Wrongfully convicted in 2 deaths, motorist sues Windsor police, lawyer for $3.2M
Motorist wrongly convicted for double-fatal Windsor crash came close to getting prison of up to 8 years.
Article content
Wrongfully convicted in the deaths of two others, a local motorist is seeking $3.2 million in damages in a civil lawsuit filed against the Windsor Police Services Board; the police chief and three investigating officers; as well as his former lawyer.
Philip Hayes was handcuffed at the scene and taken into custody by police investigating a two-vehicle collision that killed another motorist and passenger at the intersection of Lauzon Parkway and Forest Glade Drive on the afternoon of Jan. 4, 2020.
Recommended Videos
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Wrongfully convicted in 2 deaths, motorist sues Windsor police, lawyer for $3.2M Back to video
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Following a trial before Superior Court Justice Russell Raikes in Windsor in June 2023, Hayes was found guilty on two criminal counts of dangerous driving causing death. The Crown was seeking a custodial sentence of up to eight years in prison.
But between the guilty verdicts and a looming sentencing hearing scheduled for January 2024, Hayes, now 35, fired his lawyer and retained new counsel, who brought in an independent “forensic engineer” to conduct a separate investigation into the fatal crash.
Analyzing that new crash reconstruction report, the police and prosecution then conceded that big mistakes had been made in the way the original investigation was conducted. One of the police investigators conceded the independent report was “much more consistent with the physical evidence,” including more accurate technical analysis of vehicle ‘crash data recorder’ and ‘airbag control modules’ information.
In May 2024, more than four years after the tragic crash, the judge, in a rare move, set aside the convictions.
“At the end of the day, we got it right,” Justice Raikes said at that time. “The system worked because of the diligence of counsel.”
But according to a lawsuit filed in Superior Court, the conduct of police, including initially publicizing the businessman’s arrest and the charges, was “malicious” and “reckless” and “destroyed Philip’s public reputation and damaged his business and employment prospects.”
“The Plaintiff sustained injuries, losses and damages including depression, anxiety, physical and emotional trauma, loss of reputation, stigma, and past loss of income and a loss of competitive advantage.”
The lawsuit, containing allegations yet to be argued or proven in court, is set for the pre-trial discovery stage in September, when the parties gather to exchange information to back up their positions.
Neither lawyers for the plaintiff nor the police, when contacted by the Star, wished to comment or have their clients be interviewed by a reporter.
The police adopted the independent engineer’s report “in its entirety” and in so doing concluded it “may drastically change the causative factors of the collision.”
The judge originally agreed with the prosecution’s case, which included testimony from two eyewitnesses travelling in the same direction as Hayes’s Ford F-350, stating he had been “driving at a high rate of speed, changing lanes aggressively and swerving in and out of traffic” while southbound on Lauzon Parkway. Another witness testified the pickup entered the intersection at a red light and collided with the Dodge Journey, which had been turning left at an advanced green light.
In its statement of defence to the lawsuit, the police stated that “these Defendants deny that any of them engaged in a negligent investigation, or were otherwise negligent.” It points to the evidence of “multiple witnesses” supporting the prosecution’s case and that the investigating officers “acted without malice.”
Hayes’s original lawyer, in his own statement of defence, “denies that he was negligent … (and) acted with reasonable competence and diligence.” It points a finger of blame at the judge, who “rejected” the evidence of other witnesses who testified in support of Hayes. The judge, it added, “improperly and arbitrarily attributed a speed to the Plaintiff’s vehicle despite that it (speed) was not pursued by the Crown” at trial as an issue.
While arguing no negligence on their own part, both the police and the former lawyer argue the losses claimed and damages sought are “excessive, exaggerated.” Both have also filed a “crossclaim” against each other, arguing that the other party, under Ontario’s Negligence Act, should cover “any amounts” to which the plaintiff might be found eligible.
To fight for his innocence, Hayes incurred “significant expenses … to defend the baseless charges against him,” according to his lawsuit claim.
Hayes is seeking $200,000 in general damages; $1.5 million in “special” damages; and $1.5 million for “aggravated, punitive and exemplary” damages, for a total claim of $3.2 million. He also seeks recovery of legal costs for the civil suit on top of that.
