2011 QCCQ 15896, 2011 QCCQ 15896

R. c. Bourgault 2011 QCCQ 15896 JF 0929 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LOCALITY OF SAINT-FRANÇOIS SHERBROOKE "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 450-01-059723-093 DATE: December 20, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ THE HONOURABLE HÉLÈNE FABI, J.C.Q., PRESIDING ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

PASCAL BOURGAULT Accused ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T [1] ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The accused stood trial on the following charges: [ translation ] 1. On or about April 26, 2009, at Sherbrooke, District of Saint-François, while street racing, did operate a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, and did thereby cause the death of Paul Lacharité, thereby committing the indictable offence pursuant to

section 249.4(1) (4) of the Criminal Code . 2. On or about April 26, 2009, at Sherbrooke, District of Saint-François, while street racing, did operate a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, and did thereby cause bodily harm to M.V., contrary to

section 249.4(1) (3) of the Criminal Code . 3.

On or about April 26, 2009, at Sherbrooke, District of Saint-François, having had the care, charge and control of a Dodge Charger vehicle that was involved in an accident with a Chevrolet Malibu vehicle causing the death of Paul Lacharité and, knowing that he was dead or reckless as to whether death would result from the bodily injury he knew he had caused him, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, failed to stop and give his name and address, and although Paul Lacharité seemed to require or required assistance, did fail to offer assistance, thereby committing the indictable offence pursuant to section 252(1.3) of the Criminal Code . 4.

On or around April 26, 2009, at Sherbrooke, District of Saint-François, having had the care, charge and control of a Dodge Charger vehicle that was involved in an accident with M.V. and, knowing that bodily harm was caused to M.V. and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, did fail to stop and give his name and address, and although M.V. appeared to require or required assistance, did fail to offer assistance, thereby committing the indictable offence pursuant to section 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code . 5.

On or about April 26, 2009, at Sherbrooke, District of Saint-François, did abandon or expose a child who is under the age of ten (10) years, to wit: X (2002 - ...), so that its life was or was likely to be in danger or its health was or was likely to be permanently injured, thereby committing the indictable offence pursuant to

section 218 of the Criminal Code . ADMISSIONS [ 2 ] At the beginning of the trial, the parties made certain admissions, which are listed in exhibit P-1. [ 3 ] Among these admissions, the parties agreed to the filing of the photographs taken on May 4 and 12, 2009, of the accused's vehicle, a black 2006 Dodge Charger SRT8, and of Louis-Philippe Blais's vehicle, a grey 2004 Dodge Neon SRT4. [ 4 ] The parties also agreed on the qualification of Officer Bernard Ouellet as a collision investigation reconstructionist for the Sûreté du Québec (Quebec provincial police). EXHIBITS FILED BY THE PROSECUTION

[ 5 ] Among the thirty exhibits filed by the prosecution are the following: - a sketch of the site (exhibit P-23); - a collision investigation expert report (exhibit P-20); - a Power Point presentation (exhibit P-21); - photographs showing the scene of the accident, the site, and the vehicles involved in the collision (exhibit P-7) All of these documents were prepared by Officer Bernard Ouellet, the collision investigation reconstructionist. [ 6 ] Among the documents is a satellite photograph of the area where the collision took place.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE [ 7 ] The accident involved two vehicles, the first a red Chevrolet Malibu driven by the victim, Paul Lacharité, and the second a grey Dodge Neon SRT4 driven by Louis-Philippe Blais.

A third vehicle, a black Dodge Charger SRT8 driven by the accused, was directly beside and moving in the same direction as Louis-Philippe Blais's vehicle when the collision took place. [ 8 ] That being the case, the evidence essentially shows that, on Sunday, April 26, 2009, around 12:05 p.m., the red Chevrolet Malibu pulled out of the Tim Hortons parking lot, crossing the eastbound traffic lanes on King Street East to turn onto King Street East and head west. [ 9 ] At that point, the grey Dodge Neon SRT4 driven by Louis-Philippe Blais, which had been driving in the left eastbound lane of King Street East, crashed into the door on the driver's side of the red Chevrolet Malibu. [ 10 ] Thus, the collision took place in the left eastbound lane of King Street East, in front of the entrance to the Tim Hortons restaurant. [ 11 ] The black Dodge Charger SRT8 driven by the accused, which was in the right eastbound lane of King Street East, narrowly missed the collision by swerving abruptly right to avoid the back of the red Chevrolet Malibu.

The accused continued east along King Street East but returned shortly thereafter to the Tim Hortons parking lot. [ 12 ] The accused's vehicle was not damaged. [ 13 ] Nevertheless, after the versions of various eye-witnesses were gathered, the investigation suggested that the accused's vehicle, which had been driving directly beside and in the same direction as Louis-Philippe Blais's vehicle, was involved. [ 14 ] The collision resulted in the death of Paul Lacharité, the driver of the red Chevrolet Malibu, and bodily harm to his spouse, M.V., who was riding in the front passenger seat. [ 15 ] As for Louis-Philippe Blais, the driver of the grey Dodge Neon SRT4, the second vehicle involved in the collision, he suffered only minor injuries. [ 16 ] What follows is a description of the specific geometry of the scene and the intersection where the events began, included to ensure a better understanding: [ translation ] It is an urban intersection.

King Street East has four traffic lanes, two eastbound and two westbound. On either side of the intersection, a median separates the eastbound from the westbound lanes. When driving east on King Street East, Galt Street East is south and to the right, while Duplessis Road is north and to the left.

The area is clearly visible in a satellite photograph on page 4 of exhibit P-22 and in a map of the collision area on page 19 of the same exhibit. [ 17 ] From the intersection of Galt Street East and Duplessis Road, King Street East eastbound curves gently to the left and rises slightly but not so much as to hamper visibility. This is illustrated on page 5 of exhibit P-22. [ 18 ] The traffic signals at this intersection are a system of traffic lights.

The speed limit on King Street East is 50 km/h. [ 19 ] The distance between the intersection and the point of impact (collision), going east, is estimated to be 190 metres. [ 20 ] At the time of the accident, the weather was sunny and the temperature was 14 degrees Celsius.

Visibility was good and the road surface was dry and in good condition. [ 21 ] The prosecution called eight civilian eye-witnesses, four police witnesses (including the collision reconstruction expert), one mechanical inspector, and the manager of a garage and Chrysler dealership. [ 22 ] The substance of their testimony is reproduced below. [ 23 ] For the purposes of this judgment and for ease of comprehension, the Court will refer to the vehicle of Paul Lacharité and his passenger, M.

V., as "the red vehicle", that of Louis-Philippe Blais as "the grey vehicle", and that of the accused as "the accused's black vehicle".

FIRST WITNESS [ 24 ] Louis-Philippe Mégré was riding in the front passenger seat of the vehicle driven by his spouse. According to him, there was quite a bit of traffic that day. [ 25 ] His vehicle was on King Street East, in the right eastbound lane.

It was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East, right behind the accused's black vehicle, which was the first car at the intersection. [ 26 ] Before the light turned green, a grey vehicle pulled up in the left lane next to the accused's black vehicle. [ 27 ] He noticed the two vehicles because, as he says, they were [ translation ] "nice cars with big engines". [ 28 ] When the traffic light turned green, he watched the two vehicles pull away, accelerating quickly.

As they pulled away, the back of the accused's black vehicle swung slightly from left to right. [ 29 ] The two cars drove side by side toward Tim Hortons, which was on their right.

At that moment, Louis-Philippe Mégré noticed the red vehicle pulling out of the Tim Hortons parking lot entrance heading out onto King Street East westbound. [ 30 ] Louis-Philippe Mégré says that when he saw the red vehicle pull out across King Street East, the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle had reached the end of the median on their left, approximately forty metres from the point of impact, as he indicated with the number 1 on exhibit P-8-A. [ 31 ] When he saw this, Louis-Philippe Mégré believed that a collision between the red vehicle and the accused's black vehicle was inevitable. [ 32 ] He witnessed the avoidance manoeuvre made by the accused's black vehicle, however, as it swung around the back of the red vehicle and took the right shoulder.

At that moment, the collision happened in the left lane, where the grey vehicle was driving.

The grey vehicle smashed into the door of the red vehicle on the driver's side. [ 33 ] When he saw the impact, the vehicle in which Louis-Philippe Mégré was riding was even with the Canadian Tire store to his left, as he indicated on exhibit P-9. [ 34 ] Louis-Philippe Mégré states that at the time of the events, his spouse was driving around 50 km/h, the posted speed limit. [ 35 ] The windows of his vehicle were closed and he heard neither of the two vehicles make any particular sound or noise. [ 36 ] He did not notice whether the back brake lights of the two vehicles went on before the collision. [ 37 ] At no time was he able to estimate the speed of the vehicles. [ 38 ] He did, however, have an answer to the question, [ translation ] "What did you think those people were doing?" He stated, [ translation ] "For sure, looking at that, it was probably a race". [ 39 ] He estimates the distance between his vehicle and the two vehicles driving side by side in front of him to be 40 to 50 metres. [ 40 ] After the impact, Louis-Philippe Mégré pulled into the Irving parking lot just past the Tim Hortons. [ 41 ] He stayed there for 45 to 60 minutes and did not see the accused's black vehicle return to the scene.

SECOND WITNESSS [ 42 ] André Cabana was in his vehicle in the left eastbound lane of King Street East. He was stopped at the red light at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East, behind the grey vehicle. He does not remember there being another vehicle between his car and the grey vehicle. To use his expression, André Cabana describes the traffic that day as [ translation ] "normal". [ 43 ] When the traffic light turned green, as André Cabana says, he heard the motor of the grey vehicle [ translation ] "roar".

He also saw the vehicle [ translation ] "zigzag" when it drove off. [ 44 ] From that moment, his attention was on this vehicle, which [ translation ] "took off in a hurry and sped up very quickly".

At the same time, he saw the accused's black vehicle in the right lane doing the same thing. [ 45 ] The two vehicles were accelerating continuously, driving essentially side by side, right up until the moment of the accident. [ 46 ] André Cabana told the Court: [ translation ] "In my opinion, I was watching a kind of race between the two of them, to see who could take off faster or who could drive faster, that was my impression". [ 47 ] He adds: [ translation ] "The more they advanced, the farther the two vehicles pulled ahead of me".

He estimates the distance between his vehicle and the grey vehicle in front of him to be between 75 and 100 metres. [ 48 ] Just as his vehicle was at the very beginning of the curve and he was driving between approximately 25 and 30 km/h, he noticed the red vehicle, stopped up ahead on King Street East, waiting to turn into the westbound traffic. [ 49 ] He used the number 4 to indicate on the map (exhibit P-10) where he was when he saw the red vehicle.

[ 50 ] At that moment, the grey vehicle and the accused's black vehicle were side by side, at the positions indicated respectively by the numbers 5 and 6 on the map (exhibit P-10). [ 51 ] Under examination, he stated, [ translation ] "In my opinion, I thought a race was going to happen. There were two vehicles that were racing against each other". [ 52 ] According to André Cabana, when he saw that, [ translation ] "I had a feeling that something was going to happen, I had a kind of premonition".

He was afraid. [ 53 ] In answer to the defence's suggestion that he was afraid because the red vehicle was blocking the lane for the grey and black vehicles, André Cabana stated, [ translation ] "that his fear was due to the fact that the two vehicles were accelerating 'rapidly' and heading for the red vehicle". [ 54 ] The inevitable happened, and he witnessed the collision between the grey vehicle and the red vehicle.

The accused's black vehicle continued driving ahead. [ 55 ] André Cabana is unable to estimate the speed of the two vehicles but however states that they were going faster than the speed limit. [ 56 ] After the impact, he pulled into the Tim Hortons parking lot and did not see the accused's black vehicle return to the scene.

THIRD WITNESS [ 57 ] Chantal Grenier was in her utility vehicle on Galt Street East, the first in the right lane, waiting to head straight along Duplessis Road. [ 58 ] Her vehicle was stopped at the red light at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East. [ 59 ] She noticed the accused's black vehicle because, as she says, [ translation ] "It was a big black sports car, very shiny, a nice car". [ 60 ] She heard engine noises coming from both the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle, which were stopped on King Street East, to her left. [ 61 ] Their traffic light turned green before hers, and she saw the two vehicles [ translation ] "take off" very quickly in front of her. [ 62 ] She kept her eyes on both vehicles.

