R. v. Michel, 2026 ONSC 2341

CITATION: R. v. Michel, 2026 ONSC 2341

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000048-0000

DATE: 20260423

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

LEO URGELL MICHEL

Applicant

Robert G. Johnston, for the Crown

William Caven, Counsel for the Applicant

HEARD: November 10, 2025 and March 31, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

REGIONAL SENIOR JUSTICE H. LEIBOVICH

Overview

1On November 10, 2025, Mr. Michel pleaded guilty to dangerous diving causing death. On April 7, 2022 Mr. Michel drove and crossed over into Irene Elizabeth Youngblut’s lane colliding with her car, killing her. Sentencing submissions were ultimately heard on March 31, 2026. The Crown seeks a sentence of sentence of five years less time for pre-sentence custody plus a 15-year driving prohibition, a ten year s.109 order, a DNA order and a non-communication order. The defence seeks a sentence of two years less pre-sentence custody and a 5-year driving order. The defence does not contest the other ancillary orders. The Crown and the defence also dispute the amount of pre-sentence credit Mr. Michel is deserving.

Circumstances of the offence

2On April 7, 2022, at approximately 4:57 a.m. the Orillia OPP were dispatched to attend at Highway 12 and Moonstone Road in the Township of Oro-Medonte. Mr. Michel’s car had collided head-on with Ms. Youngblut’s car.

3Prior to the collision, Mr. Michel's vehicle was traveling westbound on Highway 12 and Ms. Youngblut's vehicle was traveling eastbound on Highway 12. Despite best efforts by police and other first responders Ms. Youngblut was declared deceased at the scene. Mr. Michel suffered a leg injury, and he was transported to the hospital.

4While still at the scene PC Hill was able to make some observations of the interior of Mr. Michel's vehicle. Inside the vehicle the officer located 7.9 grams of marijuana in a plastic sandwich baggie located on the floor of the driver's seat. Further the officer located a naloxone kit in the driver's door and a methadone bottle in the name of Leo Michel in the centre console.

5Mr. Michel’s blood was taken at the hospital and sent to the Centre for Forensic Sciences, which prepared a toxicology report. That report confirmed that Mr. Michel had detectable levels of Fentanyl, Cocaine, Methamphetamine and THC in his blood.

6As a result of the collision police tasked PC Hester to attend the scene. PC Hester is a designated accident reconstructionist with the Ontario Provincial Police. The officer was able to photograph and measure the collision scene. PC Hester confirmed that at the collision scene Highway 12 was a two lane, two-way undivided roadway running predominantly in the east/west direction. At the area of the collision there was a turning lane in the westbound direction.

7The westbound direction of Highway 12, at the scene of the collision, had a slight curve to the right. There were no fixed view obstructions in the roadway which would have contributed to the collision. PC Hester was also able to obtain the "control module data" from Mr. Michel's vehicle, which allowed police to confirm a significant amount of information about the vehicle during the 5 seconds leading up to impact. Police confirmed that Mr. Michel did not hit the break pedal nor did he meaningfully attempt to turn the steering wheel until less than 0.5 seconds before impact upon hitting the rumble strips on the opposite side of the road.

8At the point of impact Mr. Michel's vehicle had crossed over the centre line of Highway 12 into oncoming traffic. The collision itself occurred on the Eastbound shoulder of Highway 12 meaning, that Mr. Michel had crossed into the oncoming lane of traffic continuing onto the shoulder of the opposite side of the road when he collided with Ms. Youngblut’s car. PC Hester's report concluded that Mr. Michel's red Mitsubishi RVR crossed over the marked double yellow centre line dividing the roadway, into the eastbound lane and struck the victim’s car in a head on collision. The environmental conditions and road design played no role in this collision. There were no visible defects discovered on either vehicle that could have contributed to the collision.

Victim impact statements

9Ms. Youngblut’s death has had a tremendous impact on her family. Impact statements were filed by her granddaughter, her sister, her husband, and her daughter.

10Ms. Youngblut’s husband talked about the impact his wife had as a bus driver. He wrote:

I guess the point I would like to make is we had hundreds of people at the Funeral Home. ….When I asked who they were they told me that they had ridden on Irene school bus 20 and 30 years ago. So fully grown adults had come to say goodbye to their school bus driver. I was very touched by that.

11A year before the collision Ms. Youngblut had fought her way back from a battle with COVID-19. As her daughter wrote:

It took a year of fighting to get her life back. She was in a coma and on a ventilator. When she came out of the coma it took her three months to learn to walk again. One of her biggest goals was to get healthy enough to return to her career as an Orillia Transit driver.

