He still does not have full use of his left arm.
It was a sunny, clear October afternoon in Langley when a 12-year-old boy pedaled his bicycle near his school at 204 Street and 40th Avenue. What ended that ordinary afternoon began, of all things, with a stolen set of tools.
On October 3, 2017, someone stole tools from a construction site in Langley where Brandon Michael Hoolsema, then in his mid-twenties, ran a family business. The thief climbed into a truck driven by David Alfredo Battista, and the two took off. What followed was not a measured call to police. It was a chase — Hoolsema and several other vehicles in pursuit, barreling from a rural stretch of road into a residential neighborhood, hitting speeds above 100 kilometers per hour, weaving into oncoming lanes, blowing through stop signs and traffic lights.
Battista's truck struck the boy as he rode near his school. Hoolsema's truck hit Battista's around the same moment, and both vehicles careened off the road into a fence. Battista and his passenger ran. He was caught later with the help of a police dog. Hoolsema, who told officers he had been attempting a citizen's arrest, stayed at the scene and cooperated.
The boy was rushed to Royal Columbian Hospital and later moved to Children's Hospital. His injuries were severe: a hole in his abdomen, a broken leg, a broken shoulder blade, extensive nerve damage to his left arm, and a kidney so badly damaged it had to be removed. He has since undergone ten surgeries. He still does not have full use of his left arm.
Nearly five years after the collision, on a Thursday in March 2022, both men appeared in B.C. Supreme Court. Battista, now 57, and Hoolsema, now 33, each entered guilty pleas. Justice Janet Winteringham accepted a joint submission from Crown and defence and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community. The sentence includes house arrest and a curfew. Neither man will go to prison.
Before sentencing, the boy's parents delivered victim impact statements. The father described arriving at the trauma room at Children's Hospital and believing his son was about to die. He said the family relives those moments regularly — waking to flashbacks, nightmares, and panic attacks. "This will never go away," he said.
Justice Winteringham acknowledged the difficulty of the task before her. She noted that some would find the sentence too lenient, while others might argue for more mercy, and concluded that given all the circumstances, a conditional sentence was the appropriate outcome. The joint submission — agreed upon by both prosecution and defence — carries significant legal weight, and courts are generally reluctant to depart from such agreements without compelling reason.
The case sits at a familiar and uncomfortable intersection: the law's structured calculus of culpability, cooperation, and proportionality on one side, and a family permanently altered on the other. The boy who was riding his bike that afternoon still carries the physical evidence of what happened. His parents still wake in the night. The two men who set the chain of events in motion will serve their time at home.
Notable Quotes
We thought he was going to die. We re-live these times in the trauma room on a regular basis. We wake up with flashbacks, nightmares and panic attacks all the time. This will never go away.— The victim's father, in a victim impact statement read at sentencing
There will be those who want a harsher sentence, while others will call for leniency — in all the circumstances, a conditional sentence was just.— B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janet Winteringham, paraphrased
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What actually started all of this — wasn't it just a theft?
Yes, someone stole tools from a construction site. That's the seed of the whole thing. A petty crime that triggered a high-speed chase through a neighborhood.
And Hoolsema — he was the business owner, not the thief's driver?
Right. He was chasing the thief, not fleeing. He told police he was trying to make a citizen's arrest. That distinction mattered at sentencing.
Does it change how you read the case — that one man fled and one stayed?
It has to. Battista ran from the scene. Hoolsema cooperated. The law treats those choices differently, even when the physical outcome is the same.
Ten surgeries and a removed kidney — and the boy still doesn't have full use of his arm. That's a life permanently altered.
And he was twelve. Whatever that arm was going to do — sports, work, music — the range of it is narrowed now. That's not abstract.
The parents said they wake up with flashbacks and panic attacks. Is that kind of testimony common in these cases?
It's common, but it rarely sounds routine when you read it. The father said they thought their son was going to die. That image doesn't leave a person.
No prison time for either man. How does the court justify that?
The judge accepted a joint submission — both Crown and defence agreed on the sentence. Courts give those submissions serious deference. She said it was just, given all the circumstances.
What does "all the circumstances" actually mean here?
Guilty pleas, cooperation, the distinction between the two men's roles, prior records or lack thereof — the court weighs a lot that doesn't make it into a news article.
Is there anything that comes next legally, or is this the end of the road?
For the criminal proceeding, this appears to be the conclusion. Whether the family pursues civil action is a separate question the story doesn't answer.