As she looked right, she noticed the red vehicle about to pull out of the Tim Hortons entrance.

She told the Court: [ translation ] "At that moment, I knew that something was going to happen, considering how fast those two cars were going". [ 63 ] According to her, the traffic was heavy that day, and she thought that it was insane to race when there were so many cars. [ 64 ] In answer to a question posed during examination, Chantal Grenier answered, [ translation ] "The vehicles were racing, they were challenging each other, they were side by side". [ 65 ] She witnessed the impact between the grey vehicle and the red vehicle.

She also saw the avoidance manoeuvre toward the right made by the accused's black vehicle, which continued heading east without stopping. FOURTH WITNESS [ 66 ] Mélissa Lavigueur was a passenger in the front seat of the vehicle driven by her spouse Sylvain Lemay. The vehicle was stopped at the red light in the left lane of Galt Street East at the intersection with King Street East, waiting to turn left and head west on King Street East.

According to her, there was not very much traffic that day. [ 67 ] She noticed the two sports vehicles, namely, the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle. [ 68 ] To repeat the words of Mélissa Lavigueur, [ translation ] "It looked like two sports cars that definitely wanted to ‘dig’", which to her means to race each other. [ 69 ] The two vehicles were first at the intersection.

The windows of her vehicle were open, and she heard the engine sounds made by the two vehicles, which were typical of the sounds made by sports cars. [ 70 ] She explains that the movements of each vehicle trying to pull away first seemed to indicate that they wanted to get ahead of each other. To use her expression, [ translation ] "the vehicles seemed to be taunting each other". [ 71 ] When the traffic light turned green, the two vehicles pulled away very quickly. She used the expression, [ translation ] "took off".

The two vehicles were right beside each other, neck and neck. [ 72 ] She cannot estimate their speed, but she believes that it was excessive. [ 73 ] As she says, she had the impression that [ translation ] "the two cars were ‘digging’, trying to see who would overtake the other". [ 74 ] She saw the collision happen. [ 75 ] After the impact, her spouse Sylvain Lemay headed east on King Street East and turned into the Irving parking lot. He remained at the scene for ten to fifteen minutes.

[ 76 ] Mélissa Lavigueur saw the accused's black vehicle return to the Tim Hortons parking lot. The accused got out of his car with a young child and remained in the parking lot, looking at the scene of the accident for a few minutes.

He then entered the Tim Hortons, came back out, and left the scene in his black vehicle. [ 77 ] Under cross-examination, Mélissa Lavigueur stated that she has no memory of a utility vehicle stopped on her right on Galt Street East because, according to her, her spouse could not have turned right on King Street East. [ 78 ] In answer to a suggestion from the defence that the grey vehicle and the accused's black vehicle were at the end of the median when the red vehicle began to move into King Street East and that it was obvious that there was going to be an impact, Mélissa Lavigueur said, [ translation ] "It was because of the speed that the two vehicles were going, whether they were near or far, the accident was a sure thing".

FIFTH WITNESS [ 79 ] Sylvain Lemay is Mélissa Lavigueur's spouse. He was driving the vehicle. [ 80 ] He describes the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle as [ translation ] "fast cars" with high performance. [ 81 ] While he was waiting for the green light at the intersection, he was convinced that the two vehicles were going to race, and he told Mélissa Lavigueur. [ 82 ] He saw the two vehicles [ translation ] "take off", as though they were in a drag race. [ 83 ] He heard the revving of the motor of the grey vehicle and saw smoke coming from its tires when it pulled away.

He also heard whistling from its turbo engine. [ 84 ] He estimates the speed of the vehicles after they pulled away to be 70 miles an hour. All of his observations were made between 7 and 8 seconds before the accident took place. Sylvain Lemay said that it was not a good place to speed. [ 85 ] Right before the impact, he saw brake lights go on, but he cannot say on which of the two vehicles; everything happened so quickly, he explains. [ 86 ] After the impact, he saw the accused's black vehicle return to the scene, at the Tim Hortons parking lot.

He observed essentially the same facts as his spouse, Mélissa Lavigueur. [ 87 ] Under cross-examination, Sylvain Lemay stated that, at the intersection where he was waiting for his light to turn green, there were vehicles in the right lane on Galt Street East, but he cannot describe them. SIXTH WITNESS [ 88 ] Étienne Provost was with his spouse Geneviève Théroux. They were together in the Tim Hortons parking lot, outside their vehicle.

According to him, the traffic was light that day. [ 89 ] Étienne Prévost heard the noise of two vehicles accelerating at the intersection of King Street East and Galt Street East. [ 90 ] He saw the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle.

In his opinion, it looked a lot like a drag race because the two cars were side by side [ 91 ] He cannot estimate their speed, but he states that they were driving over the speed limit. [ 92 ] His first reflex upon seeing such an unusual situation was to tell his spouse so that she could also witness the two vehicles moving in their direction. [ 93 ] He noticed a red vehicle in the Tim Hortons parking lot and saw it again only when the collision happened. [ 94 ] Just before the collision, he saw that the two vehicles tried to brake. He says he knew this because the weight of the vehicles moved toward the front.

As he says, he saw the vehicles [ translation ] "dive" toward the front. [ 95 ] Based on the noises coming from the two vehicles, Étienne Prévost is able to say that the grey vehicle had a manual transmission and the accused's black vehicle had an automatic transmission. [ 96 ] During his examination, Étienne Prévost said that he heard tires squealing, although he could not say which vehicle the noise came from. [ 97 ] During a rigorous cross-examination, the defence referred to the notes from the preliminary inquiry of February 9, 2010, and the statement of Étienne Prévost to the police on April 26, 2009, and contradicted Étienne Prévost because he was unable to confirm whether the two vehicles did in fact brake or squeal their tires. [ 98 ] Five minutes after the accident, Étienne Prévost saw the accused's black vehicle return to the scene, in the Tim Hortons parking lot. [ 99 ] Étienne Prévost did not see the accused go to speak to the police officers, who had already arrived at the scene of the accident.

SEVENTH WITNESS

[ 100 ] Geneviève Théroux is Étienne Prévost's spouse. She drove the vehicle to Tim Hortons. [ 101 ] She entered the parking lot and parked in the first spot in front of the business. [ 102 ] She noticed the red vehicle backing up to leave the parking lot. [ 103 ] As she got out of her car, she heard acceleration noises.

