Cop’s Wife Drinks, Drives, Hits, Kills, Then Sues


Not only did Ontario, Canada resident Sharlene Simon, 42, hit three teenage bicyclists with her SUV on her way home from a bar at 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, 2012 killing one and leaving another with permanent injuries; she is now suing the survivors along with the family and estate of the victim for emotional trauma.

Richard Esch and Jake Roberts, both 16 years-old at the time, and Brandon Majewski, 17, were riding their bicycles along a country road en route to a plaza for hot dogs when Simon careened into them, throwing Esch into a ditch and shattering his pelvis. Majewski was struck by the SUV’s bumper, windshield and roof before being thrown up in the air and hitting the ground, sustaining injuries that would cause his death shortly thereafter. Roberts escaped the encounter with minor injuries.

Richard Esch holds to mementos – a photograph of his best friend, Brandon Majewski, and the twisted broken back tire of the bicycle he rode when he was struck by Sharlene Simon. Esch was left a shattered pelvis and permanent injuries. (Tracy McLaughlin/Special to the toronto Sun)
Richard Esch holds to mementos – a photograph of his best friend, Brandon Majewski, and the twisted broken back tire of the bicycle he rode when he was struck by Sharlene Simon. Esch was left a shattered pelvis and permanent injuries. (Tracy McLaughlin/Special to the toronto Sun)

A couple, driving by the scene of the accident, stopped when they saw the bikes’ reflectors. Melanie Lachance, a 36 year-old school teacher, got out of her car and held Majewski’s hand as he lay dying. A toxicology report was undertaken on all of the victims, they tested clean of all substances. Simon, whose husband is a police officer in York County and who was following close behind, was not required to perform a Breathalyzer test. Her husband allegedly called the police, but never investigated the victims. Simon was allowed to leave as soon as police arrived on the scene. Lachance and other witnesses were required to stay until 5:30 a.m.

In her suit, Simon accuses the teens of “not applying their brakes properly” and of being “incompetent bicyclists.” Simon claims the teens caused her to suffer Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and is seeking $1.35 million in damages from all three teens, including the family/estate of the deceased.

“In my entire career I’ve never heard of anyone ever suing a dead child that they killed,” Majewski family lawyer, Brian Cameron, told the Toronto Sun. “It’s horrible.”

Esch, a former snowboarder and hockey player, is still in therapy for his injuries and is unlikely to ever fully recover. The late Majewski was his best friend.




Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. Only and idiot judge would even hear her case, and by rights, there should be an investigation on the actual “negligence” of the police to check her for alcohol. Sounds like her old man got her out of there quickly and to me, that seems suspicious.

    • This is extremely common and becoming more & more prelavant within the Justice System here in Canada. It is not negligence it is corruption. It is because the system is broken and people fear it, to do such things even its own officers and there wives. No doubt she is being coached by a trained collusionist. These collusionists are praticing this kind of behavior on a daily basis. It has become there common nature. It is sadistic and uncompromising.
      No longer is it about Truth or Justice it is only about winning, whether in a court of law or on the streets, making the case or breaking it, sadly thats the truth. Can you imagine all the families that have been destroyed, all the people that have been wrongfully convicted by this officer when the shoe is on the other foot? Expecially when he pratices such corrupt bad action, then coaches his wife into further menacing wickedness.
      Although Democracy is in its infancy, Reformation is the Goal! Of a system that has been abducted by corrupt collusionists.
      Although my heart goes out to the family, I am glad this one slipped through the cracks. It goes on to show the public what is truly going behind the viel, within the police force today.

    • OMG, the police did do a road side test. Do your research and get your facts right before you make statements like this. Although the author of this “article” did night “technically” lie, they sure where trying make the news instead of report the news. No, the driver of the car did not go to the police station and have a breathalyser test done. And why was that? Because a road side test WAS DONE and ZERO alcohol was found in the driver system. This FACT was reported in several other newspaper articles but I find it interesting that the article posted on this site conveniently omitted that fact.

        • Mark,
          Please lookup and read some of the mainstream media reports, google the topic for yourself. The Nation Post reported the following:
          The report also confirmed that Ms. Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 k.p.h., above the 80 k.p.h. limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one. A roadside screening device was administered “out of an abundance for caution,” the report said, and registered “zero alcohol content in her blood system.”

          • How could there “zero alcohol content in her system” when she admits to having 1 beer? I smell bullshit, why you are so set on telling stories is beyond me. Maybe you just like to lie.

          • What John said. Beer doesn’t wear off fast enough to have a 0 on a real breathalyzer mere hours after the beer had been drunk. Either the report is false, the breathalyzer was malfunctioning, or the breathalyzer was rigged.

      • Even if that is true about the road side test and she was completely sober, it still doesn’t excuse the fact that she’s suing children, one of which she killed. If it was indeed an accident, she is only prolonging the misery for all parties involved. She ought to be trying to work through her own feelings of guilt…it’s no wonder she has issues like PTSD…she killed a child…money is the last thing I’d be concerned with if I were in her position. She has her priorities completely mixed up. I wonder if she is a mother?

      • Even if it were true that a roadside test was done and she was completely sober, it does not, in any way, excuse the fact that she’s suing children, one of whom she killed! No doubt she has PTSD…I’m sure it was very traumatic, but a lawsuit isn’t going to make her feel any better. If anything it should make her feel worse because it’s a scummy, horrible thing to do. I wonder if she has children of her own?

        • Ok this one must be addressed, this is what happens in all counter suits. Someone gets sued as this woman for 2.3 million, she goes to a lawyer as anyone of would to protect herself, lawyer files counter suit and lists everything and everyone involved in the accident, it’s common practice. Then it goes to a preliminary hearing where a judge goes though all the information and throws out all the things that do not pertain to the case and keeps the ones that do, it’s common legal practice. Incredibly and monumentally distasteful under the circumstances but that’s our legal system at work. Yes she is mother of three.

      • yeah- a cop says zero alcohol tested for the drunken wife of an idiot cop who let his wife drive…… Are you really that gullible???? baaaaa baaaaaaa. Stop gobbling up cop lies so ignorantly. That’s why they always lie- because too many sheep like you believe them no matter what…. baaaaa baaaaaaa

        • So Johlan.

          Let me get this right.

