by André Roy, 50, with his 16-year-old daughter Jessie sitting in the back, crashed into the Civic. Both died as a result of the injuries they suffered in the collision.
Thursday morning, the jury sent Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault, the presiding judge, their sixth question since beginning deliberation on Tuesday. The jury asked: If they agree, as a whole, that stopping her car in the left-hand lane is a significant factor in the collision, can it be considered a cause of death?
The question suggests the jury is trying to factor in what role Roy’s speed played in the collision. It is estimated the motorcycle was travelling at a speed between 113 and 129 kilometres per hour.
The use of the word “significant” in the question is an apparent reference to how Perreault instructed the jury on how to deal with the question of Roy’s speed on Wednesday.
To reply to their question, Perreault replied: “It can be considered together with all the other facts of the case which you accept as a cause of death.”
The jury also has the option of finding the accused guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
Last edited:
DECIMIS
Well-known member
Interesting that these words are in there: “It can be considered together with all the other facts of the case which you accept as a cause of death.”
From following this case closely, these are the factors I consider to be a cause of death:
1. Wildlife on the highway
2. Vehicle stopped/blocking a lane
3. Person on the inner shoulder
4. Speed of motorcycle
5. Following distance
6. Type of vehicle being followed too closely (can't see over/through a trailer)
7. Half helmets*
*Coroner said the daughter received injuries from second (jersey barrier) and third (car rolling on top of her) impacts. Her helmet came off in the initial rear-ending. The issue regarding whether the helmets were 'approved' or not was never clarified for the readers. I could be wrong on the helmet being a factor.
From following this case closely, these are the factors I consider to be a cause of death:
1. Wildlife on the highway
2. Vehicle stopped/blocking a lane
3. Person on the inner shoulder
4. Speed of motorcycle
5. Following distance
6. Type of vehicle being followed too closely (can't see over/through a trailer)
7. Half helmets*
*Coroner said the daughter received injuries from second (jersey barrier) and third (car rolling on top of her) impacts. Her helmet came off in the initial rear-ending. The issue regarding whether the helmets were 'approved' or not was never clarified for the readers. I could be wrong on the helmet being a factor.
I82l8
Well-known member
Looks like she wanted a plea bargain: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Czornobaj+prepared+plead+guilty+jail+time/9954717/story.html
DECIMIS
Well-known member
Emma Czornobaj decided to take her chances with a jury and her gamble failed.
On its fourth day of deliberation, the jury found the 25-year-old woman guilty on all four charges she faced, including criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
On June 27, 2010, she stopped her car on Highway 30 in Candiac in an effort to rescue some ducklings. Seconds later, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle stuck her Honda Civic. The driver, André Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16, died as a result of the collision.
Czornobaj was willing to plead guilty as recently as April but refused to do jail time.
She now has a sentencing hearing scheduled for August.
Defence lawyer Marc Labelle said his client was shocked by the verdict. He said the jury decided there was a criminal element to what she did.
Labelle said he might file an appeal.
“So now we are at the sentencing stage in this case. The question we have to ask is that considering the nature of the facts, it is rare that we have criminal negligence where there are no bad elements. This was not a race. This was not a person who took a chance and drove drunk. This is not about someone who was speeding and took a risky maneuver,” Labelle told reporters while suggesting his client might only merit a sentence that can be served in the community.
On April 3, Labelle told a different Superior Court judge that Czornobaj was willing to plead guilty to at least some of the charges but the Crown insisted she serve jail time. The amount of time the prosecution was offering in April was not mentioned in court.
“We will look at all the jurisprudence and we will make our representations in court,” Labelle said. He acknowledged that the Crown is less likely to back away from its stance that Czornobaj serve jail time.
Labelle said he will use the next few weeks trying to decide if he will request a pre-sentencing report when the case comes back to court on Aug. 8. The report would involve a criminologist looking at many aspects of Czornobaj’s life, as well as her attitude towards what she’s been convicted of, and make recommendations to the judge. Czornobaj, a financial analyst who graduated from Concordia’s John Molson School of Business, has no criminal record. She also made the dean’s list at Concordia while she studied there.
Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chassé declined to comment on what kind a sentence she will ask for.
The jury appeared to be at an impasse late Thursday afternoon and one of three questions they sent to Perreault, the presiding judge, suggested there was a lone holdout among them who refused to find Czornobaj guilty on criminal negligence causing death.
Their day on Thursday appeared to end with the impasse still present. But shortly after the jury arrived at the Montreal courthouse on Friday it announced it had made its unanimous decision.
After the verdict was read by the jury foreperson, an administrator from Concordia University, Perreault took the extra step of having each juror state that they agreed with the verdicts.
Czornobaj was asked by Perreault to come to the witness stand while the verdict was read. Her head bowed slightly by the time the second verdict was read out. As she returned to her seat in the courtroom, next to her mother, she appeared stunned. And while Perreault thanked the jury for their work Czornobaj dabbed a tissue below her eyes.