She then looked at the two vehicles, which were diving in her direction [ 104 ] The two vehicles were driving quickly, side by side. [ 105 ] She thought that they were in a street race and that they were a danger to the other vehicles. [ 106 ] Just before impact, she saw the accused's black vehicle slow down, but she is unable to say whether the grey vehicle did the same.

Even under cross-examination, she stated that the accused's black vehicle was ahead of the grey vehicle. [ 107 ] The accident involving the grey vehicle and the red vehicle she had seen in the Tim Hortons parking lot happened in front of her. [ 108 ] After the impact, she saw the accused's black vehicle return to the Tim Hortons parking lot and park in the area farthest from the entrance. [ 109 ] A few minutes later, she saw the same black vehicle leave the parking lot with two occupants, including a young child of about ten years of age in the passenger seat.

EIGHTH WITNESS [ 110 ] Jeanne Hamel was in her vehicle in the left lane of Galt Street East. She was stopped at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East, waiting to turn west on King Street East. [ 111 ] According to her, there was not a great deal of traffic on April 26, 2009. [ 112 ] The evidence does not reveal where her vehicle was in the order of vehicles lined up at the intersection in her traffic lane. Was her vehicle the first one in her lane?

The Court does not know. [ 113 ] While she was waiting for the traffic light to turn green, her attention was drawn to the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle. [ 114 ] She heard the noise of an engine.

She cannot, however, say which vehicle the sound was coming from. [ 115 ] As she says, [ translation ] "The motors were revving". [ 116 ] She saw the driver of the grey vehicle look over at the accused's black vehicle, but she did not see whether the accused looked back at the driver of the grey vehicle. [ 117 ] That is when she saw the two vehicles pull away very quickly, side by side. [ 118 ] Jeanne Hamel cannot estimate the speed at which the two vehicles were driving, however. [ 119 ] Her impression was that they were driving dangerously, like they were two people who had decided to [ translation ] "dig". [ 120 ] She describes what she saw as a drag race. [ 121 ] When she began turning west on King Street East, she heard a noise she describes as a "boom".

It was the sound of the impact of the accident that had just occurred. NINTH WITNESSS [ 122 ] Karine Côté is a police officer for the Sûreté municipale de Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke municipal police). She was with Officer Régis Bernier and a trainee. The two officers arrived on the scene two to three minutes after receiving a call regarding an accident with injuries. Karine Côté observed the following facts: ➢ Two vehicles were involved in an accident. ➢ Louis-Philippe Blais was very agitated and panic-stricken.

She heard him say, [ translation ] "I'm so stupid, I hate myself'". ➢ She saw two people in the red Malibu, which was extremely damaged. ➢ The door on the driver's side was completely crushed inward, pinning the victim, Paul Lacharité. ➢ The front passenger, M. V., was panicking and worried about what was happening to her husband. Karine Côté tried to comfort them. ➢ The windshield was broken. ➢ The instrument panel was twisted up.

➢ The airbags had opened. ➢ She saw firefighters use extraction tools to extricate Paul Lacharité, who was pinned inside his vehicle. ➢ She rode to the hospital in the ambulance with the victim Paul Lacharité. He died a few moments after arriving. TENTH WITNESS [ 123 ] Officer Régis Bernier secured the perimeter, placing his vehicle on King Street East, a little before the site of the accident, to block eastbound traffic on King Street East.

He redirected traffic. [ 124 ] He and Officer Karine Côté were the first respondents to arrive. [ 125 ] Subsequently, when the other emergency respondents arrived to take over, he went to the Tim Hortons parking lot to meet with some of the witnesses of the accident. He remembers speaking to two people who were not called as witnesses at trial. [ 126 ] He also had to monitor the scene of the accident to ensure that curious onlookers did not get too close.

ELEVENTH WITNESS [ 127 ] Officer Luc Lalonde was called to the site to block the traffic lane. [ 128 ] His patrol car was parked on the access road from Galt Street East to King Street East. [ 129 ] He did not meet any witnesses of the events that day. TWELFTH WITNESSS [ 130 ] Benoît Gosselin is a mechanical inspector.

The Court has qualified him as an expert in mechanical inspection. [ 131 ] He was the person who carried out the mechanical inspection of the two vehicles involved in the accident, namely, the grey Dodge Neon SRT4 and the red 2003 Chevrolet Malibu. [ 132 ] He filed two inspection reports in which he concluded that the two vehicles were in excellent mechanical condition before the collision (see exhibits P-5 and P-6). [ 133 ] His inspection report on the grey 2004 Dodge Neon SRT4 (exhibit P-5) contains the following remark: [ translation ] This model is a relatively high-performing vehicle.

It has a 2.4 litre turbo engine delivering up to 230 hp at 5300 rpm. [ 134 ] The grey Dodge Neon SRT4 has a special type of exhaust system that causes a much louder noise than a conventional system. [ 135 ] The turbo engine boosts engine strength but has no effect on the noise level other than perhaps a slight whistling sound. THIRTEENTH WITNESS [ 136 ] Bernard Ouellet is a police officer for the Sûreté du Québec (Quebec provincial police) and an accident reconstruction expert. He was called to the scene of the accident on April 26, 2009.

He arrived around 4:00 p.m. [ 137 ] He has provided a clear, precise, and detailed description of each and every expert assessment carried out and the results that appear in his collision investigation report (exhibit P-20), his Power Point presentation (exhibit P-22), and a report of brake and acceleration tests that he performed using a vehicle with ABS brakes similar to those of one of the vehicles in the collision, namely the grey 2004 Dodge SRT4 (exhibit P-21). [ 138 ] The latter tests were filmed and filed as exhibits P-26, P-27 and P-28. [ 139 ] He also filed a report containing a large number of photographs of the site and of the two vehicles at the scene of the unfortunate events (exhibit P-7). [ 140 ] Although we shall refrain from relating all of the details, we will say that Bernard Ouellet employed three techniques that allowed him to determine the speed of the two vehicles involved in the accident at the moment of impact. [ 141 ] Because there was little in the way of skid marks at the scene of the accident, he employed three techniques, explaining that this was to validate the results he obtained. [ 142 ] The first was the crush test, the second was the so-called conservation of momentum method, which uses software to determine the energy of each vehicle at the moment of impact, and the third involved reading the red vehicle's airbag control module. [ 143 ] Bernard Ouellet explains that there was a control module on the grey vehicle, but that he was not able to extract and read the data. [ 144 ] The expert's analyses led him to the following conclusions: [ translation ]

➢ At the intersection of Galt Street, King Street East (Route 112) has two eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes. A median separates the lanes.