          The South Simcoe Police did not actually do the roadside test at all, they just said that they did?

          And then they somehow convinced the dozen or so firefighters and Paramedics, as half dozen or so other people who where there to lie and just say that they witnessed it happened.

          Oh, and then they drove down to the city and somehow got the server at the restaurant to also lie about how much this woman drank.

          Yup, that much is at least possible.

          The only real hard part of it would be for them to hack into the restaurants computer and change their records so it would only show that a few meals, soft-drinks, and single Domestic Beer was purchased. Maybe someone could dig a bit further and check to see if the Visa billing system was also hacked by the woman’s obviously corrupt cop husband.

          If this guy managed to pull this all off, he is way to smart to be a York Regional Cop, he should get a job working for the Provincial Liberal Party. They could sure use his computer skills and experience to help them with their cover-ups.

          • If there is one thing I’ve learned about the interwebble and this case is, there is no use in stating facts and having common sense, a lot of these people are right out of Salem, pitchforks in the air screaming, Witch, Witch…lol

          • Hey, that comment sure hits home.
            I really am a Witch and I experience it all the time.

            As soon as people find out that I follow a Pagan Belief they automatically accuse me of being a Devil Worshiper. It drives me nuts. They don’t have a frigg’n clue that it is all about believing in natural energy and working with manifestations of it. (Gods and Goddesses)

            I read a newspaper article once where a practicing Wiccan woman had killed her baby and the headline read “Devil Worshiping Witch Murders her own Daughter”

            True, she was a Witch, and she was also a single mother with several addictions, broke, and had been diagnosed Bi-Polar.

            She was found guilty, and sentence to I thing 15 years (as she should have been in this case)

            The point of my story is you never read “Catholic Woman, Murders her own Daughter” and it happens almost every day.

          • First of all, a road side test can not indicate zero percent alcohol, in fact even medical equipment can only detect down to 0.02 mg/L. As well you said she did have at least one beer with supper, so there must have been some alcohol in her system. I am not saying she was intoxicated but I know intoxicated people who have been witnessed by firemen, paramedics and police officers who were given a clear alcohol report when they were fall down drunk, so you can’t say it couldn’t happen, I have witnessed it but there is no proof so it is not admissible in court.

          • I know women who are drunk off one drink…everyone always says to the coos they had one when they really mean 3 or 4….they were there with friends so who’s to say someone wasnt buying them drinks….you can’t tell me she had zero alcohol in her system after one drink. I’m a 220lbs man and I’d have it in my system after one drink so for that I say complete bullshit! You’re telling me with everything going on people can confirm the test was done properly? Don’t be so naive considering the police are full of corruption which has been proven time and time again. Life’s a lot easier when you stop believing no one’s bad….

      • Uh….Chris, this is in Canada. American courts?? Lol you obviously know NOTHING on the matter. In America, bikers have right of way….her lawsuit would have been found frivolous and her case reopened, cops gotten for conspiracy, her for vehicular manslaughter, obstruction, DUI…NOT DWI if the machine they used is approved to stand in court (80% aren’t because the actual breathalyzer machine is overseen and regulated as to is efficiency and working order), CARELESS operation of a motor vehicle, failure to yield right of way, falsifying a police report and a few others. Also, she’d be ticketed and her license taken away. Cop hubby for obstruction, corruption, conspiracy. Furthermore, the TRUE VICTIM’S family would be open to sue for legal fees, punitive damages, emotional distress, filing a false police report, actual damages, emotional counseling due to their second son’s suicide from the grief…the list goes on.
        Just a brief synapses of American courts since you so obviously needed some help there.

        • Well in Canada bikes are and rightly so considered vehicles and subject to all the same laws as cars. They were riding 3 wide in the middle of the a 80kph road, Illegal, the highway traffic act section 147 states that all slow moving vehicles must keep to the right. By law all bikes must have lights they did not, 100% she was tested at the scene with an approved roadside screening device and passed she was not drunk. The families are the ones who sued first for 2.5 million the Simon’s is a counter claim. Nice try please play again, google is your friend.

  2. You kill someone and you suing the family I hope some one get her fucking good and they never find her to got to court wath is the law comeing to bullshit on them

    • Wow- I am outraged as well by this whole incident, but please check over what you type.
      Then- when you have finished checking it over, Do it again

      Grammar police

      • Josh,
        If you’re going to be a troll online, you must begin to better wield the context of your hate speech. “Police,” as far as I’m concerned, is a preliminary term that reflects the occupation of the individual mentioned in this post. Given the story’s sensitivity and the ongoing conflicts with police/citizen confrontations (currently… as in right now… in 2015…) it might be wise to reconsider your verbose approach with that term.
        Perhaps, should you care to learn about urbanized composition, you would replace the term “police” with the word “Nazi”?
        Actually, I take that back. You’re a fucking moron. LOLOLOLOLOL!
        Undercover Grammar Troll (UGT-135sj)

  3. Heartless bitch! I cannot believe what I’ve just read, how could she even think she deserves to claim against the family, she took their Son! It’s absolutely disgusting! My heart goes out to the family’s of the victims!

    • I’m sorry Mike, what the hell did you mean it’s Canada tho??? We are not in the habit of suing people. Especially people that have died and are being sued by the person who killed them , are you for real or what? I want to know why she was allowed to leave the scene and how her husband let her drive at 1:30 in the morning coming from a bar… I hope he loses his job and I hope they get divorced and lose everything they own. Maybe that will teach them both to be responsible

  4. I Think I should sue this Sharlene Simon for the mental aguish I have received since hearing about this act of evil she has commited

  5. Omg this woman should sue whoever is responsible for her brain damage cause I can only imagine someone with nothing for a brain would even think this will pass, what an idiot..

  6. I cant believe someone would have the audacity to do this to a family that already is going through enough because of something that this ignorant pigsowe was stupid enough to do!

    She is a disgrace to the Canadian name and her husband being a police officer should be put under investigation for his ignorance.

  7. It’s still vehicular manslaughter, she will still go to jail. Not to mention she basically maimed a kid, what about their emotional trauma? That lady deserves life in prison for her incompetence.

