SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OVI-057

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Information Restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
  • Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
  • Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding. 
Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
  • Subject Officer name(s);
  • Witness Officer name(s);
  • Civilian Witness name(s);
  • Location information; 
  • Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and 
  • Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.


Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Mandate Engaged

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the injury a 78-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On March 14, 2020 at 4:52 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.

According to WPS, on March 14, 2020, at 12:35 p.m., a marked WPS police cruiser was involved in a collision with a vehicle operated by the Complainant at the intersection of Tecumseh Road North and Roseville Road East [now known to be the intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive]. The Complainant was taken to the Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) Ouellette Campus and diagnosed with three broken ribs.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionist assigned: 1

SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, canvassed for additional witnesses, and searched for video recordings in the area where the collision occurred and along the route taken by the Subject Officer (SO) from his initial engagement in the incident to the collision scene.

An SIU investigator made a video recording, based upon Global Positioning System (GPS) data from the subject officer’s vehicle provided by the WPS, of the route taken by the subject officer from his starting point to the collision scene.

The SIU Forensic Investigator made a photographic record of the collision scene and of the involved vehicles. An SIU investigator, having specialized training in collision reconstruction, also took photographs of the intersection and analyzed crash data obtained from the involved vehicles. 

Complainant:

78-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed


Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed

Witness Officers (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed


Subject Officer

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right


Evidence

The Scene

The collision occurred in the paved intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive; an intersection controlled by traffic signal lights.

Tecumseh Road East had an east/west bearing, whereas Rose-Ville Garden Drive had a north/south bearing. At its north end, Rose-Ville Garden Drive formed a T-intersection with Tecumseh Road East.

Figure 1 – Google Maps screenshot of the scene location

Figure 1 – Google Maps screenshot of the scene location

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Rose-Ville+Garden+Dr,+Windsor,+ON/@42.3101811,-82.9474723,16z/data


SIU Route Video Recording


On April 1, 2020, an SIU investigator attended the area of 3150 Tecumseh Road East, Windsor, to make a video recording of the route taken by the SO from that location where the SO was when he was dispatched to the domestic violence call for service. The video continued eastbound to the intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive, a distance of about four kilometres, where the SO’s vehicle collided with the vehicle operated by the Complainant. There were 12 traffic signal lights for eastbound Tecumseh Road East traffic between the SO’s start-point to the involved intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following sources:
  • Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) video footage from a City of Windsor camera; and
  • CCTV video footage from a business on Tecumseh Road East.


CCTV Video Footage Summary from a City of Windsor Camera


CCTV data recorded by the CCTV camera west of the involved intersection depicted eastbound and westbound traffic on Tecumseh Road East still stopped at the traffic signal lights controlling traffic at its intersection with Rose-Ville Garden Drive when, at 12:36:44 p.m., the SO drove eastbound in the centre lane into the intersection and collided with the Complainant’s northbound vehicle. The CCTV data also depicted east and west traffic-flow on Tecumseh Road East, and to a limited extent, north and south traffic-flow on Rose-Ville-Garden Drive, before and after the moment of impact.


CCTV Video Footage Summary from a Business on Tecumseh Road East


CCTV video footage obtained from a business located on Tecumseh Road East depicted two WPS vehicles traveling eastbound through its intersection with Westminster Boulevard at 12:34:04 p.m. and 12:37:19 p.m. The first vehicle [believed to be operated by the SO] entered the intersection at 12:34:04 p.m. and continued through the intersection without stopping for the red traffic signal light for eastbound Tecumseh Road East traffic.

Notwithstanding a time-stamp differential of about three minutes between the GPS data from the SO’s vehicle and the Historical Intersection Timing (HIT) reports from the City of Windsor in relation to the time of the collision at Rose-Ville Garden Drive and the CCTV system, and the three minute and 15 seconds lag between the SO’s vehicle and the second WPS vehicle traveling eastbound on Tecumseh Road East at its intersection with Westminster Boulevard, it was the SO who disobeyed the red traffic signal light at Westminster Boulevard and went on as the lead WPS vehicle that collided with the Complainant’s vehicle at Rose-Ville Garden Drive.

Police Communications Recordings

The SIU received four tracks of communications audio recordings from WPS relevant to the incident.
The first track contained police dispatch communications to “all units” regarding a ‘domestic violence’ incident to which the SO was responding at 12:27:21 p.m.

At 12:27:43 p.m., the police dispatcher was heard communicating with the SO with corrected information that the woman was not armed with a baseball bat, but that she was leaving to get one to smash the caller’s car.