12The victim’s daughter described the impact of her mother’s death. Her death has left a tragic hole in her family’s life. Her daughter wrote:

I became extremely depressed. I couldn't work. I stopped leaning on God. Stop going to church. I was angry and didn't know what to do with that anger so I took it out on the people closest to me. ….I couldn't care for my girls as a mom should/ I had recurring nightmares nightly. I became very impatient with my husband and children. Thoughts of suicide on more than one occasion.

13Ms. Youngblut’s sister stated that she has developed high blood pressure, fatigue headaches, anxiety and forgetfulness. Ms. Youngblut’s granddaughter described the effect her grandmother’s loss has had on her:

Over the past three years I felt so emotional and sad. I had to get a therapist because it got really shy it couldn't talk about it. It didn't work. I couldn't share what happened. Then my parents surprised us with a puppy to help us heal. And we still have her to this day. We named her Mayza and she helps me everyday making sure I'm safe and happy.

Circumstances of the offender

14Mr. Michel is now 56 years old. Growing up he was a good athlete, and he had thoughts of being a chef. He worked in the construction and the restaurant business. He was certified as a bush firefighter. He has two sons, aged 22 and 16.

15Mr. Michel was hyperactive as a child and believes that he suffers from attention deficit disorder. His childhood was affected by his aunt’s murder at the hand of her partner who then took his own life. Mr. Michel at the age of eight or nine years old was introduced to drugs. By the age of 14 he was smoking crack; by the time he was in his 20s he was a full-fledged drug addict. He was an addict until two years after his first son was born. He went to rehab, and he was sober for approximately 17-18 years until shortly before the collision. Mr. Michel had relapsed. The wife of his two sons had left him and that started his decline. He has been sober while in jail.

16Mr. Michel’s sister wrote a letter of support. She stated:

Several months before the car crash caused by Leo’s negligence, he relapsed into drug use after having been clean for approximately 17–18 years. Leo first began using drugs at around eight years old, introduced by family members who thought it was “funny” at the time. Throughout his childhood and teenage years, he struggled with undiagnosed mental health issues and used drugs as a form of self‑medication. As his older sister, I witnessed much of this firsthand.

Leo’s addiction has had long‑term consequences for our family. He contributed to the bankruptcy of our parents’ dry‑cleaning business through fraudulent activities. Over the years, he became entangled in dangerous situations involving drug dealers, at times requiring our family to intervene to ensure his safety. My father spent much of his life and financial resources attempting to support Leo, including multiple attempts at rehabilitation.

17Mr. Michel’s sister wrote that Mr. Michel has been a good father and he has underlying mental health issues that have not been treated.

18Counsel for Mr. Michel has stated that he spoke to Mr. Michel’s father who is 88 years old and blind. The father has stated that his son is remorseful for his actions and wants to get treatment.

19A Gladue Report was requested. However, none was able to be prepared. As stated by the Senior Manager of the Gladue Writer Program:

… At this point in time, we are unable to prepare a Gladue Report for Mr. Michel for two reasons. First, we are unsure about the specific nature of his Indigenous ancestry and second, even if his ancestry was somehow able to be confirmed, we cannot address how being an Indigenous person has affected his life circumstances. The purpose of a Gladue Report is to discuss the way in which the individual before the Court has been influenced and affected by their Indigenous ancestry – either directly or by systemic and historical factors.

This letter should not be read in any way as stating that Mr. Michel is not an Indigenous person – we are not in a position to draw such conclusion. Neither should this letter be read as stating that there may not be relevant Gladue issues at play in this case. The fact that we are not able to prepare a Gladue Report for Mr. Michel does not mean that there are no Gladue issues counsel may wish to raise with the Court.

20I have been provided with no further information on Mr. Michel’s ancestry.

21Mr. Michel has a criminal record. He compiled 22 criminal convictions from 1997-2007. Most of the offences were property related. The longest sentence he received was a 3-month conditional sentence.

22Mr. Michel’s driving record was also filed. He has numerous convictions for speeding and disobeying signs.

23Mr. Michel spoke at the sentencing hearing. He apologized to the family and for what he has done. He was emotional throughout the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

24The following are the aggravating factors:

1. Mr. Michel’s conduct has devasted the victim’s family as evidenced by their impact statements;

2. Mr. Michel had illicit drugs in his system at the time of the collision; and

3. He has a criminal record, although dated and he has a lengthy provincial driving record. The provincial driving record has prior convictions of speeding and disobeying signs.