  8. I think this woman is insane, that is ridiculous. I can’t believe someone could be that much of a narcissist to do something like that, however, in all the news reports I read from the US and Canada I do not see anything pointing to the fact she was intoxicated in any way. She wasn’t coming home from a bar or a party. I get that there are a lot of police that abuse their power, but if you are going to do a write up, I wouldn’t try and add some fillers in there. I may be wrong on this as I haven’t read every report on this that I could, but I (myself) don’t see any sources that say they did.

    • In numerous articles, the couple was in fact coming home from a bar. Regardless, a breathalyzer should have been the first thing done! This woman is sick. Incompetent bicyclists, go fuck yourself lady.

    • Hi Justin, thank you for your thoughts. All of my information is gathered from other sources, primarily in this case The Toronto Sun, which reported Simon herself initially stated she was on her way home from Dave and Busters, a sports bar, after having a (single) drink. Police then reported alcohol was not a contributing factor in this incident, despite not requiring a Breathalyzer exam from Simon.
      I never use “filler,” or simply fabricate material in my stories. Below are some sources for you to check out. Thanks for reading!
      ” Simon and her husband, who followed in a separate vehicle, had just left Dave and Busters, a restaurant and games bar. Police said no alcohol was suspected and no charges were laid.”
      “Simon and her husband had reportedly had an alcoholic beverage at a local bar prior to driving home in separate vehicles, but they were both under the legal alcohol limit. However, it was confirmed that Simon was speeding at the time of the accident.”


      • Hi Tiobe
        here’s a link to one of the first articles about this case, in it at the bottom it clearly states that out of a abundance of caution a roadside screening device was used to determine the was zero alcohol in her system. This story has so taken on a life of it’s own. No where is there any article that states Ms. Simon has talked to anyone about anything at all. The other thing that’s missing here is that her suit is a counter suit filed 2 years after the accident and only after being sued by two of the families for 2.3 million. And as “youareallwrong” stated she has been harassed non stop for these two years.

        • The suit is actually against her insurance and will affect her in little way. Her suit is against the families actual estates which would bankrupt them and ruin them. Also 350,000 of that is a suit her husband is laying since his life’s been so horribly ruined as well apparently…this woman is a pure sociopath that can’t simply take responsibility for her actions of driving drunk speeding and what I can suspect is driving without her headlights on considering the boys moved over for every car and she simply came out of nowhere…forgetting to turn on your lights is a pure drunk move as well as killing people. She actually hasn’t been harassed since the first Christmas she had a restraining order put against the whole Majewski family. Also on top of this she never ones apologized to the family for her terrible neglegence! There was never a proper alcohol level test done as no breathalyzer test was done. Being able to walk in a straight line doesn’t mean you’re sober. This woman is a terrible human being and deserves no sympathy!

  9. The should file a counter-claim for wrongful death. this biatch deserves to have the book thrown at her… heck, a whole law library probably wouldn’t be enough.

  10. And this what becomes of you when you wallow with pigs. Welcome to America, folks. Every form of government abuse makes its way here eventually. It’s only a matter of time before Canada is the 51st state.

  11. Small town ‘politics’ got her off a Impaired Causing Death charge….but this isn’t good enough for her. She has to spit in the face of the victims as well. Is there any justice anymore?

  12. I just don’t understand how, even while her husband is a police officer, she still does not have the common sense to not drink and drive and even tries to justify it by blaming the victims. This is sick.

    • Cops drink and drive all the time…they do drugs to…I know this from many cops I know…they are more corrupt then imaginable

  13. If that happened to my family i would really take care of her my self.
    It’s clearly that Canada have been infected by USA’s idiocrazy and it is spreading.
    Sue the bitch so that she doesnt even can afford panties for the next 80 years.

  14. What a pathetic human being, she was in the wrong and yet she is going to sue these poor families, I hope she gets laughed out of court, she is “scum”. She’s a coppers wife and they were allowed to go home, while the others had to stay behind, wtf, but it wouldn’t suprise me if she wins her court case, the arrogant b@#*h.

  15. The article is obviously biased because it is easiest to garner support for the “victim” than to give an unbiased truth. I won’t ignorantly start posting hate comments against her like the others here have done without thinking.

    It was 1-30 am. It would have been dark. Riding a bicycle at that time on a country road(which would not have been lit) to get hotdogs is pure stupidity. Suing is callous of her, but it could well have been the cyclist’s fault, and the dead don’t suffer. Simon will suffer. Not to support her, but simply in disgust at the plain ignorance being shown here in the comments, as per usual. Manslaughter !* Murder.

    • So you mean the teenagers shouldn’t have been cycling at that hour because crazy drunk driver might hit them… and the blame is on the kids… u hhh hmmm. ..

      • Driver was not drunk or crazy. Cyclist got hit because it was 1-30am on a country road. It’s quite simple reasoning. Just because the cyclist got killed doesn’t mean the car driver is at fault. Yes, I am suggesting they shouldn’t have been cycling at that hour on a country road. Would you?

        • What everyone is calling their opinions as simple reasoning or common sense, need to gather proper data. relevant data to prove ones’basis of simple reasoning is not in black and white. Before anyone tries to prove their point. Gather ALL relevant and crucial information before trolling each other.

    • Doesn’t matter. If the cyclists were on the road in accordance with the law, then the fact that it was dark is not really relevant is it? I mean, the report mentions that they had reflectors and cars are required to have working headlights. The driver should have been particularly attentive in an area without adequate lighting and I am speaking as someone who lived and drove for a number of years in the country. If you know there are conditions that limit your ability to drive safely, then you must adjust your driving accordingly. Now obviously some allowance must be made and there will be cases where the most diligent driver doesn’t see someone because it is too dark or there is a lot of rain or snow or fog or something like that. But that driver cannot say (1) I am excused from liability because of conditions beyond my control and then say (2) it is the other person’s fault and I will sue them. Those two things are not compatible. Either it is one or the other – either it was the weather/darkness at fault OR it was the other person. And by the way, if the driver could not see the other person prior to hitting them, how could they possibly have observed them cycling (in this case) in an incorrect manner? And if there was bad weather or it was very poorly lit, then couldn’t that be used to excuse the other person as well? Maybe they did not see the car. As I said, one or the other.