At 12:33:04 p.m., the SO was heard acknowledging the updated information relayed by the police dispatcher.

At 12:33:16 p.m., the SO was heard reporting that he had just been in the collision with the Complainant’s vehicle near Chuck’s Roadhouse, and he requested an ambulance.

The remainder of the track detailed other police officers responding to the collision scene and updates on the Complainant’s condition at the scene.

No siren from the SO’s vehicle was audible in any of his transmissions.

The second track contained the 911 call from a man reporting that a woman was getting a baseball bat to smash his vehicle and reporting on her departure before police arrived. This was the 911 call that the SO was dispatched to investigate. The 911 call was three minutes and 39 seconds in duration. There was no time stamp for the 911 call other than which appeared in CAD report, originating at 12:25:20 p.m.

The third track contained a telephone call made to the WPS from a man at the collision scene reporting that the Complainant appeared injured and was trapped in his vehicle. The remainder of the recording pertained to the police dispatcher notifying the emergency medical service of their need to attend the scene and relaying information regarding the Complainant’s condition at the scene.

The fourth track contained some overlapping radio transmissions from the SO reporting that he was involved in a collision, and the deployment of additional police officers to the collision scene.

Physical Evidence


WPS GPS Data


The following is a synopsis of the GPS data received from the WPS in relation to the WPS cruiser believed to be driven by the SO.

The GPS data provided were six minutes and 46 seconds in duration. The clock and timer on the GPS data showed the SO’s stationary vehicle, located at 3150 Tecumseh Road East. A Google Map view indicated the Grace Baptist Church was located at 3150 Tecumseh Road East, and it appeared the SO’s cruiser was in the parking lot behind the church. This was on the same side of the road, meaning south, as the Tim Hortons coffee shop.

At about 12:29:41 p.m., the GPS data indicated the SO left the parking lot of Grace Baptist Church and proceeded onto Chandler Road and then Tecumseh Road East, travelling eastbound, initially at 59 km/h.

The data provided did not show the colour of the traffic control lights as he proceeded eastbound, but it appeared that he did not pick up speed to achieve 81 km/h until he passed Westcott Road As he crossed the intersection at Pillette Road, his speed went down to 49 km/h, and then back to 79 km/h. His speed dropped to 48 km/h as he crossed Westminster Boulevard, and then back up to 75 km/h before achieving 94 km/h as he passed Ferndale Avenue at about 12:32:19 p.m. At Jefferson Street, the SO’s vehicle slowed to 54 km/h and then went back up to 87 km/h.

Prior to reaching the T-intersection at Rose-Ville Garden Drive, the SO’s speed was about 78 km/h. At about 12:34:17 p.m., the SO stopped his forward movement, and the GPS data provided showed 73 km/h and then 0 km/h, where it remained stationary until the end of the GPS data clip.


WPS GPS and HIT Reports Summary


This summary includes WPS GPS ‘playback’ data obtained from the SO’s vehicle, and data obtained from the City of Windsor HIT reports for traffic signal lights at Meldrum Drive, Central Avenue, George Avenue, Bernard Road, Pillette Road, Princess Avenue, Westminster Boulevard, Ford Boulevard, Rivard Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, Home Depot, and Rose-Ville Garden Drive – all of which intersected Tecumseh Road East along the SO’s path of travel.

The GPS data indicated the SO was stationary at 3150 Tecumseh Road East at 12:29:22 p.m. before he commenced his response to the call for service that, about four kilometres later, involved the SO in a collision with the vehicle operated by the Complainant.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle in the intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Meighen Drive at 12:30:04 p.m. traveling eastbound at 58.7 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:10 p.m., the SO’s speed was 27.3 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:16 p.m., the SO’s speed was 69.3 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Meldrum Drive. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Meldrum Drive traffic was green from 12:30:00 p.m. to 12:30:28 p.m., and, accordingly, red for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at Meldrum Drive.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle about mid-way between Larkin Drive and Central Avenue at 12:30:22 p.m. traveling eastbound at 63.4 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:28 p.m., the SO’s speed was 21.6 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:34 p.m., the SO’s speed was 58.6 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Central Avenue. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Central Avenue traffic was green from 12:29:55 p.m. to 12:30:34 p.m., and, accordingly, red for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at Central Avenue. 

