Capstone: the collision report, charges and review

Seven weeks after the collision, Kowalczyk sent his reconstruction report to Haddad and the Crown attorney's office. It ran to 46 pages, with 31 photographs, a scale diagram, the recorder report, the signal log, the test stop results, the time-distance analysis and an appendix of calculations. Rosa Pereira had come home after three weeks in hospital and was walking with a cane. Her daughter had called the traffic office four times to ask what was happening. This final lesson follows the file from the report to the charging decision, looks at how officers support the people affected by a serious collision, and ends with a review of the whole night.

Desjardins asks the class to read the report's conclusions before anything else. 'Look at what it does not say. It does not say Halloran is guilty. It does not say Ana Pereira did nothing wrong. It says what the evidence shows, how confident the investigator is in each finding, and what each finding is based on. That is what a court needs, and it is what the families deserve.'

The collision report form

Every reportable collision produces a standard report, separate from any reconstruction. In Ontario, police complete the Motor Vehicle Collision Report, which records the date, time and location, the road, weather and light conditions, the vehicles, drivers, passengers and pedestrians, the injuries, the apparent contributing factors and a diagram. Reports are sent to the Ministry of Transportation, where they become part of the provincial collision database that engineers, researchers and policymakers use. Collisions with only property damage under the reporting threshold are often reported by drivers at collision reporting centres rather than investigated at the scene.

Haddad reminds the class that the form is not a formality. 'Somebody in an engineering office will use your form to decide whether Kingsway needs a left-turn arrow. If you write unknown for the light conditions or forget to tick the box for a hand-held device, you have given them wrong data. Fill it in like it matters, because it does.' In fact, the city installed a protected left-turn arrow at Kingsway and Mill Street for all hours in September 2026, citing the collision cluster on Kingsway and this collision in particular.

The reconstruction report

A reconstruction report is an expert report. It sets out the investigator's qualifications, the evidence examined, the methods used and the conclusions reached, in enough detail that another qualified person could check every step. Kowalczyk's report followed the structure his unit uses for all serious collisions.

The report's conclusions were stated in plain language. The pickup was travelling at about 76 to 78 km/h, and not less than 65 km/h, in a 50 km/h zone when its driver began braking. The hatchback's driver began her turn when the pickup was about 75 m away; for a vehicle travelling at the limit, that would have been an adequate gap. The pickup's driver began to respond about 0.9 seconds after the turn began; with a typical response, he could have stopped before the point of impact even at the speed he was travelling. A message was sent from his phone about one second before the turn began. Neither driver was impaired by alcohol, and there was no evidence of drug impairment. Both vehicles were mechanically sound. The signals were operating as designed.

Deciding on charges

The decision to charge belongs to different people in the two countries. In Ontario, police lay charges, but for serious criminal charges they usually consult the Crown attorney, who then decides whether to continue the prosecution based on whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest. Highway Traffic Act charges are laid by the officer and prosecuted by the municipal or provincial prosecutor.

Kowalczyk and Haddad met with the prosecutor in July. They discussed whether the evidence supported dangerous operation causing bodily harm under section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code, which requires proof that the driving was a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person, as the Supreme Court explained in R. v. Beatty in 2008 and R. v. Roy in 2012. The Crown's view was that excessive speed and a brief distraction, without more, might not be found to be a marked departure, and that the case was better charged as careless driving causing bodily harm under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which carries a fine of 2,000 to 50,000 dollars, up to two years in jail and a licence suspension of up to five years, together with a charge of using a hand-held device under section 78.1. Halloran was charged with both on July 14, 2026. Ana Pereira was not charged.

Halloran is presumed innocent. At the time of this lesson, his case had not been tried. Kowalczyk tells the class that he expects the defence to challenge the drag factor, the alignment of the clocks, the inference from the phone message and the length of the anti-lock marks. 'Good. That is what defence lawyers are for. Every one of those challenges is answered in the report, because we knew they were coming.'

Victims and families

Serious collisions leave people injured, frightened and often angry, and they usually know little about how investigations and prosecutions work. The investigating unit has a duty to keep them informed. Ontario's Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995, and the federal Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, in force since 2015, give victims rights to information about the investigation and prosecution, to protection, to participation, including victim impact statements, and to seek restitution. Port Ardent's traffic unit assigns a family liaison officer to every collision involving death or serious injury.

Teague was the Pereiras' liaison. She called Ana Pereira the morning after the collision, visited the family at the hospital two days later, explained the investigation in plain terms, and called again each time a major step was completed, including the day the charges were laid. She also connected the family with victim services. Ana Pereira's main question in the first weeks was whether she had caused her mother's injuries by turning. Teague could not tell her the conclusion until the report was finished. When she could, she explained carefully what the report found and what it did not decide.

Reviewing the night

Port Ardent's traffic unit reviews every serious collision investigation, as the course has done with other incidents. The review asks what went well, what could have been done better, and what should change. The table shows the scores Haddad and Kowalczyk gave, from 0 to 2 for each area.

The review led to three changes. First, first officers at serious collisions are now told to search for the start of marks with a flashlight held low, beyond where they first see them, before taping the perimeter. Second, when a driver is involved in a serious collision, dispatchers now automatically search the computer-aided dispatch system for any police contact with the same driver or vehicle in the previous 24 hours, so that earlier stops like Coutu's are linked at once. Third, the unit added a short module on aligning clocks from different devices to its annual training.

Testifying as a collision investigator

Collision reconstructionists usually testify as expert witnesses, which means they may give opinions, not only describe what they saw. Before an expert can give opinion evidence, the trial judge must be satisfied that it meets the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mohan in 1994 and refined in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton in 2015: the evidence must be relevant and necessary, the witness must be properly qualified and impartial, and the judge must weigh its benefits against its risks. The defence can challenge the expert's qualifications and methods at a hearing called a voir dire. Kowalczyk keeps a current résumé of his training, his reconstruction certifications and the cases in which he has testified, because he is asked for it every time.

An expert's credibility depends on staying within their expertise and being open about uncertainty. Kowalczyk testifies to what the marks, the recorder and the calculations show, gives ranges rather than single numbers, explains each step in plain language with his scale diagram, and says clearly when a question is outside his field, such as the medical cause of Rosa Pereira's injuries. He also answers the defence's questions as fully and fairly as the prosecutor's. 'I am not there for either side,' he tells the students. 'I am there to explain what the evidence shows. The moment a jury thinks I am arguing for one side, everything I say is worth less.'

In fatal collisions, investigators also work with the coroner, who investigates the cause and manner of every sudden death in Ontario and may call an inquest to make recommendations that could prevent similar deaths. The coroner's investigation is separate from the criminal case, but it often relies on the collision investigators' findings, and its recommendations, such as calls for safer intersections or changes to licensing rules, can reach far beyond a single case.

Kowalczyk also reminds the students that the officers who were at the scene first will testify as well, not only the experts. Reyes and Malhotra will be asked what they saw when they arrived, what Halloran said and when, and how the scene was protected. Their notes, written that night, will be the most important thing they bring to court.

What this course has covered

Desjardins ends the course where it began, with the Pereira family. 'Every lesson in this course was really about one question: how do we keep people like Rosa Pereira safe, and when we fail, how do we find out honestly what happened? The traffic law, the speed devices, the stops, the breath tests, the marks on the road and the square roots are all tools for answering that question. Use them carefully. Write everything down. And remember that behind every collision report is a family waiting for a phone call.'