      The fact that this woman claims that these teenagers were riding their bicycles improperly rules out the possibility that she was unable to see them in the dark and that was why she hit them. I have carefully read this and I guess she wasn’t drunk after all, but this also obviously wasn’t a case of driving along in a diligent manner and some pedestrian or cyclist suddenly appearing out of the dark (for one thing they had reflectors). You cannot make a claim as to the other person’s manner of driving or cycling if you could not make observations about it. She is felled by her own sword. Either she has lied about seeing them or she did see them and was 100% at fault for hitting them because she could have avoided it.

      • She may not be claiming any of this, her lawyer is. It’s how a counter suit works, she is being sued for 2.3 million she goes to her lawyer for advice and to protect herself, lawyer files a counter suit and lists virtually everything and everyone he can think of, then it goes to pretrial and a judge goes through everything and drops what doesn’t pertain to the case and keeps what does, common legal practice, incredibly distasteful under the circumstances, but that the way the law works.

  16. Only a person with no compassion and no morals would ever stoop to what these two have accomplished, they will burn in the hell their souls are creating.

  17. Taken from the fb page Stand by sharlene Simon.
    “Just so everyone’s up to speed, the admin staff here is not afraid of Anonymous or 4chan or Reddit or any other bunch of social reject script kiddies. You cannot silence us. We will support Sharlene no matter what.”
    And they also hate autism.

  18. If its true…than someone please brake the spine of that bitch.. To paralize her! Hope she’ll get cancer! Its not that hard to kill her …i mean with your laws its legal.. So shot that bitch in the spine… Fuck usa! Damn mixed up Retards withno origins!

  19. So basically because her husband is part of the police department, she is able to get away with murder due to her own negligence? Isn’t it weird how she was able to leave the scene right away? You killed someone and now that PTSD isn’t trauma, it’s your quilt that you will have to live with the rest of your life knowing that your own negligence killed someone.

  20. I’m surprised she didn’t also sue the bar she came from and the bartender that poured the drinks for making her need to drink before she drove home. Maybe the car manufacture for making a car that wouldn’t automatically avoid bike people. Some say the best Defense is a good offense. Perhaps next week we will hear she is suing Jack Daniels for making such a good tasting whiskey that she cant leave home or bar without it.

  21. I wonder what the boys were doing riding their bikes at 1:30 am. That sounds suspicious, plus you know how stupid young people are, they have a tape work up their arse most of the time.
    Anyway, there’s more to this than being told here.

    • Non of them actually drank or did drugs. They were simply up late as they always were planning there next big project or perfecting there current one. They were simply riding there bikes for late night snacks and moving over for cars with there head lights in until this monster came barreling down the road…also Brandon was wearing his snowmobile jacket covered in reflectors you can see from 100’s of meters away. As long as your headlights are on!

  22. when and if that even gets to court the judge is going to destroy her I still have a little bit of fish in the Canadian justice system I just don’t have much faith in the police officers anymore

  23. I agree with Scott, totally ashamed to be a Canadian. I would never expect to read this headline in a Canadian paper. What the f#$% is wrongwith this woman.

  24. Have read this article & think there is bits missing, full circumstances not provided, there is but one conclusion,.. Manslaughter.
    simon may not have been drunk but the routine breath test is Mandatory is it not.(corruption maybe )
    All accident parties are to remain until police have finished conducting their reports, is that correct (maybe Canadian police think they’re special)
    No matter what happened or how it all unfolded, it’s still manslaughter.
    The interesting outcome will be what penalty the judge delivers.
    I don’t believe simon will walk away free from this case, time will tell.

  25. what a bitch. She would 100% guaranteed change her mind if her husband got killed in this situation… but thats not how our world works. we are to damb self absorbed. Every person on this planet save maybe 30% are cocky and greedy. Upsetting to see what has become of our citizens. too selfish to take responsibility for their own blatant mistakes…

  26. This has to be the most misleading story I have ever read, and the majority of your replies disgust me.

    I know exactly where this “accident” happened, and the REAL circumstances of that night.

    1) The road that the boys were struck on is a rural road, there are no street lights, a soft gravel shoulder, and the road is uneven, it raises and lowers a foot or so about every 250′ or so. (when you see the headlights of oncoming cars from a distance they raise and lower)
    2) When the accident happened it was late at night (after midnight), although it wasn’t raining that night, it was a bit hazy. There was also a little bit of moonlight which was shining through the forest casting shadows across the road.
    3)I have lived on this road for several years and NOT ONCE have I ever seen a person riding a bicycle during the day, let alone during the middle of the night.
    4) The boys were wearing dark clothes, the bikes had no lights. I believe one of the bikes may have had a small reflector on the back of the seat. (it may have been covered by the boys jacket)
    5) There was no indication that the woman driving the car had been drinking.
    6) The road was shut down for about 12 hours for the initial investigation. Several follow up investigations also took place. The covered everything, lighting, shadowing, recreation etc.
    7)The parents of one of the boys that died tried to create a media circus throughout town and the police even went so far as to bring in an outside agency to do a parallel investigation to eliminate any chance of error. (the parents have been making the drivers life a living hell in the community, one of them even tried to run for Mayor during the last election focusing his campaign around the unfortunate death of his son)
    8)The suit that everyone is bitching about is actually more of a counter suit to the one that the parents of the deceased boy brought against the driver. This is very normal whenever insurance agencies get involved in a case where a death has occurred.

    This death was a tragic ACCIDENT, and absolutely nothing could have prevented it from happening. I drive that portion of road almost every night, at night, and if I were to suddenly come across a bicyclist dressed all in dark clothes as I crest that little hill, I doubt very much that I would see it either. I It would just be another moving shadow coming from the trees.

    Please people, look and think before you jump to conclusions. (and know, I do not know the driver of the vehicle, nor any of the boys, but I do know what I saw that night, and am reminded of the tragic events every time I look across my field and see the boys memorial.

    • Wow a sane voice, thanks, I’ve been following this from the beginning and it so amazes me how it’s taken on a life of it’s own. Nowhere in any article does it say she admits to having a drink, on the contrary the very first article about this case was done by The National Post and it clearly states that out of an abundance of caution a roadside screening device was used and determined Ms. Simons had zero alcohol in her system. Leave it to Sun media (Canada’s FOX) to use salacious headlines to stir things up, they must laughing at all the craziness they’ve caused.