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Leonard Road at 12:30:46 p.m. traveling eastbound at 73.7 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:52 p.m., the SO’s speed was 37.7 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:30:58 p.m., the SO’s speed was 71.4 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and George Avenue. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south George Avenue traffic was green from 12:30:48 p.m. to 12:31:14 p.m., and, accordingly, red for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at George Avenue.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Bernard Road at 12:31:04 p.m. traveling eastbound at 81.3 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:10 p.m., the SO’s speed was 84.2 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:16 p.m., the SO’s speed was 73.5 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Bernard Road The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Bernard Road traffic was red from 12:30:59 p.m. to 12:32:25 p.m., and, accordingly, green for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO had the right of way as he travelled through the intersection at Bernard Road.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Pillette Road at 12:31:16 p.m. traveling eastbound at 73.5 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:22 p.m., the SO’s speed was 39.1 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:28 p.m., the SO’s speed was 49.4 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Pillette Road The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Pillette Road traffic was red from 12:31:16 p.m. to 12:31:24 p.m., and, accordingly, green for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO had the right of way as he travelled through the intersection at Pillette Road.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Norman Road at 12:31:34 p.m. traveling eastbound at 79.2 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:40 p.m., the SO’s speed was 84.1 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:46 p.m., the SO’s speed was 47.6 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Princess Avenue. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Princess Avenue traffic was red from 12:31:05 p.m. to 12:32:30 p.m., and, accordingly, green for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO had the right of way as he travelled through the intersection at Princess Avenue.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Westminster Boulevard at 12:31:46 p.m. traveling eastbound at 47.6 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:52 p.m., the SO’s speed was 60.0 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:31:58 p.m., the SO’s speed was 59.2 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Westminster Boulevard. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Westminster Boulevard traffic was green from 12:31:38 p.m. to 12:32:02 p.m., and, accordingly, red for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at Westminster Boulevard.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Ford Boulevard at 12:31:58 p.m. traveling eastbound at 59.2 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:04 p.m., the SO’s speed was 65.7 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:10 p.m., the SO’s speed was 75.4 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Ford Boulevard. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Ford Boulevard traffic was red from 12:31:53 p.m. to 12:33:14 p.m., and, accordingly, green for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO had the right of way as he travelled through the intersection at Ford Boulevard.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Rivard Avenue at 12:32:10 p.m. traveling eastbound at 75.4 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:16 p.m., the SO’s speed was 90.9 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:22 p.m., the SO’s speed was 93.6 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rivard Avenue. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north/south Rivard Avenue traffic was red from 12:31:53 p.m. to 12:33:08 p.m., and, accordingly, green for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic. An inference may be drawn that the SO had the right of way as he travelled through the intersection at Rivard Avenue.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Jefferson Boulevard at 12:32:34 p.m. traveling eastbound at 54.0 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:40 p.m., the SO’s speed was 66.1 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:46 p.m., the SO’s speed was 86.8 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Jefferson Boulevard. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for southbound Jefferson Boulevard traffic was green from 12:32:29 p.m. to 12:32:40 p.m. when, one second later, at 12:32:41 p.m., until 12:33:09 p.m., the traffic signal light for northbound Jefferson Boulevard traffic was green (suggesting an advanced green traffic signal light for southbound Jefferson Boulevard traffic). Accordingly, the traffic signal light for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic was red. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at Jefferson Boulevard.

GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of the access road to Home Depot at 6630 Tecumseh Road East at 12:32:52 p.m. traveling eastbound at 82.5 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:32:58 p.m., the SO’s speed was 47.7 km/h. Six seconds later, at 12:33:04 p.m., the SO’s speed was 78.1 km/h, and by that time, the SO had travelled through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Tecumseh Road East and the Home Depot access road, and was approaching Rose-Ville Garden Drive The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for the Home Depot access road was green from 12:32:34 p.m. to 12:33:04 p.m., and, accordingly, red for east/west Tecumseh Road East traffic at the Home Depot access road. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at the Home Depot access road.

Lastly, GPS data placed the SO’s vehicle west of Rose-Ville Garden Drive 12:33:04 p.m. traveling eastbound at 78.1 km/h. Seventy seconds later, at 12:34:14 p.m., the SO’s speed was 73.3 km/h. Within six seconds, at 12:34:20 p.m., the SO’s speed was zero following his vehicle’s impact with the vehicle operated by the Complainant. The HIT report indicated that the traffic signal light for north and southbound Rose-Ville Garden Drive was green from 12:32:44 p.m. to 12:33:13 p.m. Although the discrepancy in WPS GPS data of 70 seconds has not yet been explained, the Windsor CCTV data depicting the collision shows the traffic signal light for eastbound Tecumseh Road East traffic as red when the collision occurred. The time-stamp for the Windsor CCTV data indicated that the collision occurred at 12:36:45 p.m., which, if the HIT report is deemed the most reliable source of data, indicated that the traffic signal light for north and southbound Rose-Ville Garden Drive was green, and by the Windsor CCTV data, consistent with east and westbound Tecumseh Road traffic stopped for the red signal light at that intersection. An inference may be drawn that the SO failed to stop for the red traffic signal light at Rose-Ville Garden Road.


