Web Notifications

SaltWire.com would like to send you notifications for breaking news alerts.

Activate notifications?

Verdict in Cow Head dangerous driving causing death case now in hands of Supreme Court justice

Neila Blanchard leaves the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook at the conclusion of her dangerous driving causing death trial Thursday. Justice Valerie Marshall will render her decision in the case Dec. 6.
Neila Blanchard leaves the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook at the conclusion of her dangerous driving causing death trial Thursday. Justice Valerie Marshall will render her decision in the case Dec. 6. - Diane Crocker

STORY CONTINUES BELOW THESE SALTWIRE VIDEOS

Olive Tapenade & Vinho Verde | SaltWire

Watch on YouTube: "Olive Tapenade & Vinho Verde | SaltWire"

CORNER BROOK, N.L. — Was Neila Blanchard driving in such a reckless manner that it was a marked departure from how a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have been driving?

Or was her reckless driving really at a level that should be tried in a criminal case, despite the tragic accident she was involved in?

That’s what Justice Valerie Marshall will have to decide as she weighs the evidence in the case against the Parson’s Pond woman charged with dangerous driving causing death. 

Justin Hynes was 17 when he was struck and killed by Blanchard while walking to school in Cow Head on Sept. 11, 2017. Blanchard was on her way to work at the time.

Neila Blanchard. - SaltWire File Photo
Neila Blanchard. - SaltWire File Photo

Submissions in the trial were presented in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Corner Brook Thursday.

Crown attorney Trina Simms said the evidence presented indicates a lack of attention on Blanchard’s part as to what was happening on the road around her that day.

A witness testified to her veering off the road at Three Mile Rock and said, if she hadn’t corrected the vehicle when she did, it would have gone in the ditch. 

Another testified to her driving too close to him and speeding up whenever he went faster.

Another person said the Honda CRV Blanchard was driving was going faster than it should have been, while yet another witness testified about hearing the sound of a motor revving up.

Blanchard wasn’t charged with impaired driving, but a toxicology report of a blood sample taken four hours after the accident showed the level of an antidepressant present in her system was higher than the therapeutic dose. An expert testified that this could happen because the prescription was for higher than the therapeutic dose or the person had taken too much. 

A reconstruction expert from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimated Blanchard’s vehicle was going 74 kilometres per hour at the time of impact. He said Hynes was struck in the back of his legs and thrown up on the windshield, breaking it.

He sustained severe head injuries.

“Accidents can happen. Yes, they do all the time,” said Simms.

But in this case, she said it was not just hitting a person. Her actions also involved veering off the road, tailgating, knocking over a sign and revving the vehicle's engine.

“It’s not a single momentary error in judgement. It is a continuous pattern of very careless driving," added Simms.

Blanchard’s lawyer, Jim Bennett, acknowledged her driving was careless, but not an act that would engage the Criminal Code.

He said she was not impaired that day and police did not lay an impaired driving charge.

She had taken an antidepressant at 8 a.m. and the expert testified it would not have been immediately fully absorbed into her system, but could have been by the time the blood was drawn.

He considered her driving that day, saying a high rate of speed has different meanings for people. He said she may have been driving the speed limit, noting comments by one witness that he was driving below the posted 50 kilometre-per-hour rate in the town.

“It’s not a single momentary error in judgement. It is a continuous pattern of very careless driving." — Crown Attorney Trina Simms

The fact she veered off the road does not constitute dangerous driving, but rather carelessness or inattention.

Bennett said nobody saw her accelerate before hitting Hynes and the sound of acceleration is not an indication of speed.

He said Blanchard struck a sign at the museum and it was the sign that broke the windshield and obstructed her vision.

He said she may have been panicky and trying to figure out what happened as she continued to drive.

Mere negligence is how he described her driving and said that was something that would call for a civil remedy and doesn’t amount to dangerous driving.

“In all, Neila Blanchard’s driving was less than perfect. She went off the shoulder of the road. She did it, witnesses say, twice, but not at a high speed, but with tragic consequences.”  

Marshall will render her decision in the case Dec. 6.


RELATED 

Share story:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT