Conviction in collision that killed Cambridge woman
GULEPH — A Toronto woman has been found guilty of dangerous driving causing death in connection with a head-on collision two years ago that killed a 27-year-old Cambridge woman.
Harvy Panchal, 26, turned over her driver’s licence before leaving the courtroom in Guelph on Monday, but she will not learn her sentence until December, after the judge has heard submissions from lawyers as well as victim impact statements.
The head-on collision on Wellington Road 35 in Puslinch Township on July 16, 2016, killed Katelyn Lindsay of Cambridge.
Some family and friends of Lindsay, wearing handmade purple hearts, sobbed openly as the verdict was delivered. They declined to speak to media.
Panchal showed far less emotion as she listened to the judgment with help from a Gujarati interpreter.
Before delivering his verdict, Justice Gordon Lemon noted that the issue is not whether or not Panchal caused Lindsay’s death. “The only issue is whether Ms. Panchal was driving dangerously on that date,” he said.
“The Crown submits that the question to be decided is: When you pass on a hill and you cannot see what is coming, does that constitute dangerous driving?
“On the facts of this case, I find that it does.”
Panchal, who was 24 at the time and had a G2 licence, had been on her way to African Lion Safari with her boyfriend and his brother.
As she drove south on Wellington Road 35, she moved into the northbound lane to pass a slower vehicle. Seconds later, the Hyundai Veloster she was driving collided with Lindsay’s northbound Ford Focus.
Panchal and her two passengers suffered only minor injuries. Lindsay died at the scene.
The trial, which took place over several days in June, included testimony from two drivers who witnessed the collision, an OPP police reconstruction expert and Panchal.
Based on the evidence, the judge determined that Panchal had been attempting to pass just one car — not two as one of the witnesses had suggested.
He said evidence provided by the OPP reconstruction expert clearly showed a hill in front of the place where Panchal had pulled out to pass.
“From looking at the horizon, at the very least, the hill is obvious,” Lemon said.
At that point, she would have been about 10 seconds away from the collision. As she started to pass the other car, it sped up, but Panchal waited until she came to the top of the hill before she tried to remedy the situation, Lemon said.
“There is no real argument that seeking to pass on a hill when you’re unable to see the oncoming vehicles was other than a dangerous act,” he said.
But the real issue is whether Panchal had the required state of mind to be found guilty of the offence, he said.
“Simple carelessness is not a crime,” he said.
But the judge found her behaviour constituted “more than mere negligence of carelessness.” A reasonable person would have seen the risk of passing on a hill as soon as Panchal pulled into the northbound lane and, when the car she was attempting to pass sped up, “a reasonable person would have slowed and re-entered the safe southbound lane,” Lemon said.
The fact that the other car sped up meant she was in the oncoming lane attempting to pass over an even longer period of time.
“Her failure to respond was more than momentary,” Lemon said. Factoring in the reality of the hill, “she should have and could have responded immediately.”
Taking into account that Panchal is pregnant and expects to give birth in September, dates beyond that were chosen for sentencing submissions and sentencing.
Panchal’s lawyers and the Crown are expected to make sentencing submissions on Nov. 13, when victim impact statements are also expected to be heard.
Panchal will be sentenced on Dec.12.