Windsor Traffic Operations and Parking Services Data


The City of Windsor provided the SIU with two items related to this investigation: the CCTV data as described in this report, and HIT reports for the intersections along Tecumseh Road East on March 14, 2020 from 1200 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

The HIT report showed the true and historical timing of the lights at the intersections, including the intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive on March 14, 2020.

The HIT report was looked at in conjunction with the City of Windsor CCTV data, as both were managed by the City of Windsor. The HIT report data specific to this investigation were:


HIT report

Applicable definitions and terms were:
• EBT - Eastbound Through
• NBT - Northbound Through
• SBT - Southbound Through
• WBT - Westbound Through
• Clear – yellow light. The light sequence that day was four seconds yellow, one second ALL red
• Seconds shown – 30 and 68 are seconds a light was green
• Coord – showed the eastbound and westbound lights were coordinated and the same
• Green – referred to a green light beginning, and not including yellow or red status

City of Windsor CCTV data

The HIT report data were compared against the times found in the City of Windsor traffic camera. At 12:36:28 p.m. and 12:36:31 p.m., two unrelated vehicles were turning northbound on Rose-Ville Garden Drive, followed by the Complainant at 12:36:42 p.m. All three vehicles went northbound and then left, or westbound. This was apparent by the video which showed the traffic on Tecumseh Road East was stopped, and the traffic of three vehicles proceeded to move on Rose-Ville Garden Drive. Even if there was a discrepancy between the video and HIT report times, the start-time to be relied upon was the time when the first two vehicles proceeded into the intersection from Rose-Ville Garden Drive. They would have only proceeded when the light was green for them, and the traffic for Tecumseh Road East was stopped. That time correlated to the HIT report as being 12:36:20 p.m., and that was the historical time the lights changed according to the City of Windsor.

Given this examination of the data received by the SIU, the Complainant turned west on Tecumseh Road East on a green light. He had eight seconds of green left, as well as four seconds of yellow, and one second of ‘all red’.

The light at the time of impact, being 12:36:44 p.m., was red for the SO. It was red from 12:36:20 p.m. to 12:36:55 p.m. The SO’s light did not change to green for another 11 seconds post impact.

Data

Forensic Evidence


SIU Collision Reconstructionist Findings


Just after 12:30 p.m. on March 14, 2020, the SO was operating a WPS 2019 Ford Explorer. He drove eastbound on Tecumseh Road East in Windsor, Ontario, with emergency lighting and siren activated. He was travelling up to 81 km/h in a 60 km/h zone approaching Rose-Ville Garden Drive in the centre eastbound lane of Tecumseh Road East. It was cloudy, the atmosphere was clear, and the roads were dry. The sightlines at Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive were obstructed by a restaurant [now known to be Chuck’s Roadhouse] on the southwest corner of the intersection. The SO slowed to just above 46 km/h as he entered the intersection.

At the same time, the Ford Escape operated by the Complainant was driven northbound in the northbound left-turn lane of Rose-Ville Garden Drive. As he entered the intersection to turn left, meaning west, onto Tecumseh Road East, he was travelling 51 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

Civilian witness accounts, and traffic that was stopped on Tecumseh Road East as depicted in CCTV data, indicated that the traffic signal for Tecumseh Road East was red, and green or amber for Rose-Ville Garden Drive when both vehicles entered the intersection.

When both vehicles had slowed to about 39 km/h in their respective lanes, the front of the SO’s vehicle came into collision with the driver’s door of the Complainant’s vehicle. Each driver had turned their steering wheels in attempts to avoid colliding one second before impact. Both vehicles rotated counterclockwise and came to rest within the intersection a short distance from each other.

Figure 2 - This photograph is a Google Earth screenshot depiction of the enlarged scene.  The white arrow has been added to show the path taken by the SO in the WPS Ford Explorer, and the yellow arrow the path taken by the Complainant in the Ford Escape.

