Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-23-07

Date: 2025-10-22

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King – and – Kyle Trepanier, Defendant

Counsel:

• Alexandre Simard, for the Crown
• Mark Ertel, for the Defendant

Heard: May 20-23, and July 2, 2025

Before: Holowka J.

Reasons for Judgment

I. Overview

[1] On the evening of Thanksgiving Sunday, October 9, 2022, around 9 pm, Frank Poirier and Angelique Lucier were travelling together in their GMC pickup truck eastbound on County Road 17 in the direction of L'Orignal. Ms. Lucier was driving Mr. Poirier home before she had to go to work. The defendant, Kyle Trepanier, was driving westbound on County Road 17 towards Wendover in his Hyundai Genesis at that time. He had spent the day with friends, driving around eastern Ontario and making stops. Ms. Emma Roy was with Mr. Trepanier in his car, and friends of Mr. Trepanier, Kyle Trudeau and Kat Parr, were in a separate vehicle.

[2] The night was dark, but the roads were dry. The two vehicles approached each other on a relatively straight stretch of road, about a kilometre and a half east of Wendover. The collision happened in the eastbound lane after Kyle Trepanier's car crossed the centre line into the oncoming lane. As a result of the crash, the pickup truck spun 180 degrees, facing back towards Wendover, and came to a stop partly in the south ditch of the County Road. Kyle Trepanier's car left the road south of the main roadway, entered a farmer's field at high speed, rolled over, and eventually ended up on its roof. The car sustained extensive damage, particularly to the side and rear of the passenger side.

[3] Angelique Lucier, the driver of the pickup truck, was injured, suffering a broken wrist and a hip injury. Emma Roy, the passenger in Kyle Trepanier's vehicle, sustained multiple injuries, including blunt force injuries to the rib and sternum, as well as numerous internal organ injuries. She died later that night from the injuries she sustained in the collision.

[4] People travelling on the road stopped to assist those involved in the collision. Police, ambulance, and fire services attended the scene.

[5] Kyle Trepanier was ultimately charged with two criminal offences:

a. Count 1: Dangerous operation of a conveyance causing the death of Emma Roy, contrary to s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

b. Count 2: Dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm to Angelique Lucier, contrary to Section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

[6] I will use the terms "County Road" and "Highway" interchangeably. Various witnesses described the location of the collision as County Road 17 or Highway 17. There is no doubt that all witnesses were referring to the same road.

II. Procedural Matters

[7] A direct indictment was preferred in the case. Mr. Trepanier has elected to be tried by me, sitting without a jury.

[8] With the defence's consent, an amendment to the indictment was requested and granted at the start of the trial. Initially, the indictment contained two identical counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death. The amendment was made to update the wording of count 2. It caused no prejudice to Mr. Trepanier, who was aware of the nature of the case.

[9] Crown and defence counsel filed an agreed statement of facts. The following admissions were made on behalf of Mr. Trepanier:

a. Date and Time of the alleged offence;

b. Jurisdiction where the alleged offence occurred;

c. Identification of the driver of the Hyundai Genesis as Kyle Trepanier;

d. The admissibility of the photographs submitted by the Crown, along with the various videos presented as evidence—including police body-worn and in-car cameras, and dashcam footage from civilian witnesses.

e. The voluntariness of Mr. Trepanier's statement to the police;

f. The admission of the medical reports in relation to Angelique Lucier (as well as Frank Poirier);

g. The causation of death element of the alleged offence of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death, i.e. the collision caused the death of Emma Roy;

h. The expertise and qualifications of Acting Staff Sergeant Golds, the Technical Collision Investigator and Collision Reconstructionist; and

i. The admission of the Collision Reconstruction Report.

[10] Crown and defence counsel also agreed that the actus reus of the offence of dangerous operation of a conveyance had been proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the Crown has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all the circumstances. The Crown and defence agree that the focus of the trial is on the mens rea requirement of the offence of dangerous operation of a conveyance. I will address both the actus reus and mens rea of the offences later in this decision when I discuss the analysis of the evidence.