She left the courthouse, accompanied by her mother, without making any comment
On its fourth day of deliberation, the jury found the 25-year-old woman guilty on all four charges she faced, including criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
On June 27, 2010, she stopped her car on Highway 30 in Candiac in an effort to rescue some ducklings. Seconds later, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle stuck her Honda Civic. The driver, André Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16, died as a result of the collision.
Czornobaj was willing to plead guilty as recently as April but refused to do jail time.
She now has a sentencing hearing scheduled for August.
Defence lawyer Marc Labelle said his client was shocked by the verdict. He said the jury decided there was a criminal element to what she did.
Labelle said he might file an appeal.
“So now we are at the sentencing stage in this case. The question we have to ask is that considering the nature of the facts, it is rare that we have criminal negligence where there are no bad elements. This was not a race. This was not a person who took a chance and drove drunk. This is not about someone who was speeding and took a risky maneuver,” Labelle told reporters while suggesting his client might only merit a sentence that can be served in the community.
On April 3, Labelle told a different Superior Court judge that Czornobaj was willing to plead guilty to at least some of the charges but the Crown insisted she serve jail time. The amount of time the prosecution was offering in April was not mentioned in court.
“We will look at all the jurisprudence and we will make our representations in court,” Labelle said. He acknowledged that the Crown is less likely to back away from its stance that Czornobaj serve jail time.
Labelle said he will use the next few weeks trying to decide if he will request a pre-sentencing report when the case comes back to court on Aug. 8. The report would involve a criminologist looking at many aspects of Czornobaj’s life, as well as her attitude towards what she’s been convicted of, and make recommendations to the judge. Czornobaj, a financial analyst who graduated from Concordia’s John Molson School of Business, has no criminal record. She also made the dean’s list at Concordia while she studied there.
Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chassé declined to comment on what kind a sentence she will ask for.
The jury appeared to be at an impasse late Thursday afternoon and one of three questions they sent to Perreault, the presiding judge, suggested there was a lone holdout among them who refused to find Czornobaj guilty on criminal negligence causing death.
Their day on Thursday appeared to end with the impasse still present. But shortly after the jury arrived at the Montreal courthouse on Friday it announced it had made its unanimous decision.
After the verdict was read by the jury foreperson, an administrator from Concordia University, Perreault took the extra step of having each juror state that they agreed with the verdicts.
Czornobaj was asked by Perreault to come to the witness stand while the verdict was read. Her head bowed slightly by the time the second verdict was read out. As she returned to her seat in the courtroom, next to her mother, she appeared stunned. And while Perreault thanked the jury for their work Czornobaj dabbed a tissue below her eyes.
She left the courthouse, accompanied by her mother, without making any comment
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
As I said, in the framework that the judge presented to the jury, she HAS to be found guilty of criminal negligence IMO.
Feel bad for her. I hope she gets sentenced to less than 5 years in prison, banned from driving for 10 years after that.
Unreal. The woman did nothing wrong. Regardless of her reason why she stopped he was over the speed limit , did not leave enough space, was not looking ahaead and could not brake fast enough to avoid a parked car. A failed alternator could put anyones car in the same position without hazards.
Next time are people going to blame a tow truck driver for crashing into their truck? Blame firefighters for crashing into their truck when they are sitting on 1/2 the shoulder? What about crashing into MTO trucks and blaming them??
Next time are people going to blame a tow truck driver for crashing into their truck? Blame firefighters for crashing into their truck when they are sitting on 1/2 the shoulder? What about crashing into MTO trucks and blaming them??
Stopping your car in a dangerous location to rescue cute little duckies is not on the same scale. The other things that you mentioned are actually necessities.
Very flawed thinking here. WHY a vehicle is stopped is largely irrelevant; if she slammed on her brakes if front of the guy then she committed a careless act, but a vehicle being parked for any reason isn't going to change the outcome of the twat who didn't take the appropriate precautions to avoid it. I would go as far as to say that the reason she was stopped should not have even been considered. If people don't ride like twats, they may actually live a while longer. There never should be any justification for someone hitting a parked vehicle. I had a guy who crashed into my HOUSE and tried to blame the truck that was parked out front (legally). If you cannot see or react to a stationary hazard, YOU are the problem that needs fixing, period
Last edited:
Fortunately your view of how to deal with people who create dangerous situations is not how the law sees it.
Hey, thanks for the patronizing Rob! Again, your emotion allowed your comprehension to be stopped short. Where did I write how people should be dealt with? This is a classic case of the actual cause of a crash being misplaced, in large part to the whining, "can't be my fault" mentality in the world now. Care to enlighten us how the outcome would have been different for the riders if she had a reason to be stopped that was more on line with your/the law's point of view? She could've been stopped because of a medical issue, mechanical issue, or any issue at all, so tell us all how that would have changed the outcome?
There difference would have been one of criminal responsibility, if she had been there through no fault of her own. This was a choice.
|
|
|
|
|