25The first sentencing hearing date was adjourned because counsel had not properly requested a Gladue Report. The Crown submits that because the writer could not confirm Mr. Michel’s ancestry, I should treat the adjournment request as an aggravating factor. There is no legal support for the Crown’s position. There is no evidence that Mr. Michel was being disingenuous and trying to delay matters by requesting the report. As the “no report letter” noted the writer’s inability to prepare a report does not mean that Mr. Michel is not indigenous.

26The following are the mitigating factors:

1. Mr. Michel has pleaded guilty. I appreciate that the guilty plea was not an early one, however, Mr. Michel still deserves credit for pleading guilty. His plea ensured that there will be no trial and that he will be found criminally responsible for Ms. Youngblut’s death. I also accept that he is genuinely remorseful for his actions. He was crying throughout the reading of the facts and the victim impact statements.

2. He has the ability to be rehabilitated. His last criminal conviction before this was 19 years ago in 2007.

3. He has long standing addictions issues which clearly have affected the trajectory of his life and negatively impacted him and those around him. It also appears he has other mental health issues.

4. Mr. Michel has been subject to excessively harsh conditions while serving his pre-sentence custody. He has been in jail 298 days. He has been subject to some lockdowns. But more concerning is that he has been subject to triple bunking for 177 days or 64 per cent of the time. As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 52:

… Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the "Summers" credit will be deducted. Because the "Duncan" credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

Law and analysis

27Section 718 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (the “Criminal Code”) describes the purpose of sentencing:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

28Further, s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

29Mr. Michel has pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death. Section 320.12 of the Criminal Code states:

It is recognized and declared that

(a) operating a conveyance is a privilege that is subject to certain limits in the interests of public safety that include licensing, the observance of rules and sobriety;

(b) the protection of society is well served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously or while their ability to operate them is impaired by alcohol or a drug, because that conduct poses a threat to the life, health and safety of Canadians; (emphasis added)

30Chief Justice Tulloch in R. v. Robertson, 2026 ONCA 281 at para. 47 explained why driving offences attract criminal sanctions:

Dangerous driving offences attract criminal sanction because they involve the creation of serious and unacceptable risks to public safety, coupled with a significant degree of fault. Such conduct places others in harm’s way and, when those risks materialize, can lead to what has been described as “carnage on the highways” and “all too many tragic deaths and disabling injuries”: R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, at pp. 886-887. The requisite fault is established where the accused’s driving amounts to a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, a fault requirement which the blameworthy choice to create danger easily meets: R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60, at paras. 33-38.

31The Chief Justice further explained at para. 49 that:

Where these offences result in death, sentencing must also reflect the gravity of the harm caused. In cases of dangerous driving causing death, the prohibited conduct is, by definition, a significant contributing cause of the fatal outcome. The resulting loss of life is, therefore, a central factor in assessing the seriousness of the offence: R. v. Perry, 2025 ONCA 241, at para. 11; R. v. Page: 21 Romano, 2017 ONCA 837, 41 C.R. (7th) 305, at para. 19; R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 129.

32The maximum sentence for dangerous driving causing death is imprisonment for life reflecting the gravity of the offence. In sentencing an offender for dangerous driving courts must emphasize the principles of deterrence and denunciation. As stated by then Regional Senior Justice Edwards in R. v. Zhou, 2026 ONSC 1191, at para. 21:

… Law-abiding people regrettably commit drinking and driving offences every day in this country. Those same law-abiding people then add to the carnage on our roads. It is for this reason our courts have consistently emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary factors to be considered when sentencing an offender for impaired driving or dangerous driving causing death - see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras 5, 73-75.

33The maximum sentences for driving offences has increased and appellate courts have correspondingly recognized the need for higher sentences and that parliament “clearly intended to deter dangerous driving by imposing harsher sentences.”; R. v. Georgopoulos, 2026 ONCA 27, at para. 26.

34It is critical to appreciate that: [t]hese offences encompass a wide range of conduct and offender circumstances. Sentences must, therefore, reflect the “almost infinite variety” of ways in which these offences may be committed: R. v. Altiman, 2019 ONCA 511, 56 C.R. (7th) 83, at para. 71; see also Suter, at para. 27.” Robertson at para. 51.

35Counsel have provided cases in support of the sentence they are seeking. I have considered all the cases. These past cases, or precedents, are meant to establish ranges to help guide the court. But sentencing is an individualized process and sentencing ranges are not meant to handcuff the court; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 57; R. v. Mohamed, 2020 ONCA 163, at para. 28.