[11] I will start by summarizing the evidence presented by the Crown and the defendant. During this summary, I will make findings of fact on certain issues and explain my reasoning for these findings. I will then present my analysis of the facts in relation to the two counts before the court.

III. The Admissible Evidence

A. Angelique Lucier and Frank Poirier's Evidence

[12] Angelique Lucier and Frank Poirier testified about their activities on October 9, 2022, the night of the accident, and their involvement in the collision. They provided their testimony clearly and coherently despite the traumatic nature of the events and the ongoing medical issues faced by Ms. Lucier. I accept their evidence as accurate but note that their observations of the events leading up to the collision are limited due to the speed at which they occurred.

[13] Mr. Poirier testified that he knew Kyle Trepanier and his family from living in the same housing complex 15 years earlier. Ms. Lucier babysat Kyle and his sister during that period. Mr. Poirier remains in contact with Mr. Trepanier's uncle and described him as one of his best friends. Counsel did not submit, and I do not find, that this connection between these witnesses and the Trepanier family affected either the credibility or the reliability of their testimony.

[14] Ms. Lucier and Mr. Poirier are married and live in L'Orignal. Mr. Poirier is retired, while Ms. Lucier works the night shift at Walmart in Hawkesbury.

[15] The two went to their daughter's home for Thanksgiving dinner and were returning to L'Orignal at the time of the collision. Ms. Lucier was driving their 2004 GMC Sierra pickup truck when they left their daughter's home around 8 pm. They dropped their son off in Orleans and were driving along County Road 17 towards L'Orignal. Ms. Lucier intended to drop off Mr. Poirier at his home in L'Orignal before going to work, where she was scheduled to start her shift at 10:30 pm.

[16] The two were travelling eastbound, having passed Wendover on County Road 17. They were about one and a half kilometres east of Wendover when the collision occurred. The accident site was dark. Ms. Lucier described the weather as clear and the roads as in good condition. They were travelling in the eastbound lane of the two-lane highway. Both were wearing their seatbelts.

[17] Angelique Lucier testified that she was travelling at approximately 90 km/h when she suddenly saw headlights coming directly at her and had no time to react or brake. The car crossed into her lane at the last second. The oncoming car struck the passenger side of the pick-up truck, causing it to spin around. She could not describe the relative positions of the cars at the time of the collision and was unable to provide an estimate of the speed of the oncoming car.

[18] Ms. Lucier testified that there were no vehicles ahead of her in the eastbound lane, but said she did see other cars heading west toward Wendover behind the car involved in the collision. She could not determine how far behind these cars were from the vehicle involved in the collision.

[19] Ms. Lucier testified that she suffered a broken wrist and a hip injury requiring hospitalization and physiotherapy.

[20] Mr. Poirier testified that the black car involved in the accident was in the westbound lane and was then heading directly toward them. He believed the car was trying to reach the ditch south of the eastbound lane, which was to his right as he sat in the passenger seat. Like Ms. Lucier, he described the car striking the passenger side of the pickup truck, causing it to spin around. He stated that there was no reaction from Ms. Lucier prior to the collision—there was no time for one. Neither had a chance to say anything. He said the black vehicle's headlights were on low beam, and he noticed them as they were coming directly at them. Mr. Poirier did not know the speed at which they were travelling at the time of the collision.

[21] He described the trajectory of the oncoming black car as being at an angle, rather than as a vehicle that was overtaking. I accept this part of his testimony, in particular, as it aligns with the testimony of Acting Staff Sergeant Golds, the forensic accident reconstructionist whose evidence I will address later in these reasons.

[22] Regarding nearby traffic at the time of the collision, Mr. Poirier could not recall if another car was close by at the time of the accident or if another car was passing dangerously. He did remember other cars heading westbound towards Ottawa directly behind the black car.

[23] Mr. Poirier described the impact as sudden and violent. The airbags deployed, and when the truck came to rest, he thought the pick-up truck was on fire due to the powder from the airbag deployment. He explained how the impact had pushed the passenger-side door into the frame, damaging the frame. He still suffers from rib and neck issues resulting from the collision.

[24] Mr. Poirier testified that the posted speed limit on County Road 17 ranged from 80 to 90 kilometres per hour, but he agreed that it was not unusual to see vehicles travelling at 120 or 130 kilometres per hour.

