Hello everyone,
I would like to introduce myself. I am Clayton Rivet’s sister Erin.
I have visited this forum many times since I first stumbled upon this thread. I have yet to read its entirety, as some of the few comments I have seen are less than favourable. I do however; understand that most of the speculations made in this thread are before information was made available to the public, as our family only received the more recent news this past week.
I am not here to persuade opinions in any direction and my post is not up for debate.
I would ask that you do your best to respect the situation my family has been put in.
I am going to post all of the information I have to date from a petition on change.org that I started for my brother this past Monday. SIU allowed us to takes notes when the information was presented to the family but we still have no hardcopy report in hand.
I have written this information to the best of my memory.
Everyone is welcome to draw his or her own conclusions from the provided evidence.
If you are in favour of my brothers’ case, I ask that you please sign and share the petition in the link below.
Father’s Day News: Son killed by an officer pulling an illegal U-turn. I ask that the YRP Services Board find the officer is held accountable for the mistakes made and to ensure that this case retains an element of justice and integrity.
Thank you for your support.
Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Erin Rivet
erinrivet@gmail.com
***INFORMATION BELOW***
Father’s Day News: Son killed by an officer pulling an illegal U-turn.
No Justice has been served.
My name is Erin Rivet, and I am beginning this petition as a follow-up the SIU/YRP investigation, involving the tragic and avoidable death of my brother Clayton Rivet, June 14th, this past summer.
Let me start out by saying that I am not out to try and ruin the involved officer’s life, but rather am attempting to see justice prevail, and thereby receive some form of closure for my family. I realize that nothing will bring my brother back, or permit me the opportunity to say goodbye to him, or tell him that I love him, one last time.
My brother was speeding, and although completely illegal this was not the cause of the accident. If it were, he would have already been dead before the police cruiser made an illegal U-turn in front of him, blocking his path, causing them to collide.
June 14, 2014, 11:15pm.
My brother was on his way home from just getting a pair of brand news tires installed on his motorcycle.
He was travelling east on Queensville side road, approaching the 404 overpass that was still in the midst of construction, between Leslie St. and Woodbine Avenue.
An unmarked YRP SUV and a marked Crown Vic were called to the area on an ‘unrelated’ call about a suspicious vehicle parked in the GO train parking lot, that sits just on the west grade of the overpass. Both YRP vehicles made their way to the location but took two completely different routes.
The SUV made it to the location first and made a 5km/hour turn in the parking lot, then coming to a stop, facing south as he made his radio calls in to let dispatch know there was no longer a suspicious vehicle. While sitting there for the few minutes the unmarked SUV seen a motorcyclist go speeding past eastbound on Queensville side road. Later stated in the SIU report, that particular YRP officer “chose not to pursue the motorcyclist”.
The Crown Vic police officer had passed the go parking lot on Queensville side road and was just slightly on the other side of the overpass when he realized he must have went to far. The officer then chose to make a U-turn pulling in behind cement barriers used for construction and preceded to make a turn to go back westbound when he collided with my brother coming up over the overpass behind him.
Clayton impacted the center, left side of the police cruiser causing the officers vehicle to spin 180 degrees facing south with the vehicle’s back end half in the ditch. Clayton was thrown about 10 feet from the collision and died instantly from internal injuries, with a broken jaw and two broken wrists.
Following the news the next morning, two close friends of Clayton’s approached the scene while SIU was doing they’re site investigation and were unwelcomed and even harassed for taking pictures of the scene.
Our family waited patiently for months only to hear from the SIU that they would be laying no charges in the illegal U-turn against the officer that caused my brothers death. SIU stated that the video footage showed that the officer made the U-turn without stopping, pulling in behind cement barriers and had no rooftop lights on.
The unmarked SUV was the first to the scene coming right away after he heard the accident over the radio while he was still sitting in the GO Parking lot. That distance from from the parking lot to the collision was approximately 600 meters away over the crest of the overpass.