The median ends 33 metres west of the impact zone. ➢ The fatal collision took place in the left eastbound lane of King Street East, in front of the entrance to the Tim Hortons restaurant. ➢ The Chevrolet Malibu was pulling out of the Tim Hortons parking lot, going north to turn west onto King Street East. ➢ The Dodge SRT4 was in the left eastbound lane on King Street East at the time of the collision. ➢ The front of the Dodge SRT4 hit the front left door of the Chevrolet Malibu. ➢ The Chevrolet Malibu was pushed east for 12.70 metres, pivoting 41 degrees clockwise on its centre of gravity. ➢ The Dodge SRT4 continued moving east for 5.21 metres, while pivoting 96 degrees in a counter-clockwise direction. ➢ A crush test report determined the speeds of the vehicles at the moment of impact.

The speed of the Chevrolet Malibu was 9 km/h and the speed of the Dodge SRT4 was 77 km/h. ➢ A speed estimate based on the post-impact movement of the vehicles and the reconstruction of the angles of approach and departure momentum determined speeds similar to those found in the crush tests. The speed of the Chevrolet Malibu was 9 km/h. The speed of the Dodge SRT4 was 79 km/h. ➢ A report on the airbag deployment control module in the Chevrolet Malibu determined that the speed of that car at the moment of impact was 10 km/h. ➢ At the moment of collision, the road surface was dry and in good condition.

The visibility at the intersection of Galt Street at the site of the collision is good. There is a 4.3% positive slope but it does not hamper visibility. ➢ The traffic signals at the Galt Street intersection consist of traffic lights. ➢ The mechanical condition of the vehicles was not a contributing factor in the collision. ➢ Upon reading the statements, it is clear that there was a race between the Dodge SRT4 and the Dodge Charger SRT8.

The Dodge Charger SRT8 was in the right lane and was able to avoid the collision with the Chevrolet Malibu. [ 145 ] At the scene of the collision, Bernard Ouellet was unable to locate skid marks caused by the braking of the grey vehicle. [ 146 ] However, based on the versions of some of the witnesses present when the accident occurred who stated that they saw the grey vehicle brake, Bernard Ouellet carried out further tests on October 13, 2010.

They were acceleration and brake tests using a vehicle with ABS brakes similar to those of the grey vehicle involved in the accident. [ 147 ] Working on the assumption that the driver of the grey vehicle had braked before impact, the tests were performed to discover the rate of acceleration to determine the speed he was going before the brakes were applied. [ 148 ] He explains the lack of skid marks on the road from the braking of the grey vehicle by the fact that the grey vehicle had an ABS brake system. [ 149 ] He justifies his reasoning by stating that this happens particularly in vehicles with ABS brakes, which do not block the wheels completely and as a result do not create enough heat to bring the tar to the surface of the asphalt. [ 150 ] He adds that, in the case of accidents involving vehicles with ABS brakes, the reconstruction expert must arrive on the scene right away and immediately mark out the skid marks because they will disappear very quickly (within two hours), . [ 151 ] These skid marks are very volatile. [ 152 ] Adding that he arrived four hours after the accident, Bernard Ouellet stated that it might be that the skid marks disappeared before he got there. [ 153 ] To conclude, based on the brake and acceleration tests, and taking it as fact that the driver of the grey vehicle braked before the impact, Bernard Ouellet found: [ translation ] ...that the speed of this vehicle was between 100 and 110 kilometres an hour before it hit the red Chevrolet Malibu at 77 kilometres an hour.

The normal traffic on King Street East took five seconds more to drive the 190 metres.

The driver of the red Chevrolet Malibu had sufficient time to cross the lanes of King Street East and to stop at the centre of the road. (exhibit P-21, page 5) [ 154 ] Bernard Ouellet added that the presence of the diagonal yellow lines on the road past the median going east are there to inform westbound drivers on King Street East that there is an obstacle (the median) (see exhibit P-23). [ 155 ] These lines in no way prevent either eastbound or westbound drivers on King Street East from crossing them the way that the victim Paul Lacharité intended.

[ 156 ] To the question put by the defence, [ translation ] "Physically, let's forget the testimony, are you able to say whether Mr.

Blais's grey vehicle braked?" Bernard Ouellet answered, [ translation ] "With the physical evidence that I have, I cannot determine whether he braked, I have nothing, but in my mind, according to logic, there was braking, but I can't prove it." FOURTEENTH WITNESS [ 157 ] Sébastien Robert is an auto parts manager for the Robert Automobiles garage, the Chrysler dealership in Coaticook. [ 158 ] Louis-Philippe Blais is a client and has regular maintenance of his vehicle done there. [ 159 ] Sébastien Robert is a specialist in the modification of SRT vehicles (a series of Dodge Chrysler vehicles). [ 160 ] He explains that Louis-Philippe Blais's grey vehicle has ABS brakes and a turbo engine.

Even in its original state, it was a high- performance vehicle. [ 161 ] On July 17, 2008, Louis-Philippe Blais went to his garage to have his grey Dodge Neon SRT4 modified. [ 162 ] He purchased a part known as the "stage 1 computer" to slightly increase the performance of his vehicle's engine. [ 163 ] Another modification involved the replacement of the wastegate, which regulates boost to the turbo engine to increase performance or acceleration speed. [ 164 ] He explains that a turbo engine is louder than a conventional engine. [ 165 ] The exhaust system of Louis-Phillipe Blais's grey vehicle is also louder than a conventional system.

DEFENCE: LOUIS-PHILIPPE BLAIS [ 166 ] In defence, the accused called Louis-Philippe Blais. [ 167 ] Mr.

