BURSTAn Alberta man sentenced to four years jail time for a fatal collision in Sicamous has lost his court appeal.
The collision occurred on the evening of Nov. 6, 2021, on the Bruhn Bridge where police found two pickup trucks had crashed head-on while crossing. The sole occupant of the eastbound truck, Kent Gordon Rumbles, was transported to hospital with serious but non-life-threatening injuries. The driver of the westbound truck, a 48-year-old Shaun Stacey Michael of Kamloops, died at the scene.
Police determined Rumbles’ vehicle had crossed the centre line. He was later charged and convicted of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death, impaired operation of a conveyance causing death, and operating a conveyance with 80 milligrams of alcohol or more in 100 millilitres of blood causing death.
In March 2025, Rumbles was sentenced to four years in prison. Later that month he was granted bail, having filed a notice of appeal.
An appeal hearing was held on June 25, 2026, and on Oct. 16 Justice Karen Horsman released her decision: appeal dismissed.
On the morning of Nov. 6, Rumbles left his home in Thorsby, Alta., driving to his seasonal property at Mabel Lake where he planned to meet his wife and mother-in-law. Horsman noted that other than taking a coffee to go, Rumbles, an insulin-dependent diabetic, “did not eat before leaving his house and he did not pack food for the trip.”
“En route, the appellant stopped for gas. At that time, he purchased alcohol: a six-pack of White Claw hard seltzers, two bottles of wine, and a 750 ml bottle of raspberry vodka,” wrote Horsman in her reason for judgement.
“As he continued driving, the appellant said he began to feel flu-like symptoms. Namely, he said he was feeling lethargic, tired, and sweaty. He then drank two cans of White Claw.
“Beginning at 5:51 p.m., several other drivers reported the appellant was driving erratically, including veering across the highway, attempting to do a U-turn on the highway, and causing a minor collision by reversing into another vehicle.
“Eventually, he drove head on into Mr. Michael’s vehicle.”
Police at the scene found the bottle of vodka three-quarters empty. Rumble’s blood alcohol concentration reading at the time of the collision “significantly exceeded 80 milligram per cent,” meaning it was about three times the legal limit.
At his trial, Rumbles’ defence, along with witness Dr. Gregory Kline, argued he’d “involuntarily drank the vodka after he unknowingly fell into a state of moderate or severe hypoglycemia, which is caused by low blood glucose.”
“As such, he maintained that he did not have the requisite mens rea to be convicted of the offences because he did not drink the alcohol voluntarily,” said Horsman, noting the trial judge concluded Rumbles was not in a state of either moderate or severe hypoglycemia when he drank the vodka.
“This was a finding a fact,” continued Horsman. “He also gave little weight to Dr. Kline’s opinion that moderate or severe hypoglycemia might have impaired the appellant’s judgment and caused him to consume three-quarters of a bottle of vodka without intending to do so.
“The evidence otherwise did not raise a reasonable doubt for the trial judge as to whether the appellant’s impairment was voluntary.”
In his appeal, Rumbles alleged the trial judge made “a number of errors of fact and law in his assessment of the evidence, particularly the evidence of the appellant and Dr. Kline,” and wanted a new trial.
In his appeal, Rumbles pointed out Kline’s hypothesis was “consistent with the unchallenged evidence about the appellant’s drinking habits (he had not consumed hard liquor since 2018) and intentions (he did not intend to drink vodka while driving).” Rumbles argued the trial judge never “reconciled his finding that the appellant had voluntarily consumed the vodka with this inconsistent evidence.” Horsman found the opposite, noting he reviewed the appellant’s evidence at length,” and “found the appellant’s decision to drink the vodka was the culmination of a series of poor decisions he made on that day.”
Horsman found the appellant’s arguments on “credibility and reversing the burden of proof” to be essentially “disagreements with the judge’s findings on credibility and reliability,” and failing to “establish any error in law or palpable and overriding error.”
However, Horsman did find the trial judge erred in failing to address the manner of the appellant’s driving.
“The trial judge did not cite any evidence to support that the appellant’s manner of driving in the early afternoon on the day of the collision was dangerous to the public,” said Horsman. “Instead, he seemed to rely on the consumption of alcohol (the cans of White Claw) as constituting a marked departure. He does not address the appellant’s manner of driving at all at that point in time.”
But Horsman determined other findings by the trial judge made the “conviction on the charge of dangerous driving inevitable.”
“The trial judge found the appellant’s erratic driving was the result of his voluntary consumption of three-quarters of a bottle of vodka,” continued Horsman. “There is no question that the appellant’s excessive consumption of vodka while continuing to drive constituted a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances.
“For these reasons, notwithstanding the error identified, I would uphold the conviction for dangerous driving…,” said Horsman.