Driving habits called into question as trial of SQ officer involved in fatal crash draws to a close

The lawyer for Patrick Ouellet, theSretduQubecofficer charged with dangerous driving causing the death of five-year-old Nicolas Thorne-Belance, focused on the driving behaviour of the boy's father in her closing arguments Wednesday.

Nadine Toumaasked the judge to consider whether Mike Belance made driving errors on the day that her client plowed into Belance'svehicle in an unmarked police cruiser.

Ouellet was tailing a politician as part of of a surveillance operation targeting provincial corruption in Longueuil in February 2014.

Hewas driving more than 100 km/h in a 50-km/h zone on Gatan-Boucher Boulevard in Saint-Hubert when his cruisersmashed into Belance's car as it was turning left.

Ouellet's car struck the rear passenger door, on the side in which Nicolas was strapped into his car seat.

The boywas critically injured and died later in hospital.

Judge questions arguments

However,Simard challenged some of Touma's arguments.

"It's possible Mr. Belance made a bad decision, but you could argue he made that decision because of the excessive speed of Ouellet's car," the judgesaid.

"He was forced to make a decision for a vehicle approaching at not 70, not 80, not 90, but more than 100 km/h," Simard continued.

Touma argued that police officers in surveillance operations are allowed to exceed the speed limitand said that Ouellet was just doing his job.

"This is not criminal behaviour," Touma said.

Focus on accused's behaviour, Crown says

In her closing arguments Wednesdayafternoon,prosecutor Genevive Langlois argued that Simard should focus on the conduct of the accused, Ouellet, and not on Belance's conduct when making his decision.

"The behaviour of Mr. Belance does not have the pertinence the defence would like it to have," Langlois said.

Langlois said the way Ouelletwas driving thatday was "objectively dangerous."

She said Ouellet knew the unmarked vehicle he was in had no lights and sirens, and therefore he had no way to warn other drivers of his presence.

The police officer should have been aware that there was a heightened risk to driving at high speed in a residential area at7:45 a.m.on a weekday, she said a time when families were likely tobe leaving their homes on their way to school or work.

"A responsible, diligent police officer would know that when he's travelling more than twice the speed limit, people have less time to react," Langlois said.

"A responsible police officer shouldn't create a situation more dangerous than the one he's trying to address."

A decision in the case is expectedJuly 18.