Blais states that he was the driver of the grey Dodge Neon SRT4 involved in the accident that took place on April 26, 2009. [ 168 ] He admits that he modified some of the original parts of his vehicle to make it noisier. [ 169 ] On the day of April 26, 2009, Louis-Phillippe Blais was planning to meet his parents to visit some land with the possible intention of purchasing it. [ 170 ] While stopped at the intersection of King Street East, Galt Street East, and Duplessis Road, heading east, he noticed the accused's black vehicle and glanced at it.

He states, however, that he did not pay attention to it. [ 171 ] Louis-Philippe Blais says, when the traffic light turned green, [ translation ] "I pulled away from the intersection as usual". [ 172 ] He adds: [ translation ] "A little past the intersection, I got up to around 60 to 65 km/h, and then, about 60 metres before the Tim Hortons exit where the impact happened, I checked my speed, I was around 60–65 km/h, then I started playing with my radio, and then suddenly I heard tires squealing.

I looked up, and I saw that the vehicle that was beside me with the lights, the Dodge Charger or the Avenger had jumped up onto the median to avoid a vehicle that was coming out of Tim Hortons. At that moment Mr. Lacharité's car was in front of me and there was the impact”. [ 173 ] Under cross-examination, he added that the accused's black vehicle was a little bit ahead of him. [ 174 ] During his examination in chief, he stated that he did not have time to brake. Under cross-examination, however, he told a different version, providing the following explanation: [ translation ] Q. You didn't brake? A.

I can't remember. Q. Earlier you said you didn't have time, so now is it that you can't recall or you didn't have time? A. If I could have braked, I'm sure that I would have, but it happened so quickly. Q. But do you know or do you not know, earlier you said that you didn't have time and now you're saying that you don't know, what's the answer? A.

In my opinion, I didn't have the time to brake. [ 175 ] When he went to the red vehicle, Louis-Philippe Blais recognized the driver Paul Lacharité as the janitor of the school he attended when he was in grade 3 or 4. [ 176 ] That was when he tried to call 911 with his cell phone, but he could not get through. [ 177 ] He filed a letter from his insurance company (exhibit D-3)) establishing the percentage of his responsibility for the accident at 0%.

[ 178 ] Louis-Philippe Blais admits that he is a fan of the drag races that take place in the town of St-Élie. [ 179 ] Since 2007, he has been attending with friends one Friday a month to watch the races and drink beer. He has attended between 20 and 24 times since then. [ 180 ] He has taken

part in these drag races with his grey Dodge Neon SRT4 on a few occasions: three times as the driver and twice as the passenger while a friend drove his car. [ 181 ] He also attended shortly before the accident of April 26, 2009. [ 182 ] Under cross-examination, Louis-Philippe Blais admitted that he has received four fines for speeding since 2007 and one fine for excessive noise in 2008.

THE ACCUSED [ 183 ] As for the accused, he explains that, on that day, he was with his young son and they were planning to go fishing. [ 184 ] He wanted to go to Subway to get breakfast for his son and a coffee for himself. [ 185 ] Subway is located on the same side as Tim Hortons, approximately 400 metres further east. [ 186 ] His vehicle was in the right eastbound lane of King Street East. He was stopped at the red light at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East. [ 187 ] The accused states that he saw a grey car at this intersection but that he paid no attention to it.

He guesses that music was playing in his car. He does not know the driver of the grey vehicle. [ 188 ] He adds that his black Dodge Charger SRT8 has eight cylinders and that in his view, it is an extremely high-performing vehicle. It has an automatic transmission and a modified exhaust system.

To use the accused's expression, his [ translation ] "car makes a lot of noise, it roars". [ 189 ] When the traffic light turned green, he accelerated normally to about 60 to 65 km per hour. [ 190 ] When he was, in his estimation, 4 or 5 metres away, he saw the red vehicle exit the Tim Hortons entrance on his right. [ 191 ] That was when he slammed on the brakes and swerved right, barely avoiding the red vehicle.

He heard the noise of the collision between the grey vehicle and the red vehicle. [ 192 ] He continued on to Subway then turned around, returning to the Tim Hortons parking lot. [ 193 ] He watched the scene with his son and saw Louis-Philippe Blais in an agitated state. Subsequently, he saw the police officers arrive on the scene. They asked curious onlookers to move away. [ 194 ] He went inside Tim Hortons with his son, who seemed afraid.

He stayed there for five minutes then went back outside to his vehicle. [ 195 ] Seeing that the yellow tape had been put up at the exit of the Tim Hortons parking lot, the accused spoke to the police officers at the scene to obtain permission to leave.

He did not mention that he had been a witness to the events, adding that [ translation ] "they didn't ask him anything". [ 196 ] When he left, he saw the firefighters attempting to open the driver's door of the damaged red vehicle. [ 197 ] According to the accused, it was only on the evening of April 26, 2009, while he was watching the news, that he learned that the accident had resulted in the death of one person. [ 198 ] The accused states that, before the events, he had taken

part in the drag races at St-Élie about twenty times. He had also been there as a spectator. He has not been there in the last three years. [ 199 ] He describes drag races as a competition between two cars that are side by side, which accelerate quickly from a fully stationary position in an attempt to pull ahead of each other. [ 200 ] The accused has filed the list of all of his statements of offence between 2000 and 2009, 66 of which are for driving offences and 4 are for speeding (exhibit D-4). [ 201 ] He has also filed his criminal record (exhibit D-6).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 202 ] Since December 14, 2006, the Criminal Code has created an offence of "street racing based on dangerous driving and criminal negligence offences". [ 203 ] For the purposes of these offences,

section 2 of the Criminal Code defines street racing as "operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place". [ 204 ] The charge is defined in subsection 249.4(1) of the Criminal Code :

249.4

(1) Dangerous operation of motor vehicle while street racing Everyone commits an offence who, while street racing, operates a motor vehicle in a manner described in paragraph 249(1)( a ). [ 205 ] Section 249(1)(

a) Cr. C . is worded as follows: 249.

(1) Every one commits an offence who operates: (

a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place; » [ 206 ] In R. v. Beatty , [2] Charron J., for the Supreme Court of Canada, defines the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle as follows: (

a) The A ctus Reus The trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was “dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place”. (

b) The mens rea The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea. In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused’s actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances.

Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused. [ 207 ] In Beatty , [3] the Supreme Court applied essentially the test set out in Hundal , another judgment of that court. [ 208 ] The test setting out the modified objective test established in R. v.

Hundal [4] has been applied in all dangerous diving cases since. [ 209 ] To prove a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death, the evidence must establish that the dangerous driving was a cause beyond de minimis of the bodily harm and/or death of the victim. [ 210 ] Applying these principles to this case, the Court must analyze the evidence as a whole and determine whether the accused was involved in a street race. [ 211 ] During arguments, counsel submitted the following case law: - For the prosecution: R. v . Dupuis , R. v . Leblanc, Olivier v .

R . [5] - For the defence: Dorval v . R., Desbiens v . R, R. v . Machado [6] [ 212 ] In R. v. Flannery , [7] the judge defined a race on a roadway as a competitive movement of speed, a concerted effort to maintain a moving situation with an aspect of rivalry. [ 213 ] In Gore Mutual Insurance Co. v.

Rossignoli , [8] the judge stated that racing behaviour generally amounts to a contest of speed which may be of the informal variety in which one driver cannot bear to be overtaken and to this end endeavours, at excessive speed, to avoid being overtaken, thereby endangering other users of the road. [ 214 ] As Hill J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice explains in R. v.

Menezes , [9] an automobile race frequently results from an improvised or spontaneous act. [ 215 ] That being the case, to determine the issue in dispute, the Court must assess the accused's testimony in light of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v. W. (D.). [10] [ 216 ] If the Court believes the accused, he should be acquitted. [ 217 ] If the Court does not believe him, it must consider whether his testimony raises a reasonable doubt, in light of the evidence as a whole.

If so, the accused should be acquitted. [ 218 ] If his testimony is not accepted, the Court must consider whether the evidence of the prosecution proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the alleged offences. [ 219 ] On the basis of the evidence as a whole, the testimony of the accused and that of Louis-Philippe Blais is not credible. [ 220 ] The accused's version, whereby he paid no attention to Louis-Philippe Blais's grey vehicle directly to his left when he was stopped at the intersection and waiting for the traffic light to turn green, is not plausible.

I will explain why. [ 221 ] The evidence reveals that the attention of the eight civilian eyewitnesses called by the prosecution was drawn by the roaring of the vehicles' engines. They all heard and/or saw not only Louis-Philippe Blais's grey vehicle, but also the accused's black vehicle.

[ 222 ] It should be recalled that all of these witnesses were farther away from Louis-Philippe Blais's grey vehicle than the accused's black vehicle was. [ 223 ] Indeed, the accused's vehicle was directly beside Louis-Philippe Blais's vehicle. Physically, he was very close to the grey vehicle and in the best position to observe it. [ 224 ] Moreover, the accused is a fan of high-performing sports cars.

How can he claim that he did not notice Louis-Philippe Blais's grey vehicle, which has been described as a high-performance vehicle? [ 225 ] The Court also does not accept that he accelerated at a normal rate to reach approximately 60 to 65 km/h. [ 226 ] In this part of its narrative, the evidence of the prosecution is unequivocal: the vehicles of the accused and Louis-Philippe Blais pulled away quickly, indeed, so quickly that the witnesses believed they were watching some kind of drag race. [ 227 ] The perception of all of these witnesses cannot be doubted. [ 228 ] None of the eight civilian witnesses called by the prosecution knew the accused or each other when the events took place, except for Mélissa Lavigueur and her spouse, Sylvain Lemay, and Étienne Prévost and his spouse, Geneviève Théroux. [ 229 ] The Court considers the testimony of Louis-Philippe Mégré and André Cabana to be of great importance.

I will explain why. [ 230 ] Louis-Philippe Mégré's vehicle was right behind the accused's black vehicle, which was the first car at the intersection. He saw the grey vehicle draw up and stop beside the accused's black vehicle. [ 231 ] When the traffic light turned green, he watched the two vehicles in front of him pull away and accelerate quickly.

The two vehicles were neck and neck. [ 232 ] He explained that at the moment of impact between the grey vehicle and the red vehicle, the vehicle in which he was riding was moving at about 50 km/h. [ 233 ] Using exhibit P-9, he pinpointed his vehicle as being farther away than the point of impact, thereby demonstrating that the speed of the two vehicles in front of him had to have been greater than his, since they had travelled such a distance. [ 234 ] It is easy to understand that the faster a vehicle moves, the greater distance it will cover in a shorter amount of time, inevitably carrying it farther, faster in a shorter period of time. [ 235 ] As for the narrative of André Cabana, he confirms the testimony of Louis-Philippe Mégré.

He was stopped at the red light at the intersection of Galt Street East and King Street East, behind the grey vehicle.

He stated that the two vehicles in front of him pulled away very abruptly and accelerated rapidly. [ 236 ] The vehicles were side by side until the moment of the accident. [ 237 ] He had the impression that the two vehicles were racing to see who could take off more quickly. [ 238 ] He states that the vehicles pulled farther and farther away from his own vehicle, which was moving somewhere between 25 and 30 km/h. [ 239 ] He estimates that the distance between his vehicle and the grey vehicle in front of him was between 75 and 100 metres. [ 240 ] Louis-Philippe Mégré and André Cabana describe the driving by the accused and Louis-Philippe Blais as a race. [ 241 ] There is no contradiction between their testimonies, aside from their descriptions of the amount of traffic on the day of the events. [ 242 ] That changes absolutely nothing, however, when it comes to the crux of their testimony that the accused and Louis-Philippe Blais were driving faster than the speed limit and taking

part in a race. [ 243 ] Indeed, as soon as they saw the red vehicle leaving the Tim Hortons parking lot to cross King Street East and head westbound on King Street East, Louis-Philippe Mégré and André Cabana feared an imminent collision, stating that this was because of the speed of both the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle. [ 244 ] Their version was also confirmed by the testimony of Chantal Grenier and Mélissa Lavigueur. [ 245 ] Chantal Grenier stated that, given the speed at which the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle were driving, she knew there would be an accident. [ 246 ] Mélissa Lavigueur explains that her fear of a collision was due to the speed of the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle and not, as counsel for the defence tried to make her say, because the red vehicle had cut them off. [ 247 ] Aside from Sylvain Lemay, who estimated the speed of the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle to be 70 miles an hour, no other witness could guess the speed, although they were able to say that it was over the speed limit. [ 248 ] The scientific analyses carried out by Bernard Ouellet, officer for the Sûreté du Québec and accident reconstruction expert remains.