B. Mackenzie Milicic's Evidence

[25] Mackenzie Milicic, formerly Mackenzie Peterson, testified that she was driving westbound on County Road 17 from Hawkesbury to Rockland on the evening of the accident. She had been in Hawkesbury with friends that day until 8:30 pm before leaving to return home to Rockland. On her way home, she observed two cars also travelling westbound just east of the collision site shortly before it happened. She described it as night when she was driving home.

[26] She described passing the green bridge a few minutes earlier when things started to unfold. I find that the bridge she was referring to is the Jessup Falls Bridge, which is east of Wendover along County Road 17. The bridge is about five and a half kilometres from Wendover by road.

[27] She testified that she was travelling about 115 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, which she described as "my speed," meaning her normal speed for this road. She observed a car following closely behind her, which she thought was odd because she felt she was going well above the speed limit, having checked her speedometer. She described the white car as closely approaching hers from behind and then decelerating to create space between the two vehicles. The white car would then reaccelerate to follow her vehicle closely. When the car decelerated, she concluded that the car did not want to pass her. She felt that this driving conduct was odd.

[28] After a few minutes of this driving behaviour, the white car overtook her vehicle. She testified that a few seconds after the white car passed her, a black car—one she had not previously noticed—passed her. The white car was two car lengths ahead of her at that time.

[29] As the black car overtook her, she heard the sound of a loud engine revving. She observed that there were no rear lights, and the vehicle was dark black. She thought the car might have had a matte finish. She never observed whether or not the black car had its headlights on.

[30] She testified that she could still see the white car ahead of her when the black car passed her. The two vehicles then accelerated into the distance, and she lost sight of them. She described the black car matching the speed of the white car ahead of it. She never observed the black car returning to the westbound lane before she lost sight of the car due to the distance between them and the darkness of the night. Ms. Milicic could not say how far the two cars were when she lost sight of them.

[31] After the second car passed her, there were "fireworks-looking sparks" in the field. She saw that a collision had caused the sparks. The collision occurred within a minute of having been passed by the two cars and having lost sight of them. She saw a truck on the south side of the road that was facing in the wrong direction. She also observed a dark vehicle in the field and a black vehicle far in the distance.

[32] She testified that the white car had already pulled over on the north side of the road near the accident scene, and she also pulled over behind it. It was initially the only car on the side of the road. At that time, she observed that there were two occupants in the white car, a male and a female. She had not previously been able to see the number of occupants in that car because it was dark. She recognized both individuals as they had attended high school together. She stated that their names were Kyle Trudeau and Katherine Parr.

[33] Ms. Milicic described the two cars as going very fast. She estimated that they were travelling at least 130 km/h.

[34] Ms. Milicic did not approach the car in the field but offered assistance to the individuals associated with the pick-up truck.

[35] While I accept Ms. Milicic's testimony regarding the speed of the two vehicles moments before the collision, I acknowledge that estimating speed is exceedingly difficult. I do accept Ms. Milicic's testimony that the two vehicles were travelling at a significantly faster speed than her 115 km/h, which she was driving when she quickly lost sight of them in the darkness.

C. Yvon Malette's Evidence

[36] Yvon Malette testified that he lives in Gatineau, Quebec. On October 9, 2022, he was at his sister-in-law's house in Plantagenet—a short distance from the scene of the collision. He said that there was no rain that night, the roads were clear, and it was a beautiful fall evening. He left to return home around 9 pm.

[37] He came upon the aftermath of the collision and saw a lot of debris on the road, a pick-up truck in the ditch, and a car on its roof south of the road in a farmer's field. He went into the field to help those in the car. The car was badly damaged. He described seeing a young woman on the ground near the vehicle, with her legs still inside the car.

[38] Mr. Malette testified that a young man was pacing near the car. He recalls him repeatedly saying "Mom, I think I killed her, I killed her, I killed her." He remembered that the young man said this three times. He agreed that he only heard parts of the conversation and that it was not his main focus. He described the young man as being sad or upset.