  27. The previous reply mention coming over a crest in the road,I have traveled that road for many yrs. and I have never seen a crest in the road at anypoint with in sever hundred yards of the accident site. And ,also to add to the bizzar people involved in this court case,I think I remember reading in the paper that the husband,driveing the car behind is sueing also .

    • Gerald. That road is full of hills and dips. The boys were riding back from where? INNISFIL HEIGHTS. And why is it called INNISFIL HEIGHTS? Because it is at the top of a hill.(difference in elevation of about 200′ or so) And were did the accident occur, Lovers Creek Marsh, and where is a marsh, at the bottom of a hill. Along that 3km section of road there are numerous small hills and dips. There use to be a very big one about 100′ East of the intersection that cars would actually bottom out on. Even after the road improvements that they did last year there is still at least one collision a week that occurs at the intersection. (which is located a few hundred feet west of the bike accident site)

      • I just read that posting, and the moderator of the webpage put my comments in quotation. That is the correct use of quotation marks and I am OK with her doing the repost.

  28. Gerald. There is a small rise in the road about 50M West of where the memorial is set up. (The actual accident happened several meters west of the memorial, and how do I know this, I was the one who placed the first Memorial Candle there)If you are driving Westbound on Innisfil Beach Road at night you will see where the headlights of Eastbound Vehicles rise upward as the car goes over the little hill. This use to occur in 3 separate locations between the 10th and 1.5 km East of the 10th. (now that the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and the 10th has been widened it only occurs in 2 places)

    Accidents along this road are not uncommon, there have been at least 20 separate accidents that I know of within 1.5km of my farm in the past 3 years alone. (I called in the 911 report for 2 of them)

    The accident occurred about 300-400 M East of this very dangerous section of road. There was another fatality that occurred just last week which was also within 500M of the traffic lights. (that makes 3 fatalities that I know since I moved in 3 years ago)

  29. Gerald (and others)

    I know exactly where this accident occurred and I was the person that placed the first memorial candle along site the road a few hours after the police completed their investigation. This section of road has had at least 20 accidents occur in the 3 years that I have lived here. Last week there was yet another fatality that occurred just down the street from where these boys were hit. That makes 3 deaths in 3 years. And all with 1km. There have also been numerous accidents with “luckier” outcomes, but even in those cases the injuries have been very serious. Myself, I have witness 3 of them and have been the one to call 911 two times. 4 accidents have occurred in front of my Farm alone.

    To Gerald’s question of: “The previous reply mention coming over a crest in the road,I have traveled that road for many yrs. and I have never seen a crest in the road at anypoint with in sever hundred yards of the accident site.”

    There are 3 locations within 250 Meters of the intersection were there are either dips in the road or small hills. If you are driving Westbound you will see the headlights of Eastbound cars rise into the trees slightly as they approach you. One of these small dips was removed when the town repaved the intersection last year.

    The small dips in the road are mostly cause by the road settling into the marsh near Lovers Creek.

    For those of you that know the area and have seen the memorial site, it is not in the exact location were the accident occurred. It was set up about 15M East of the scene. (we put it in a small clearing at the side of the road instead of the exact accident locations)

    If you drive eastbound at night and go over that small hill your headlights do not illuminate about a 25 Meter section of road. Unfortunately this is exactly were the boys were at the time of the accident, another second either way and the headlights would have been focused on the road ahead.

    There is no police corruption involved here, the drivers husband did know any of the police that were conducting the investigation, and he worked for another police force located about 45-60 minutes drive away from the Town of Innisfil.

    The driver of the car was not impaired as many of you have stated, a roadside test was conducted, and she was found to have had Zero Alcohol in her system.

    The South Simcoe Police even went so far as to bring in an outside Police force to do a separate investigation. Their findings matched the first one.

    In the town of Innisfil the police force is highly respected, so much so that in the last election a retired police officer was elected Mayor of the Town.

    As for the lawsuit, it was the boys families that started the suiting, not the driver of the car. The family was suing for more than what the drivers insurance covered. I do not recall the exact figure but I believe that there was a difference of more than $1M. If anyone one of you were being sued for something that was unavoidable, and were facing losing your house along with legal bills that would probably be between $250K and $500K, I think you would be doing the same thing.

    Please people, look at the facts, not the Anti-Social Media reports.

    • @youareallwrong – She broke the law, the kids did not. End of story. You are obviously a cop or part of some kind of “brotherhood” that protects their own. Regardless of whether her husband knew the other police force personally, it doesn’t matter. Cops move to protect cops, regardless of what department/precinct/city they operate in.
      I don’t care if there are dips, hills, gravel, pavement – it doesn’t matter. Nothing they did was illegal. She killed someone, even if she didn’t mean to. Sorry, this lady deserves all of the aggravation and judgement that is coming to her.

      • Actually ABC, it was the riders of the cycles who broke the law, not the woman who hit them. The only “technical” infraction she made was driving 90km in an 80km zone. Forensic taken from the cars data recorder matched her story. The accident occurred a few hundred meters past the bottom of a fairly large hill. (coming from Innisfil Heights)and the vehicle would have momentarily gone over the posted speed limit several times because of the road terrain. (do you ride your brakes all the time when you go down hills, or do you apply them only when needed?)

        Oh, and ABC, I am not a Cop, and I don’t come from any “brotherhood”. I live on a farm very close to were the accident happened. And I have seen many accidents along this road and near this intersection. Unfortunately 3 of them have been fatal, the last one occurring just last week. In the past year and a half alone I have had to call 911 2 times because of road accidents that have occurred in front of my farm. And that is on-top of the seven other accidents that others called police before me.

        So, everyone is probably wondering why I am jumping to the defense of this driver, the reason is simple, Facts, Evidence, and Witness Reports. NOT VENDETA”S against the police. In most collisions fault is easy to determine, in others there may be no fault at all, in others it may only be a matter of finding contributing factors which lead to the accident.

        Oh, and ABC, not offends me more than when people like yourself AUTOMATICALY jump to conclusions and start making statements like “you are obviously a Cop” just because I question your vendetta against the police.

        No, I am just a humble farmer, lover of nature, and apiarists. (that a fancy word for BeeKeeper)

          • So you’re saying you wouldn’t protect your self if you were being sued for 2.3 million for an accident that wasn’t 100% your fault?

