"There is no single case in the jurisprudence with such an overwhelming evidentiary record of bias, partiality, lack of independence, lack of credibility. The only possible remedy that could address the fatal flaws in the proposed experts' qualifications is the exclusion of their evidence."
Lawyers Michael Edelson, Vince Clifford, Solomon Friedman, defence
"The body of evidence before the court does not support the exclusion of any, let alone all, of their evidence. They are not biased. They are sufficiently independent. They are not partial. Their conclusions are supported by the documented physical evidence."
Crown prosecutorial team
The trial of Dr. Christy Natsis is an original. It stands apart from most other such trials, when someone is held responsible for the death of another motorist because the accused chose to drink to inebriation and then drive a vehicle, placing themselves and anyone else on the highway at risk, resulting from the alcoholic effect on the human system in related impairment of perception and reaction while operating a motor vehicle.
This case is different; it points out how uneven justice can be when skilled and experienced high-priced lawyers are given the opportunity to use case law and pick apart evidence they claim to have been illegally or sloppily gathered, infringing on the constitutional rights of an individual whose choices made of free will somewhat impacted by inebriation, placed others at risk of injury and death.
Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis is on trial charged with the crimes of impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death. Impaired driving carries a minimum thousand-dollar fine with no minimum jail time and a one year licence suspension, while conviction in the more serious offence could result in a prison sentence of between two and five years; inadequate for the cost of a life. She has pleaded not guilty on both counts.
It is a potential sentence that Ms. Natsis has employed a skilled and costly legal firm for the purpose of aiding her to evade the consequences of her actions. Her actions led to the March 31, 2011 highway impact that killed another driver, Brian Casey, travelling home from his engineering job at Chalk River. Ms. Natsis, in her drunk state, crossed the centre line, hitting Mr. Casey's truck. He went into cardiac arrest en route to hospital.
Witnesses at the crash scene identified the condition that Ms. Natsis was in, reflective of her drunken state. She had initially left the parking lot of the retail establishment where she had consumed too much alcohol, backing her car up into another parked vehicle before erratically speeding off to gain the highway. After the accident, she exhibited all the symptoms of inebriation. She insisted on personal attention, displaying no concern for the condition her driving had left her victim in.
Her arrogance and narcissism was described in testimony by a wide variety of witnesses in the manner of her behaviour. Her law team was able to successfully persuade Ontario Court Justice Neil Kozloff to set aside breath samples indicating a blood-alcohol level almost two-and-a-half times the legal limit, by alleging that her rights had been violated by the arresting officer who waited an hour while she spoke incoherently with a lawyer over her cellphone.
And now, this trial that has been successfully put off for one recess after another by Ms. Natsis's law team, has once again been placed in suspension as the defence lawyers attempt to assemble an argument persuasive enough to lead the judge hearing this impossibly compromised case to dismiss it entirely, enabling Ms. Natsis to return to her pre-accident life, and the family of Mr. Casey to mourn not only his death but the absence of justice.