[39] Mr. Malette learned from the young man that the young woman's name was Emma. As Mr. Malette was close to Emma Roy, doing what he could to help her, the young man approached him and introduced himself. He then told Mr. Malette "I don't know what happened. He said, I was driving on the road. I was driving 130. He said, all the light went out and the car, the car jam, it turn black, and I don't remember anything, and I find myself in the field."

[40] In cross-examination on the statements made by the young man, Mr. Malette conceded that he did not know the exact words used by the young man. He agreed that he might have said that the wheel jammed as opposed to the car jammed but maintained the central elements of his account regarding the speed travelled, the light in the car going out, and that something jammed.

[41] Mr. Malette explained that he asked the young man what he was thinking when driving 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. He then checked himself, saying it was none of his business and that he would let the police handle it, before returning his attention to the young woman.

[42] Mr. Malette described his time with Emma Roy before first responders arrived. He tried to comfort her while they waited for help, as she was in and out of consciousness. At one point, he told the young man in a firm tone to move away from the car and Ms. Roy if he was going to continue with his phone call.

D. Kyle Trudeau's Evidence

[43] Kyle Trudeau is a friend of the defendant, Kyle Trepanier. He had known Mr. Trepanier for six or seven months prior to the accident. They frequently saw each other—either daily or weekly, depending on their work schedules. They also maintained contact through text messaging.

[44] Mr. Trudeau lives with his spouse, Kat Parr, in Rockland, ON, but he grew up in Alfred, ON. The accident occurred between Alfred and Rockland on County Road 17. Ms. Parr was with him in his vehicle on the night of the collision.

[45] Mr. Trudeau stated that he had met Emma Roy three or four times at car events—gatherings of car enthusiasts. He described her as an acquaintance.

[46] Kyle Trudeau testified that he only knew Mackenzie Milicic from school when she was Mackenzie Peterson.

[47] Mr. Trudeau testified that he and Kat Parr met Kyle Trepanier in Cornwall during the early afternoon of October 9, 2022. They travelled there in Mr. Trudeau's car, a 2016 black Volkswagen GTI. Mr. Trudeau was driving his car that day with Ms. Parr as his passenger. Mr. Trepanier was driving a Hyundai Genesis and was accompanied by Ms. Roy.

[48] Mr. Trudeau spent the afternoon with Kyle Trepanier, Emma Roy, and Kat Parr. He was vague about details such as the time of the events, the nature of the activities they did together, and who else was with them beyond the four of them. For example, he could not remember how long they stayed in Cornwall that afternoon.

[49] Mr. Trudeau stated that the four of them travelled in two separate vehicles from Cornwall to Maxville to visit Mr. Trepanier's sister, then to Alfred to see a friend, Chris Canning. He could not recall how they decided to go to the Canning residence. He remembered they were there for between 30 to 45 minutes—Mr. Trepanier was helping Mr. Canning with a mechanical issue with his car.

[50] Mr. Trudeau testified that he and Ms. Parr were getting tired and decided they wanted to go home to Rockland. He told Mr. Trepanier about his plans to leave. Mr. Trepanier did not know Alfred well, so he followed Mr. Trudeau to the highway. Although Mr. Trudeau could not specify the highway they planned to take from Alfred to Rockland, his description makes it clear he was referring to County Road 17.

[51] Mr. Trudeau testified that they joined County Road 17 west of both Jessop's Fall Bridge and Wendover. They travelled westbound and crossed the bridge toward Wendover. Mr. Trudeau stated that he did not pass any cars from the time they joined the highway until they crossed the Jessup Falls bridge. Mr. Trepanier continued to drive behind him.

[52] After crossing the bridge and making a gentle curve in the road, Mr. Trudeau testified that he saw a car ahead of him. He could not identify the colour or make of the vehicle, but described it as a small sedan. He did not notice any traffic in front of the car or behind Mr. Trepanier.

[53] When asked about the speed he was travelling at that moment, he answered, "I wouldn't recall. I wouldn't be able. I don't remember." Similarly, he could not remember Mr. Trepanier's speed when passing the car. Mr. Trudeau was unable to recall how long he was behind the car.