Read the article here:
http://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2063
Following the news of the SIU investigation my family was informed that the next investigation would be done by the YRP. We waited and waited for news but heard nothing and no one was in touch with us. I started to do my own investigation and reached out to the YRP and SIU for answers and advice for next steps, trying to learn the right questions to ask.
The following information is evidence taken right from the letter I sent the York Regional Police Chief Eric Joliffe on Friday November 21st, 2014. I received a reply this past Friday, December 12, 2014, which will follow.
**********
Point one: Section 143. U-turns prohibited
No driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall turn the vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction when,
(a) upon a curve where traffic approaching the vehicle from either direction cannot be seen by the driver of the vehicle within a distance of 150 metres;
(b) on a railway crossing or within 30 metres of a railway crossing;
(c) upon an approach to or near the crest of a grade where the vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of another vehicle approaching from either direction within 150 metres; or
(d) within 150 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 143.
There are some very obvious charges here.
The recent case that surfaced in Montreal - “
Family devastated no charges laid after speeding police officer killed 5-year-old boy."
Islande Belance, the boy's aunt, cannot believe nobody will be charged for the death. “Because it's a cop it's different? Why?” she said.”
Or how about this case:
Georgina woman charged in fatal crash.
Right around the corner from where my brother was killed, and in your jurisdiction.
http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4905671-georgina-woman-charged-in-fatal-crash/
This woman was charged with careless driving after making a U-turn that killed Keswick resident Elly Rogers and put her husband, Jim, who was driving their motorcycle, in the hospital. The driver of the Camry faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail. The 21-year-old driver was also charged with start from stop, not with safety.
The article even references my brother’s story. The mistakes are clear here. And the charges were laid.
What makes the difference here? Because it is an officer who’s to blame?
Point two: No SIU charges in death of Pefferlaw's Clayton Rivet
'SIU is brought in to maintain confidence in Ontario's police services by assuring the public that police actions resulting in serious injury are subjected to rigorous investigations. Section 113(9) of the Police Services Act requires that all members of police services shall cooperate with the SIU in the conduct of investigations. Subject officers are invited, but not compelled to present themselves for an interview with the SIU and they do not have to submit their notes to the SIU.'
It was explained by John Line of the SIU to us, the family, that the SIU needs to ‘Tally’ up enough points of evidence in order to have grounds to lay a criminal charge. In our case, as we expected, the subject officer retained his rights not to provide his notes. Could these notes have contributed enough evidence to lay a charge? We don’t necessarily think that the officer’s intention was to kill Clayton, but any ‘reasonable person’ would think an officer eager to have a legally valid explanation for his or her own conduct would naturally emphasize and present the facts /notes in accordance with the accident?
(A former police officer and family friend stated to me during a phone conversation on Thursday, December 18, 2014 that the officers’ notes are actually Property of the YRP police department. That being said, they should have to be provided by the police dept. He also told me that there is a time limit to when the notes have to be completed following an incident. He said that it is highly unlikely that the officer was able to complete his notes that night after an accident like that.)
“Basically what your saying to us is your hands are tied and the possibility of more evidence being in the officer’s notes could have made a difference in laying a charge?” Mr. Line nodded and agreed.
'The forensic reconstruction of the events around the collision put the motorcycle’s speed at about 148 to 154 km/h just before it left a skid mark in a failed effort to avoid striking the cruiser. Its speed at impact was calculated to be about 142 km/h. Given the motorcycle’s speed, I rather suspect the motorcycle would not have been visible to the officer if indeed he checked the roadway in that direction before initiating his turn. A civilian witness’ evidence gives us some sense of this possibility when she recounts that the motorcycle could not be seen in her rear view mirror when she checked it 30 seconds before it passed her at high speed without any warning.'
