The surgeries are still counted in double digits. The sentence is not.
On an ordinary October afternoon in 2017, a 12-year-old boy cycling near his school in Langley, British Columbia, was pulled into the violent wake of two men's reckless pursuit over stolen tools — a collision that cost him a kidney, the full use of his arm, and a childhood unmarked by trauma. Nearly five years later, a B.C. Supreme Court judge sentenced both men to conditional terms served in the community, a resolution that closes the legal chapter without erasing what is permanent. The law, as it sometimes must, drew a line between accountability and punishment — leaving a family to carry consequences that no sentence can make conditional.
- A street chase over stolen construction tools reached speeds above 100 km/h through a residential neighbourhood, ending when a truck struck a child on a bicycle near his school.
- The boy lost a kidney, fractured multiple bones, suffered severe nerve damage, and has endured ten surgeries — he still cannot fully use his left arm.
- His parents told the court their family has not recovered: flashbacks, nightmares, and panic attacks have become part of daily life, and his father described believing his son was dying in the trauma room.
- Both men pleaded guilty nearly five years after the collision, and a B.C. Supreme Court judge accepted a joint Crown-defence submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day — no prison time for either.
- The judge acknowledged the sentence would satisfy no one fully, but concluded it was appropriate given all circumstances — a legal closing that offers the family no custodial finality.
On a clear October afternoon in 2017, a 12-year-old boy was riding his bicycle near his school in Langley, British Columbia, when a chain of reckless decisions made by two men — decisions that had nothing to do with him — brought his ordinary day to a violent end.
The trouble began at a Langley construction site where Brandon Michael Hoolsema and his family ran a business. Someone stole tools, fled in a truck driven by David Alfredo Battista, and a pursuit erupted through the streets — vehicles exceeding 100 kilometres per hour, running stop signs and traffic lights, weaving into oncoming lanes. When Battista's truck struck the boy near his school, Hoolsema's truck hit Battista's almost simultaneously, and both careened into a fence. Battista fled on foot and was later found with the help of a police dog. Hoolsema stayed, cooperated with investigators, and told police he had been attempting a citizen's arrest.
The boy was airlifted to Royal Columbian Hospital and later transferred to Children's Hospital. His injuries were severe: a hole in his abdomen, a fractured leg, a broken shoulder blade, serious nerve damage to his left arm, and a kidney so badly damaged it had to be removed. He has had ten surgeries. He still does not have full use of his left arm.
In victim impact statements before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janet Winteringham, the boy's parents described a family reshaped by trauma — waking to flashbacks, nightmares, and panic attacks. His father recalled arriving at the trauma room convinced his son was about to die. "This will never go away," he said.
Nearly five years after the collision, both men pleaded guilty. Justice Winteringham accepted a joint Crown-defence submission and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community with house arrest and a curfew. Neither man will go to prison. The judge acknowledged the sentence would satisfy no one entirely, but concluded it was the appropriate outcome given all the circumstances.
For the boy's family, the legal chapter closes without the weight of a custodial sentence behind it. The missing kidney, the arm that doesn't fully work, the surgeries still counted in double digits — none of those are conditional. They are permanent.
On a clear October afternoon in 2017, a 12-year-old boy was riding his bicycle near his school at the corner of 204 Street and 40th Avenue in Langley, British Columbia. What ended his ordinary day was a chain of reckless decisions made by two grown men that had nothing to do with him — and everything to do with a stolen set of tools.
The sequence began at a Langley construction site where Brandon Michael Hoolsema, now 33, and his family ran a business. Someone stole tools from the site, climbed into a truck driven by David Alfredo Battista, now 57, and the two fled. What followed was a pursuit through the streets of Langley — Hoolsema among those chasing the truck — that started in a rural area and pushed deep into a residential neighbourhood. The vehicles were clocking speeds above 100 kilometres 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. Hoolsema stayed, told police he had been attempting a citizen's arrest, and cooperated with investigators. Battista was eventually tracked down with the help of a police dog.
The boy was rushed to Royal Columbian Hospital and later transferred to Children's Hospital. The list of injuries was long and brutal: a hole in his abdomen, a fractured leg, a broken shoulder blade, severe nerve damage to his left arm, and a kidney so badly damaged it had to be removed. He has undergone ten surgeries. He still does not have full use of his left arm.
In victim impact statements read before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janet Winteringham, the boy's parents described a family that has not recovered and may never fully do so. His father recalled arriving at the trauma room 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.
On Thursday, nearly five years after the collision, both men entered guilty pleas. Justice 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 rather than behind bars. The sentence includes a period of house arrest and a curfew. Neither man will go to prison.
The judge acknowledged the difficulty of the task, noting that the sentence would satisfy no one entirely — some would find it too lenient, others too harsh. She concluded that, weighing all the circumstances, a conditional sentence was the appropriate outcome.
For the boy's family, the legal chapter closes without the finality that a custodial sentence might have offered. The physical consequences of that October afternoon — the missing kidney, the arm that doesn't fully work, the surgeries still counted in the double digits — are not conditional. They are permanent.
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 boy's father, in a victim impact statement read to B.C. Supreme Court
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What's the thing that stays with you after reading this?
The gap between what the boy lost and what the men were sentenced to. He lost a kidney, the full use of his arm, years of surgeries. They lost their freedom for a period measured in curfews.
Is that gap unusual in Canadian law?
Not entirely. Conditional sentences exist precisely for cases where judges decide incarceration isn't the only path to justice. But that doesn't make the gap feel smaller to the people living inside it.
The two men had very different roles. Does the sentence treat them the same?
The reporting doesn't distinguish between their individual sentences — both received the same conditional term. But their conduct after the crash was different. Hoolsema stayed and cooperated. Battista ran and was caught by a police dog.
What was Hoolsema's justification for joining the chase at all?
He told police he was trying to make a citizen's arrest after tools were stolen from his family's business. Whether that framing helped or hurt him legally, we don't know from what's reported.
The boy was near his school on a clear day. Does that detail matter?
It matters because it removes any ambiguity about the setting. This wasn't a highway or an industrial zone. It was a residential neighbourhood, midday, good visibility. The danger was entirely imported.
The father said they relive the trauma room regularly. What does that tell us?
That the injury didn't end when the surgeries did. The family is still inside the event, years later. The legal process closing doesn't close that.
What should readers watch for going forward?
Whether the conditional sentence holds — any breach could trigger incarceration. And whether the boy's long-term recovery, particularly that arm, changes over time. Ten surgeries in, the story isn't finished for him.