[54] Mr. Trudeau testified that when the centre line became dotted, he passed the car, and once he was a safe distance away, Mr. Trepanier passed the same car and then came behind him. The highway had two lanes at that point—one eastbound and one westbound.

[55] Mr. Trudeau described that after passing the initial car, Mr. Trepanier proceeded to pass him, but could not recall on which stretch of road following the bridge this occurred. He believed that Mr. Trepanier's headlights were on and that he could see the red brake lights from Mr. Trepanier's car when being passed.

[56] He described the passing of him and the subsequent collision as follows "He passes me. We're driving down the road. He's in front of me. I look up at my mirror, and then I hear a noise. I look back down, and I'm, that's when I saw the truck, and in the ditch." When he was asked he lost sight of Mr. Trepanier's car after it passed him, he stated "He was in front of me, and then I don't know….I, I he was in front of me when he passed me, but I don't, I, like after when I looked up on m mirror, I don't know. I don't remember anything."

[57] Mr. Trepanier could not give a duration or time estimate for the act of looking in his rearview mirror. He was unable to provide a time frame from when he passed the car until he heard the noise after looking into his rearview mirror. He could not recall if there was any traffic behind him after Mr. Trepanier passed him. Mr. Trudeau could not remember the speed he was travelling when he heard the noise. Mr. Trudeau maintained that he was trying to remember.

[58] In cross-examination, Mr. Trudeau initially stated that he could not recall the speeds at which the two cars were travelling but agreed that he believed he was driving safely and that it was his usual practice to drive near the speed limit. He acknowledged that some people drive above the speed limit, between 110 and 130 km/h. He agreed that if a car ahead of him was travelling at 120 km/h, there would be no need to pass it.

[59] Ultimately, Mr. Trudeau, in cross-examination, testified that he was not travelling at or over 200 km/h and could not remember driving at 150 km/h as he was prudent. He agreed that the fastest he travelled was 110 or 120 km/h, as he does not travel faster than that. He decided that Mr. Trudeau was travelling at the same speed as him before passing him. He stated that it was possible that he was travelling 100 or 110 km/h—his comfortable speed—when Mr. Trepanier pulled out to pass him.

[60] Regarding the pass, in cross-examination, Mr. Trudeau testified that the pass seemed to be a normal safe pass. After the pass, Mr. Trepanier's car moved back into the eastbound lane ahead of him. He did not see anyone in front of Mr. Trepanier, so there was no need to attempt another pass. He then recalled that something happened in a very short time—a second or two—but he did not witness it.

[61] Mr. Trudeau described seeing Mr. Trepanier's brake lights but did not recall them flickering.

[62] Mr. Trudeau speculated that a mechanical failure was involved because he saw nothing in his driving that would have led him to expect this would happen. Due to my concerns about the credibility and reliability of Mr. Trudeau, and since this is a speculative opinion, I have not given any weight to this statement. I will address my concerns about the reliability and credibility of Mr. Trudeau later in these reasons.

E. Field Examination of the Vehicles Involved in the Collision

[63] Provincial Constable Chelsey Schoenfeldt testified that she attended the scene of the motor vehicle collision on October 10, 2022. Her purpose for doing so was to conduct a field examination of the two vehicles involved in the collision. She attended the scene with Acting Staff Sergeant Golds, who was the accident reconstructionist in this matter.

[64] P.C. Schoenfeldt explained that she was working the night shift in Pembroke, Ontario on October 9 when she was advised of the accident and that she would be required to attend to conduct a field examination of the vehicles. She arrived at the scene with Acting Staff Sgt Golds on October 10, 2022, at about 1 pm.

[65] The two reports of P.C. Schoenfeldt regarding her field examination of the two vehicles were filed with the court.

[66] In her testimony, she highlighted the following exterior damage to the 2004 Black GMC Sierra at the scene of the collision:

a. The front of the vehicle: i. The majority of the damage consisted of an intrusion to the right front (passenger side) corner of the vehicle; ii. There was damage to the front right fender with the tire being pinned against the frame of the vehicle; iii. The front bumper was hanging off the front of the vehicle from the right to the left; iv. The right front headlight compartment was missing; v. The front