    • So you blame everything on the victim? The fact that she took a life and was able to leave the scene after Police got there that does not bother you? I suspect Police corruption!!!!

  30. There are numerous corrections that should be made to this story. I have no idea where “Tiobe” got his “facts” from, and maybe, just perhaps, there is a small chance that maybe he just made some of them up to fit his personal agenda.

    I won’t get into all of them, but here are a few..

    “were riding their bicycles along a country road en route to a plaza for hot dogs”
    The boys were riding Eastbound with the flow of traffic toward home. They were not “en route to a plaza for hot dogs” There is no plaza anywhere near the location although there is a Coffee Shop and a Gas station about 5 km’s West of where they were stuck. The boys were heading towards the town of Alcona which is about 15km away.

    “A couple, driving by the scene of the accident, stopped when they saw the bikes’ reflectors”

    Out of the three bicycles only one of them had a reflector on it. It was very small and it is believed that it may have been covered by one of the boy’s jackets. The story says that the “bikes” had reflectors, that suggests that there were more than one, however that is not true. It would also be impossible for the couple to have seen the bikes reflector and stop. The woman who’s car hit the bike would have been in-front of theirs blocking their view. The bike was also lying down and severely damaged. The reflector would have been pointed in a NW direction not westward. (Towards the couple’s car)

    “Simon was allowed to leave as soon as police arrived on the scene”
    Also not true, initial statements and screening test were done. They were in no way allowed to leave as soon as police arrived on scene. (Just a note, the South Simcoe Police Headquarters is less than 3 km away, fire was also only 3 concessions away) . The response time of police and medics was a matter of minutes.

    “was not required to perform a Breathalyzer test”

    Technialy true, a “Breathalzer test” is conducted back at the police station and the driver did not take one. And why, a roadside test was given and ZERO ALCHOHOL was found.

    Numerous FACT’s are missing, and the Author’s use of the word “allegedly” is a deliberate way of him to try to distort the truth.

  31. Who cares if she goes broke from the lawsuits? She should be glad she isn’t spending time behind bars. Police reports from that night should be released to help clarify things. Also, who goes to Dave and Busters without enjoying a drink? It’s literally meant for drinks and games.

    • There are many such bars, and are you trying to tell me there’s no such thing as designated drivers? A lot of people myself included go to bars like this and don’t drink.

    • Tomtom,

      Actually the police reports have been released which HAVE clarified things quite a bit. And it wasn’t just reports done by the South Simcoe Police who’s region the accident occurred in. Metro Toronto was also brought in a few months later to do a separate independent report and their findings were the same. The Crown Attorney’s office was also brought in and they concurred with the other 2 police forces findings.

      The contributing factors which lead to the accidents were poor illumination and visibility on that portion of the road as well inadequate failure on the part of the bicyclist to use proper reflective and lighting devices on their vehicles. There were other contributing factors including failure to operate their vehicles closest to the right etc. (they were riding three a breast).

      And who goes to Dave and Busters without enjoying a drink? Lots of people do, and not everyone drinks to get impaired. The woman admitted to having a drink earlier in the evening (dinner receipts would match the story) and when she was tested no alcohol was found in her system. Also, the closest Dave and Busters is almost an hour drive away from her home town, that is apparently were she met her husband. He works for York Regional Police where the Dave and Buster is, I imagine that they probably met after work for a late dinner.


    Father of boy who was tragically killed admits boys were at fault.

    The father of the boy (Majewski’s ) who tragically died has already admitted that the boys made a mistake. He is quoted as saying “They’re kids; they’re allowed to make a mistake,” (carried in several different newpapers from Toronto, Innisfil, Barrie, Bradford)

    Also admitted was that “they were riding abreast on bikes with few reflectors and wore dark clothing and no helmets”

    According to the National Post, investigators concluded that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, Simon “did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”

    This misleading article also says that “A couple, driving by the scene of the accident, stopped when they saw the bikes’ reflectors. Melanie Lachance, a 36 year-old school teacher, got out of her car and held Majewski’s hand as he lay dying”. This is yet another made up part of the “story”, the boy unfortunately was killed instantly.

    And the lawsuit.

    Shortly after the event happened, the Majewski family (child’s parents) sued Simon (the Driver of the car) for $900,000, and McLean’s family filed a $1.4 million claim against her. (plus costs, estimated to be several hundreds of thousands)

    Last December, (2 years after she was sued by the boys family) the driver of the car COUNTERSUID, filing a $1.35-million lawsuit against Majewski’s estate, and against the other two bicyclists. (Nation Post)

    The truth is far different than the Headline which was clearly written in such a way to automatically place blame on the Police.

    I am not a huge supporter of most politicians or governments, and have been labeled everything from activist, NIMBYist, protester, biker and surprisingly today for the first time, a cop.

    What I stand for is fairness and truth in media. And I don’t think that fairness involves “profiling”. Why is it that so many of us think that it is wrong for the Police to Profile US, but it is perfectly fine for us to Profile THEM.

  33. OK, apparently the comment that I posted an hour or so must have hit a nerve so I have now revised it. Hopefully it will be allowed this time.


    Father of boy who was tragically killed admits boys were at fault.

    The father of the boy (Majewski’s ) who tragically died has already admitted that the boys made a mistake. He is quoted as saying “They’re kids; they’re allowed to make a mistake,” (carried in several different newpapers from Toronto, Innisfil, Barrie, Bradford)

    Also admitted by the father was that “they were riding abreast on bikes with few reflectors and wore dark clothing and no helmets”

    According to the National Post, investigators concluded that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, Simon “did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”

    The article posted on this site (along with several others on similar sites) reported that “A couple, driving by the scene of the accident, stopped when they saw the bikes’ reflectors. Melanie Lachance, a 36 year-old school teacher, got out of her car and held Majewski’s hand as he lay dying”. This is yet another made up part of the “story”, the boy unfortunately was killed instantly.

    NOTE: Tiobe has clearly stated that his information came from “other reports” so I cannot place blame on him for factual errors that other reporters came up with.

    And the lawsuit.