30 seconds? As a driver you are expected to check your mirrors every 5-8 seconds. A 30 second window would leave more than enough time for a vehicle or motorcycle to come up behind. Did that 30 sec’s take place as the driver was over the crest of the hill? Maybe she wasn't able to see any traffic coming at all? Did the motorcyclist turn out behind her from an intersecting road? The witness’s assumptions are not evidence. And that "witness" did not witness the accident.
How about mentioning in the release that the undercover SUV vehicle seen my brother drive past the lot he was parked in? What if there was radio communication? Again, what if there is more information in the officer’s notes?
'In the end, it seems that one or more of the man’s speed, low lighting conditions and possible visual obstructions caused by construction work in the area, contributed to the collision that occurred. Be that as it may, even assuming for the moment that the officer was something less than careful as he proceeded into his U-turn, I am satisfied that this singular indiscretion is far less than the marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances – the standard prescribed by the criminal law for there to be reasonable grounds to lay a criminal charge.'
Reasonable. That word is thrown around so loosely when it comes to police investigations.
What is reason?
1. (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
2. Possessing sound judgment.
'The Highway traffic act recognizes that emergency providers responding a call may require some risks but that does not give them carte blanche. Light and sirens should be used simultaneously. The vehicle must be operated with due regard for the safety of others on the road. Officers have to operate vehicles while handling radio calls and possibly activating roof lights and sirens etc. Cognitive skills are held the highest because of the dynamic nature (of situations) officers are placed in.'
Low lighting conditions? Possible visual obstruction? Contributed to the accident? I guess a ‘reasonable person’ would agree with that statement now wouldn’t they?
I think its fair to say that any reasonable driver on the road; especially an officer with training and experience would have noticed these conditions. And a ‘reasonable person’ would have noticed that there were two driveways within 15 meters of the area in which he made his illegal U-turn that could have been used to turn around instead.
Clayton’s path was predictable. He could have kept on driving until he reached home had it not been for the officers careless decision to make an illegal U-turn in an area where any ‘reasonable person’ would be wary of danger.
Point three: A section 11 investigations.
Section 11 investigations are required under Section 11 of Ontario Reg. 267/10, These are administrative in nature and are conducted by the police service at the conclusion of the SIU investigation. A Section 11 investigation must be completed within 30 days of the service receiving notification that no charge was laid in an SIU investigation. The conclusion and recommendations arising from the Section 11 investigation shall be reported to the respective Police Service Board within 30 days.
My brothers’ case was concluded on the 16th of September 2014.
It has been more than 30 days.
I understand that your department is investigating this case as it involves one of your own officers and because of that reason the investigation is more complicated, but I think it would be fair to say that the York Regional Police department should be going above and beyond to the family and the public to show you are doing an honest investigation, since it was your own officer that took my brother’s life.
The statute of limitations for provincial offences act charges is 6 months. I was advised by Inspector Shelly Rogers #625 of your Professional Standards Bureau, that her report is presented to yourself, then the police services board, possibly at their January 2015 meeting (Since there is no meeting in December?) Is the intent to push this case off in order to possibly achieve an outcome in your favour?
There has been no communication, no contact with the family (unless initiated by myself), and no updates. We’ve been waiting for months to hear news and haven’t received any information.
The following is for information purposes only, and is NOT intended as, nor should it be perceived as a threat, in any way, shape or form.
I have been in touch with the media since the moment the accident happened. The story has already been published in multiple news outlets. Most recently I have been speaking with the Toronto Sun, who is in in the midst of putting together an article for release sometime in January 2015. I was hoping to have some answers to my next two questions, to assist with the content of that article, please…
1. As a result of the accident investigation, will any charges be laid against the involved officer, and why not?
2. Why has the York Regional Police not made any attempts to contact the family and provide any information in accordance with section 11?
Point four: Pre-conceived comments.
During a telephone conversation I had with Inspector Shelly Rogers, Shelly made the comment;
“Agh, It’s just too bad your brother didn’t decide to just cruise that day”.
