Skip to main content

‘Where is the evidence why she left the roadway?’ Causation at issue in closing arguments of Chatham impaired driving trial

Share

The issue of causation was at the centre of closing arguments heard Friday during the trial of a Dresden woman charged in the death of her friend.

Arielle Wall, 21, was charged in the death of 19-year-old Gabrielle Emery who died on April 12, 2021 after being involved in a single-vehicle accident on Longwoods Road just west of Louisville.

Wall is charged with impaired driving causing death, operation while impaired over 80 (milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood) causing death and dangerous operation (of a vehicle) causing death.

During assistant Crown attorney Nick Bazylko’s closing remarks Friday, Justice Russell Raikes asked why there was a lack of evidence around causation.

“Where is the evidence (as to) why she left the roadway?” Justice Raikes asked, noting the Crown didn’t present any evidence about how Wall was driving or what the speed of her vehicle was in the moments before the crash.

“Since an accident happened and since she was impaired and since the vehicle was in good repair, it (the accident) must have been (caused by being) impaired?” the judge asked Bazylko, calling that a “leap.”

The judge asked if other scenarios may have caused the accident, like a deer running out in front of Wall’s vehicle.

“The impairment is the explanation,” Bazylko responded, noting because it was a single-vehicle accident with no witnesses, any scenario to explain why the vehicle left the road would be “conjecture and speculation.”

On Thursday, Bazylko told the court he wasn’t calling a Chatham-Kent officer, trained in accident reconstruction to testify.

Instead, Bazylko submitted 11 images of the scene as evidence.

A forensic toxicologist testified Thursday that Wall’s projected blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident could have been anywhere between 65 and 127 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Wall did not take the stand in her own defence, and her lawyer, Ken Marley didn’t call any other witnesses.

“Her intoxication was not a significant contributing factor,” Marley told the court, telling Judge Raikes there was no evidence of how fast the vehicle was going, whether an attempt was made to stay on the roadway or if there was significant braking applied before the vehicle came to rest on a tree on the north side of the road.

Marley said expecting that to come from Wall is “reversing the onus of proof” onto the accused.

Onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt is the role of the Crown attorney, Marley said.

In concluding the matter Friday, Justice Raikes addressed the Emery family.

“Your loss is unimaginable. Whether I convict or I don’t convict won’t change that,” Raikes said “there are no winners in this case” noting Wall lost “a dear friend.”

Raikes said he doesn’t want to make a “spontaneous” decision and will take some time to come back with a “reasoned” verdict on Sept. 14.   

CTVNews.ca Top Stories

Stay Connected