    Shortly after the event happened, the Majewski family (child’s parents) sued Simon (the Driver of the car) for $900,000, and McLean’s family filed a $1.4 million claim against her. (plus costs, estimated to be several hundreds of thousands)

    Last December, (2 years after she was sued by the boys family) the driver of the car COUNTERSUID, filing a $1.35-million lawsuit against Majewski’s estate, and against the other two bicyclists. (Nation Post)

    The truth is far different than some of the Headlines that certain Newspapers and Websites put up. Some (but not all)are clearly written in such a way to automatically place blame on the Police.

    I am not a huge supporter of most politicians, governments, and especially in recent times police. I have been labeled everything from activist, NIMBYist, protester, biker and surprisingly today for the first time, a cop.

    What I stand for is fairness and truth, and I don’t think that fairness involves “profiling”. Why is it that so many of us think that it is wrong for the Police to Profile US, but it is perfectly fine for us to Profile THEM.

    • Even if she wasn’t “at fault”, no one with a heart would sue the family of the boy she killed. It is cruel. It is evil in my eyes. For you to sit here and defend her makes me question your character and values.

      • So if it’s not the drivers fault why do the families have right to sue first for 2.3 million? the driver is only suing for 1.35 million to protect her family from being bankrupted by the families for as you say an accident that was not 100% her fault, that’s all this is.

  34. She was likely drunk. And whatever her intoxication level, it was certainly covered up.

    Reasoning: if her BAC reported by the police as 0.0, and she was on her way home from a bar after having, by her own admission, one drink, she could not possibly have read 0.0. Unless she sat around the bar for a couple hours, that’s biologically impossible.

    Hence, the police officers involved lied, and are lying still. As is she.

    She also admits to speeding – had she been going the speed limit, the injuries would certainly have been less. That’s just physics.

    Furthermore, she claims to have thought she hit a deer. I’ve been a backseat passenger when a car – going faster than she was, hit a cat that dashed out directly in front of us. We had just a moment to glimpse it, yet all of us clearly saw it was cat. I could see the even see the pattern on its fur.

    Somehow, she hit three boys on bicycles, and thought she had hit one deer? How is this even possible, especially when she rolled up on them from a distance. I’ve never heard of anyone making such a mistake. Well, anyone sober.

    The possibility that this woman was unimpaired is just impossibly remote.

    Then you add in the other factors. For example, she was allowed to leave, even though she was the one who had actually killed someone – that’s not in dispute, while mere witnesses, who had come along after the fact, were required to stay far later. And she was not, as you would have expected, screened for drugs and alcohol – given that she admitted to being on her way home from a bar after drinking, and had just killed someone, it is completely absurd that she wouldn’t have been properly screened.

    It’s beyond absurd that she would have been allowed to just take off.

    As for the lawsuit, this was the sort of the thing that would have been settled for under the million-dollar limit the driver had. She would not have borne the expense.

    Whether intentionally or not, she did kill this child, and grievously injure another. If it affects her insurance rates in the future, so what.

    The boy’s father did not say it was the boys’ fault. He might have said they made a mistake in not making themselves more visible. Likely, it wasn’t the first time. I’d say we’ve all been on a road at night without wearing fluorescent reflective vests and safety lights. We’ve just haven’t been unlucky enough to have a drunk woman speeding come speeding up on us in her SUV, so impaired she mistook three of us on bicycles for one deer not riding a bicycle.

    She was speeding.

    She had been drinking – she admits to that, despite the miraculous 0.0 reading.

    And it was certainly possible for her to see the boys. I’ve seen people in the road at night and thought, Wow, that guy was hard to see. To say that she failed to see all three boys, mistook them for a deer on impact, and that she’s not at all at fault… well, we’re well down the rabbit-hole.

    • I just can’t get over the effort you conspiracy theorists put into your
      She was tested and why is it so hard to believe someone would go out to a bar have one drink then hang out for a few hours and socialize? Designated Drivers do it all the time. Give it up already she wasn’t impaired. I don’t know why or when she was allowed to leave the scene that hopefully will come out in court, but to think everyone involved including the staff at the restaurant/bar are lying is just silly. As for the “TWO” lawsuits, (not one) she is being sued for 2.3 million, one of which states she was drunk which as we know is not the case, if she has a 1 million dollar policy where does the other 1.3 million come from? The way I see it she is being sued for 2.3 mill one of which claims she was drunk, she goes to a lawyer for advice, lawyer files counter suit to protect his client listing everything and everyone he can think of in hopes the families drop their suits, that’s all we have here nothing more, it will go to pretrial a judge will sift through everything and be ready because the evidence doesn’t look good for the families either. I’m not supporting anyone or anything just looking at the facts.

  35. OK Claire, I think maybe you should think a bit more before you make statements like these ones.

    1) First your comments about “biologically impossible”
    The human body metabolized alcohol at the rate of 0.015 blood alcohol content (BAC) every hour regardless of their height, weight, sex, race, and marital status. (yes, even cop’s wives burn it off at the same rate)
    If the driver consumed a single drink earlier in the night that would put her BAC at 0.017 assuming that she “downed” it right as she was walking out the door. That in itself if very doubtful, she probably drink it at least an hour before she left Dave and Busters. But to appease you, I will grant you the worst case scenario that she did down it.
    In order for her BAC to reach 0.0 approximately 67 minutes would have to elapse.
    So, how could this happen? Well although there could be numerous ways, and all very plausible, and none involving a cover-up as you suggest. I think it probably went down like this.
    Dave and Busters is located in the City of Vaughn and the accident happened just outside of the Town of Alcona. That is a distance of 64km or a 38 minute drive without any traffic or being stopped for lights, or even stopping at the checkout to pay for the dinner bill.
    That leaves 29 minutes unaccounted for.
    So, how can that 29 minutes in the worst case scenario be accounted for without a police cover-up as you suggest.
    First, the accident has to happen, she immediately stops as well as her husband who is following behind her. He gets out of the car, sees what has happened and immediately calls 911. He stays on the line with the dispatcher and gives details of the accident location and what emergency units to send. (police, EMT, Fire) The first police and fire arrive within 5 minutes, and the remaining units (Ambulance, second Police, Fire ) over the course of the next 5 minutes.
    Time to BAC=0.0 is 19 minutes.
    The first few police cars and fire attend to the 3 boys over the next 15 minutes. At least 2 additional police show up and setup road blocks at the two nearest intersections.
    Time to BAC=0.0 is 4 minutes.
    The police investigation and questioning of the driver now begins. She starts giving her statement and she admits to having a drink earlier on in the night. After a few minutes of questioning the investigating officer calls into the station and requests that the Road-Side Screening device be brought to the location. Since the main police station is so close, it arrives within 5 minutes and the test is given.
    One minute before the test is given the drivers BAC has already gone back down to 0.0.
    These times would all be MINIMUN times, and in all likelihood, she would have consumed the drink a lot earlier in the night, she would have been stopped by at least half of the 6 traffic light between Vaughn and Alcona, and the screening device would probably actually been giving closer to a half hour to hour from the time that the accident occurred. No cover-up would be required

    2) Speed.
    Well, you are right about that one, can’t argue it at all. If she was going 80 instead of 90, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation the survival rate increases from 85% up to 88%.