36Not surprisingly, the cases provided by counsel contain some similarities but also differences. For example, the Crown submits that the case of R. v. Obermok, 2023 ONCJ 401, is the most factually similar to the case at hand. Mr. Obermok pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Mr. Obermok’s Chevrolet entered into the intersection at a high rate of speed and collided with the victim’s car as it was passing through the intersection. Excessive speed and failing to stop at the stop sign by the Chevrolet were the causes of the collision. The accused had a legal amount of alcohol in his system at the time. He had a limited criminal record. He was sentenced to 5 years in jail and a 15-year driving prohibition. However, in that case there were two victims, which is a statutory aggravating factor.

37Similarly, the defence relies on R. v. Lake, 2023 ONCJ 452, where the accused while speeding crossed the center line, into the oncoming lane of traffic, onto the gravel shoulder and colliding head on with the victim’s car. At first blush the case seems similar. However, the accused had a history of seizures and had suffered one before the collision. He did not take his prescribed medication as he was required to do by his driving license. He received a sentence of two years less a day.

38My point is not to be critical of counsel but to emphasize that each case is different. The Crown seeks five years while the defence seeks two years. The defence submits that but for the harsh pre-sentence conditions a sentence of 2.5 years would be merited.

39In my view, having regard to all the aggravating and mitigating factors a sentence of four and a half years is appropriate. The driving was severe. At the point of impact Mr. Michel's vehicle had crossed over the centre line of Highway 12 into oncoming traffic. The collision itself occurred on the Eastbound shoulder of Highway 12 meaning, that Mr. Michel had crossed into the oncoming lane of traffic and continuing onto the shoulder of the opposite side of the road when he collided with Ms. Youngblut. He had in his system, in essence a cocktail of illicit illegal drugs - Fentanyl, Cocaine, Methamphetamine and THC were detected in his blood. This is a significant aggravating factor. Driving is a privilege. Mr. Michel abused that privilege resulting in Ms. Youngblut’s death and significant psychological harm to her family.

40The Crown’s request for five years though does not fully take into consideration all the mitigating factors. The guilty plea, and expression of remorse, has saved the family the anguish of a trial with the uncertainty it contains. Furthermore, Mr. Michel has had a difficult upbringing, and he has longstanding addiction issues, but he has shown, in the past, an ability to overcome his addition. He was offence free for almost 19 years. He can be rehabilitated. Furthermore, he was triple bunked for almost six months while awaiting sentence. Cells are not large. They are only made for two inmates. A third inmate sleeps on a mattress on the floor. One end of the mattress is near the toilet; the other is at the door of the cell. Judge after judge, including myself, have stated that the situation is intolerable and must stop. Yet it hasn’t. In my view, a sentence of four and a half years is an appropriate sentence and reflects all the mitigating and aggravating factors.

41The accused has been in custody for 298 days. He is entitled to credit of 1.5 days for each of these days. That is the law. He has an outstanding charge of failing to appear. He will not receive any pre-sentence custody for that offence. There will be no double-dipping.

42I agree that an extended driving prohibition is required. As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Rawn, 2012 ONCA 487 at paras. 48 and 49:

Second, in my view, a fit sentence in this case must include an extended period of driving prohibition. I emphasize this aspect of the sentence as driving is at the core of the criminal conduct being addressed and at the core of the harm caused and potential harm created. A motor vehicle can, in a moment of recklessness, be transformed into an object capable of destroying lives. The Alberta Court of Appeal expressed this view as follows in R. v. Field, 2011 ABCA 48, 499 A.R. 178: "[d]riving a ton of glass and metal through spaces where people can be expected to be present and at a speed where it is likely to be impossible to stop the vehicle in time to avoid calamity cannot be treated as a youthful indiscretion" (at para. 23).

It must be made clear that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes responsibility. This responsibility entails respecting the laws that govern driving so that the public can reasonably expect that when using our road system their lives and security will not be threatened by unexpected reckless conduct by impulsive drivers such as Ms. Rawn: Field, at para. 22.

43Mr. Michel has a lengthy driving record. He has numerous infractions. On this occasion he drove dangerously while having numerous illegal drugs in his system. He was given the privilege of driving. He has abused it. He has not exercised his right responsibly. In my view, a driving prohibition of 10 years is appropriate.

44Mr. Michel you are sentenced to 4.5 years less credit for pre-sentence custody for 298 at a rate of 1.5 for 447 days. There will be a DNA order, a 10-year s.109 order and a 743.21 non-communication order in addition to a 10-year driving prohibition order.

Leibovich, R.S.J.

Date: April 23, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Michel, 2026 ONSC 2341

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000048-0000

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

LEO URGELLMICHEL

Applicant

reasons FOR DECISION

Regional Senior Justice H. Leibovich