[ 249 ] According to the three techniques used, namely: - the crush method, - the so-called conservation of momentum method, and - the technique involving the airbag deployment control module of the red car, they were not contradicted by the defence. The expert was cross-examined thoroughly and he always provided reliable and trustworthy answers. [ 250 ] The expert states that the speed of the grey vehicle was 79 km/h at the moment of collision. This submission is both conservative and realistic.

The Court has no hesitation in accepting this evidence. [ 251 ] That being the case, if the grey vehicle was moving at 79 km/h at the moment of impact, it may be assumed that the speed of the accused's black vehicle had to have been at least the same. [ 252 ] The speed of the accused's black vehicle was therefore excessive. [ 253 ] As for the expert Ouellet's other expert reports based on the brake and acceleration tests, which found that the speed of the grey vehicle was between 100 and 110 km/h before it hit the red vehicle and accepted as fact that the driver Louis-Philippe Blais braked before the impact, the Court cannot accept this submission. [ 254 ] Indeed, the evidence as a whole does not justify the conclusion that the driver of the grey vehicle braked before impact.

This evidence is not conclusive, and the expert even adds that, given the physical evidence left at the scene, he cannot determine or prove whether the driver of the grey vehicle braked. [ 255 ] Photographs taken of the scene (exhibit P-7), however, demonstrate eloquently that the impact was violent. [ 256 ] The testimony given by the accused and by Louis-Philippe Blais with regard to the essential aspects of the driving of their vehicles from the intersection to the precise location where the accident took place is in no way confirmed by the other witnesses. [ 257 ] Curiously, the accused and Louis-Philippe Blais were both fans of drag racing and had even taken

part in these competitions in the past. [ 258 ] The accused has himself taken

part in about twenty drag races at St-Élie.

He describes such races as a competition between two cars that start side by side from a stationary position then accelerate as quickly as possible in an attempt to overtake the other vehicle. [ 259 ] His description strangely resembles that provided by the civilian witnesses of the behaviour of the accused's black vehicle and the grey vehicle. [ 260 ] Considering the evidence as a whole, the testimony of the accused does not raise any reasonable doubt. [ 261 ] The evidence presented by the prosecution establishes the essential elements of each of the offences charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. [ 262 ] The evidence as a whole contains sufficient indicators of reliability for us to give credence to these testimonies. [ 263 ] All of the witnesses have related their perceptions of what they remember noticing at the moment.

They describe the same factual sequence of events. That is what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution as a whole. [ 264 ] The accused exceeded the legal speed limit and took

part in a street race with the driver of the grey vehicle, Louis-Philippe Blais. [ 265 ] According to the Supreme Court in R. v. Hundal , [11] taking

part in a race constitutes a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe if placed in the same circumstances. [ 266 ] That judgment states that a reasonable person, placed in similar circumstances, would be aware of the risk and the danger inherent in drag racing on a public roadway. [ 267 ] In this case, eight objective witnesses watched the scene and concluded that it was a street race on a public roadway. [ 268 ] Moreover, the evidence must establish that there was a causal link between the dangerous driving (in this case, the street race) and the consequences (the death of one person and the bodily harm to another). [ 269 ] In this case, the immediate cause of the collision and its consequences is the fact that the accused and Louis-Philippe Blais took

part in a street race. The expert Bernard Ouellet has ruled out any other cause. [ 270 ] If the accused had been driving at the posted speed limit and had not taken

part in the street race, the accident would not have occurred. The accused could not have been unaware of the risk he was creating. [ 271 ] In Bhalru , [12] the judge explains that it is not necessary for there to have been physical contact between two vehicles to establish causation. It is only necessary for the accused's driving to have been a contributing cause. [ 272 ] The mere participation in a street race by the two competitors gives rise to their liability and constitutes the cause of the death and injuries that resulted therefrom.

[ 273 ] Considering that the scientific evidence establishes that the grey vehicle was driving at least 29 km/h faster than the legal limit, namely, 79 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. [ 274 ] Considering that the accused's black vehicle was driving directly beside the grey vehicle and maintained a constant speed until the impact occurred, the Court is able to deduce that the accused's black vehicle was also driving at least at 79 km/h. [ 275 ] Considering that the location where he was driving was a main artery in the city of Sherbrooke, surrounded by a number of businesses. [ 276 ] The Court is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was, while street racing, driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle was being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time was or might reasonably be expected to have been at that place. [ 277 ] The Court is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s situation. [ 278 ] As for the hit and run charges, in Thériault , [13] the Court of Appeal of Quebec stated the following: [ translation ] As for the hit and run, to be involved in an accident, within the meaning of

section 252 Cr. C ., it is not necessary for there to have been a collision. [ 279 ] That being the case, despite the evidence that the accused returned to the scene of the accident shortly thereafter, it is apparent that he never offered his assistance to the people inside the red car. [ 280 ] The accused must have been aware that Paul Lacharité had at the very least suffered serious bodily harm possibly causing his death, and that M.

V. had also suffered bodily harm. [ 281 ] The photographs of the scene, as illustrated in the album of photographs (exhibit P-7), demonstrate unequivocally that the impact was violent. [ 282 ] Given the scale of the collision and the state of the vehicles, there could have been no doubt that the occupants required assistance. [ 283 ] The accused, who was in contact with the police officers, did not tell them that he was a witness to the events.

He went so far as to add to the Court that they [ translation ] "asked him nothing". [ 284 ] His failure to act at the scene of the accident can only be explained by his wish to avoid all criminal and civil liability. [ 285 ] As for the charge of having exposed a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered, the evidence also reveals that, through his behaviour, the accused endangered the life of his child who was sitting beside him in the front passenger seat of the car he was driving. [ 286 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 287 ] FINDS the accused guilty of the five charges against him. __________________________________ HÉLÈNE FABI, J.C.Q.

Mtre Corinne Girard Criminal and penal prosecutor Mtre Michel Dussault For the accused Dates of hearings: November 8 and 9, 2010, July 4 and 7, 2011, and September 7 and 15, 2011