    3) Allowed to Leave
    OMG, have you not read a single media report other than this one? A road-side test was given and she was not “allowed to just take off”. She was at the accident site for HOURS. She was questioned on-site, give a roadside breathalyzer, as well as checked out by medics. She was released to go home HOURS after the incident. And why were other required to stay later? Come on Claire, take off your tin hat or have your Medication Dosage adjusted. SHE WAS QUESTIONED FIRST !!. and then the other 13 “witnesses” were questioned. What part of this do you not understand?
    She was questioned, given the roadside test then after her husband was questioned, she was allowed to leave.
    The other 14 witnesses were then questioned (one at a time) and after each one was questioned they were also allowed to leave. e.g. 1st questioned, first released, 3rd questioned, 3rd released, and if you are the 13th person to be questioned, guess what, you are the 13th person to be released.

    4) And the lawsuit.
    Humn, Do you know even basic math? If you are being sued for $2.5M and your coverage is $1M, that leaves a difference of what?

    Oh, I have read a lot of comments about this road being flat, and no hills or blocked visibility, if any of you conspiracy theorists are brave enough to look into the facts, click on this link. you can see were the accident happened, and it is immediately AFTER a hill.

    South Simcoe police officials say their own internal review of the crash investigation indicate that “standard procedures” were followed, including the on-scene investigation, visibility testing, mechanical testing of the vehicle, forensic scene mapping, sobriety tests and interview with the driver and independent witnesses.
    On the morning of Oct. 28, 2012, police say a roadside screening device was used at the scene and alcohol was ruled out as a factor in the collision.
    A collision reconstructionist’s report was also completed for the provincial prosecutor to determine whether criminal charges should be laid.
    No charges were laid in the crash.
    A complaint was received by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) regarding the actions of the investigating officers.
    OIPRD is an independent, arms-length civilian agency that falls under the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. Its role is to ensure public complaints are dealt with in a fair, transparent, effective and efficient manner.
    OIPRD reviewed a professional standards report and determined no further action was required.
    Subsequently, South Simcoe police’s professional standards branch sent a letter to the complainant concluding that there was no misconduct on the part of officers.
    Even though all of this investigations were completed, and no fault or cover-up was found, South Simcoe Police took it one step further and they turned the investigative file for this incident over to Toronto police traffic services for review.
    The Toronto Police Traffic Services reviewed the department’s files and determined the investigation was thorough and complete.

  36. I think you’re cherry picking. I know cases where there was far less damage, and a proper blood test, administered at a hospital, was required. It’s very easy to fool a test – just have someone else blow. Did she really have just one drink? We don’t know. I said unless she waited around for before driving, it was impossible to have zero alcohol. Maybe she did, although not a lot of people wait around a long time after they’ve finished their drinks.

    That’s the problem, when you start to combine the actual likelihoods, you get into winning the lottery thrice territory.

    The big glaring problem with this is that she hit three boys and their bicycles, and said she though she hit a single deer. No way. No way someone who is not impaired could do that. There is just no way.

    So, yes, we can quibble about the other things, but even with those, while there are other possible explanations, there’s only one that genuinely connects the dots.

    Anyone wanting to do all the mental gymnastics, contortions and gyrations to come up with alternate theories is has an interest, and it’s not the truth of what happened.

    As for the investigations: police investigate themselves and clearing themselves of wrongdoing – what could go wrong with that?

    And there was a review. Does that tell us much? All it really tells us is the police were very careful about doing dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.

    A blood test at a hospital would have been appropriate here, given the driver’s relationship to the body investigating. If you can’t see that, you’re just being willfully obtuse.

    The speed stat is a good example of the cherry picking. Without a reference, we can’t actually check it. Even if we could, it doesn’t mean much: if she hadn’t been speeding, it’s not just that the injuries would have been less – she would have had a greater chance of avoiding the collision entirely.

    Well, not if she mistook three boys on bicycles for one deer.

    Oh, but she couldn’t see because there was a hill.

    As for the amount, it would settle for a lot less. We all know that.

    Anyone who looks at this in totality, with all the facts as we know them, knows this one just stinks.

    And that suing the children you’ve maimed and killed, or their families, is sociopathic. Play all the games you want, it’s sick. The inescapable fact is that she killed one, severely injured another. Other drivers had presumable passed them without incident.

    But this woman, and her husband, are suing, because she hit all three of them, and their bicycles.

    Thinking they were one deer.

    • She’s not saying she mistook the boys for a deer, she is saying she had no idea what she hit, “I thought it was a deer”. Yes she filed the counter suit but it is her “lawyer” who’s naming the kids, it’s his job, this woman didn’t just show up at his office and say “I want to sue these kids” That’s her lawyer. But and please take this with a grain of salt, “youareallwrong” isn’t the only poster from the area who’s saying the the families are making her life a living hell, this was also stated on Gawker, and just because someone has lost a child does not give them the right to slander the person who was cleared of taking his life. If what she is claiming is true and she has been abused and harassed so bad that she had to move and quit her job, then I’m sorry, as monumentally distasteful as we may think it is, she has a case.

  37. I have a question for clarification purposes. Simon says she didn’t see the boys and that she thought when the accident occurred she had hit a deer…But she also goes on to say about the boys “They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists.” Well what is it, did she see them and they didn’t apply their brakes properly or did she not see them at all?

    I believe that when the boys father states they made a mistake he was referring to the fact that they were out that late not to the fact that they caused the accident! “I know they should not have been out there that late,” was his exact words.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here