National Post (National Edition)
‘It was like a nightmare,’ officer says of fatal crash
Policeman charged in boy’s death testifies
MONTREAL • A Quebec police officer charged with dangerous driving causing the death of a five-year-old boy testified in his own defence on Monday.
Patrick Ouellet, 34, spoke in a matter-of-fact manner about his decision that led to the death of Nicholas Thorne-belance.
On Feb. 13, 2014, the boy was riding in his father’s car when Ouellet’s unmarked Toyota Camry plowed into it.
Ouellet was trying to catch up to an undercover surveillance team that was following a suspect in a breach-oftrust investigation.
According to an expert witness, his Camry was travelling at 134 km/h in a residential zone, where the speed limit was 50 km/h, when he hit the brakes.
The boy’s father was heading in the opposite direction on Gaétan-boucher Boulevard when he made a left-hand turn toward Davis Boulevard.
Ouellet hit the brakes when he spotted the Kia but, according to the expert who testified last week, the Camry was still travelling at 108 km/h when the collision occurred.
Nicholas was pinned inside the Kia. He died days later in hospital. His sister was also inside the car at the time and was injured.
Months after the collision, the boy’s parents were told that no charges would be laid against Ouellet, an officer with the Sûreté du Québec.
But following days of public outcry, Justice Minister Stephanie Vallée ordered an independent committee review the case.
In May 2015, Ouellet was charged with the Criminal Code offence that carries a maximum 14-year sentence.
On Monday, Ouellet was able to tell his side of the story for the first time.
While answering questions from his lawyer, Nadine Touma, he was asked to listen to two 911 calls he made after the collision.
At the end of one call Ouellet could be heard saying: “It can’t be.”
Touma asked him to explain the comment.
“It was like a nightmare,” Ouellet told Quebec Court Judge Éric Simard.
“It didn’t make sense in my eyes. The last thing I wanted was to be involved in an accident with two children injured.”
Ouellet estimated that he first noticed the Kia when his Camry — which was not equipped with any police lights or a siren — was less than 100 metres from it.
“The only thing I know is that when I saw it, I braked. I know of the evidence presented in the trial. I can’t quantify it,” Ouellet said of the amount of time he had to react. He estimated it was less than two seconds.
“It was like the (other car) was frozen in the intersection.
“I remember seeing the airbag in front of me. I checked myself for injuries. I was on adrenaline at 100 per cent.”
Ouellet said that after he exited the Camry a colleague who was part of the same surveillance team informed him there were two injured children in the Kia.
“What kind of state were you in?” Touma asked.
“I was in shock.”
The defence lawyer then asked Ouellet if he was aware of a written policy SQ officers are expected to follow while driving through residential areas. Ouellet said he was never shown the document while he underwent surveillance training. He said the training involved learning to “evaluate the opportunities you have.”
He said that was how he was thinking when he decided to accelerate to catch up to other members of the surveillance team based on what he saw in front of him on Gaétan-boucher Boulevard at the time.
He said there were few vehicles on the road and that the light ahead of him at the intersection was green.
“(The conditions were) ideal to catch up (to the other surveillance team). I took the decision to increase my speed to catch up.
“It was the only way to make up the distance (to the other surveillance team),” Ouellet said while being cross-examined by prosecutor Geneviève Langlois.
He also estimated that he was travelling at somewhere between 100 and 110 km/h when he spotted the Kia.
As the cross-examination neared its end, Ouellet conceded that there was no emergency involved in his assignment that day and that he had received no information that the surveillance would have been compromised had he failed to catch up to the other team.
Simard will hear closing arguments in the case on Wednesday.