This almost suggests a pre-conceived opinion that the accident was all Clayton’s fault, and that the officer is blameless. I felt this comment to be highly inappropriate and out of line. As I am sure your officers receive “Sensitivity Training” I am wondering if perhaps a written apology is not in order from her?
***
Dear Ms. Rivet,
Re: Clayton Rivet
I would like to begin by expressing my deepest condolences to you and your family for the loss of your brother Clayton. The tragic and untimely death of a young person is especially painful. Dealing with a loss of a loved one in the context of an unfamiliar investigative and administrative process is also difficult. I hope to provide you with some clarification regarding the Special Investigations Unit investigation and the results of the Section 11 process. I will also answer the questions posed in your correspondence to the best of my ability.
With respect to the comment made to you by Inspector Rogers, please accept my apology on her behalf for any offence taken. She did not mean to offend you.
You are already aware of the mandate of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) so I will not reproduce it here but I do want to address your concern regarding the officer not providing the SIU Investigator with a copy of his notes. In Canada, everyone who is subject to an investigation that may result in criminal charges is afforded a right to silence. Accordingly, police officers who are the subject of an SIU investigation also have the right to remain silent. Part of this right to silence involves the right not to produce their notes to the SIU as the notes contain the officer’s version of events. The officer in this case chose to exercise his right to silence. Now that the SIU investigation is complete, the officer’s notes are available to you or your counsel through our Freedom of Information Bureau should you wish to request them.
The Section 11 review of this matter is complete. On Friday, December 5, 2014, I met with the investigators involved and I am now in a position to provide you with the results of that investigation. York Regional Police Traffic and Professional Standards Bureaus conducted investigations of the collision separately and independently from the investigation undertaken by the SIU. A Collision Reconstruction was performed.
The Collision Reconstruction estimates the speed of the motorcycle to be approximately 145-158 kilometres per hour as it approached the police vehicle. This finding supports the conclusion of the SIU Engineer who estimated the speed of the motorcycle to be approximately 148-154 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometres per hour zone. The Reconstruction estimates the distance between the motorcycle and police vehicle to be 324-350 meters at the time the officer commenced the U-turn. The Reconstruction shows that the police vehicle was completely in the westbound lane at the time of impact.
The data and measurements collected at the scene suggest that the darkness and speed, combined with the distance headlights aluminate, precluded both your brother and the police officer from seeing each other. Two extensive investigations and two independent reconstructions of the collision determined that the officer did not commit a criminal offence, any violation of the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act nor any professional misconduct.
I understand that this is not the result you were hoping for, however, I assure you that this matter was thoroughly and properly investigated both internally and by the SIU. I appreciate that the conclusions of these investigations may not provide you with the closure you seek but I do sincerely hope that you and your family will be able to begin the healing process.
**********
Inspector Shelly Rogers mentioned to me in an email that she hoped that my brothers’ case would go before the Police Services Board meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2015, since their was no board meeting in December.
Upon completion of the SIU investigation, the YRP have 30 days to complete their own investigation and then 30 days to present the case to the police services board. Given that Chief Joliffe gave me the final details of their investigation that was finalized on December 5th, I am under the impression that they are not taking it before the police services board. How convenient that this case falls between the dates.
It has been 81 days since the SIU completed their investigation. The Law is 30 days. The law should apply to everybody.
As a family we are doing everything that we are capable with the resources we have to bring attention to my brother’s case. Yes, he was speeding and yes the officer made an illegal U-turn. Two wrongs do not make a right. No one should be able to walk away from an accident like that scott-free because the other person isn’t here to fight for his or her own justice.
In summary, I hope that the York Regional Police Services Board would find reason enough to ensure that this case retains an element of justice and integrity, ensuring that the officer is held accountable for his/her actions, as it remains critical to fostering public confidence in policing in our province.
Thank you to the public for taking time to hear my brother's story and showing your support.
Sincerely,
Erin Rivet
