In a case that has sent shockwaves through a quiet New Brunswick community, 74-year-old Roger Poirier has been sentenced to two years of house arrest after fatally striking a teenager who had played a doorbell prank at his residence.
The incident, which occurred in April 2022 in the small community of Balmoral, has raised profound questions about proportionality of response and the tragic consequences that can follow moments of impulsivity and frustration.
According to court documents, 16-year-old Maxime Saulnier and friends were playing “Nicky Nicky Nine Door” – a common childhood prank where youngsters ring doorbells and run away – when Poirier decided to pursue them in his vehicle. The chase ended catastrophically when Poirier’s car struck Saulnier, who died from his injuries three days later.
“What began as a teenage prank escalated to an unimaginable tragedy that has forever altered two families,” said Justice Ivan Robichaud during the sentencing at the Court of King’s Bench in Campbellton last Friday. The judge emphasized that while the teen’s actions were admittedly annoying, they in no way justified Poirier’s dangerous response.
The Crown had initially sought a penitentiary sentence, arguing that Poirier’s actions constituted a serious criminal offense deserving of substantial incarceration. However, the court ultimately determined that house arrest was appropriate given Poirier’s age, lack of criminal history, and expressions of remorse.
In addition to the two-year conditional sentence, Poirier received three years of probation and a five-year driving prohibition. The court also mandated community service and counseling requirements.
The case has sparked considerable discussion in Canada’s legal circles about the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, particularly involving elderly offenders with no previous criminal record. Legal experts have noted the exceptional nature of allowing house arrest for a conviction involving criminal negligence causing death.
“This sentencing reflects the complexity of cases where there was no initial criminal intent, but where reckless decision-making led to irreversible harm,” explained criminal defense attorney Michelle LeBlanc, who was not involved in the case. “The courts must weigh justice for the victim against the practical purposes of incarceration for elderly offenders.”
For the Saulnier family, the sentence has brought mixed emotions. “Nothing can bring Maxime back,” said a family spokesperson. “We are trying to find peace in knowing that the legal process acknowledged the wrongfulness of what happened that night.”
Community leaders in Balmoral have called for healing and reconciliation following the conclusion of legal proceedings. Many residents have expressed hope that this tragedy might serve as a sobering reminder about the potential consequences of disproportionate reactions to minor provocations.
As our society continues to grapple with questions of justice and proportionality, this case forces us to consider: How do we appropriately balance accountability with compassion when sentencing elderly offenders for crimes that, while unintended in outcome, stemmed from dangerous and preventable choices?