Figure 2 - This photograph is a Google Earth screenshot depiction of the enlarged scene. The white arrow has been added to show the path taken by the SO in the WPS Ford Explorer, and the yellow arrow the path taken by the Complainant in the Ford Escape.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from WPS:
  • Computer Aided Dispatch report (x2);
  • Civilian witness contact information;
  • Communications audio recordings;
  • Crash Data Retrieval Data – the Complainant’s vehicle;
  • Crash Data Retrieval Data – the SO’s cruiser;
  • Global Positioning System Logs;
  • Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • Vehicle Maintenance – the SO’s cruiser;
  • WPS Directive Motor Vehicle Collision Investigation;
  • WPS Directive Police Vehicles;
  • WPS MVC photos;
  • WPS-Witness Statement- CW #4;
  • WPS-Witness Statement- the Complainant;
  • WPS-Witness Statement- other civilian witness; and
  • WPS-Witness Statement- CW #2.
  • Materials obtained from Other Sources
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following additional materials and documents from non-police sources:
  • CCTV footage from a business on Tecumseh Road East;
  • Crash Data – the Complainant’s vehicle;
  • Drawing of Scene by CW #2;
  • Drawing of Scene by the Complainant;
  • Medical records relevant to the incident;
  • Windsor CCTV data from the involved intersection; and
  • Windsor Traffic Operations and Parking Services reports.

Incident Narrative

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU in the course of the investigation, which included interviews with the Complainant and several civilian eyewitnesses present at the collision site. The investigation also benefitted from a review of several video recordings that captured portions of the events in question and GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser in the moments prior to the collision. As was his legal right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

At about 12:30 p.m. on March 14, 2020, the SO was traveling eastward along Tecumseh Road East to attend a call for service. A 911 call had come into police about a domestic disturbance in which a woman was threatening to smash the complainant’s car with a bat. With his emergency lights and siren activated, the SO approached the roadway’s intersection with Rose-Ville Garden Drive, slowed and then entered on a red light.

At the same time, the Complainant was in the middle of a left-hand turn onto westbound Tecumseh Road East from Rose-Ville Garden Drive. The driver’s side of his vehicle – a Ford Escape – was broadsided by the front end of the cruiser. Both vehicles were sent spinning counterclockwise by the force of the impact, eventually coming to rest in the intersection.

The SO exited his cruiser after the collision and went to check on the Complainant. Other first responders made their way to the scene and were eventually successful in extricating the Complainant from his vehicle.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with three fractured left-sided ribs.

Relevant Legislation

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.
(2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.


Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red light exemption 


144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. 

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.  


Section 128(13)(b), Highway Traffic Act – Police vehicles and speeding

128 (13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,
(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officers’ duties.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on March 14, 2020. The collision occurred in the intersection of Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive in Windsor and involved a police cruiser. The SO was the driver of the police cruiser and identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision and the Complainant’s injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. What is required, in part, is conduct that consists of a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In my view, while close to the line, the evidence falls short of warranting criminal charges.

I am satisfied that the SO drove dangerously as he travelled east along Tecumseh Road East toward the point of impact with the Complainant’s vehicle at Rose-Ville Garden Drive. Pursuant to section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act, police officers engaged in the execution of their lawful duty may drive through a red light but only when it is safe to do so after first coming to a stop. By all accounts, the SO failed in that obligation. Though it appears the officer reduced his speed to about 60 km/h as he approached the Rose-Ville Garden Drive intersection, down from upwards of 80 km/h, he did not bring his vehicle to a stop and struck the Complainant’s vehicle at a speed of about 40 km/h. The collision was entirely avoidable; had the SO stopped, as he was obliged to do, he presumably would have seen the Complainant enter the intersection ahead of his path of travel.

The Complainant’s indiscretions, however, do not end there. A video recording from a surveillance camera situated along the path of the cruiser’s travel indicates that the officer also proceeded through a red light at the Westminster Boulevard intersection without first stopping. According to the GPS data, it appears that the officer had also reduced his speed as he approached and then travelled through the intersection – down to 49 km/h from about 80 km/h. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the SO’s want of care at Rose-Ville Garden Drive was a momentary lapse of judgment.

Despite the SO’s multiple HTA infractions as he travelled on Tecumseh Road East, there are enough extenuating considerations at play to render the officer’s conduct something less than a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care. For starters, it should be noted that the SO was responding to a serious call for service involving a potential domestic-related assault and the use of a possible weapon. Thus, while the nature of the call cannot excuse the officer’s failure to stop at red lights, the fact that time was of the essence is a mitigating factor in the reasonableness analysis.

The same may be said of the SO’s speeds on Tecumseh Road East. While at times over the 60 km/h speed limit (as high as 94 km/h for brief periods), at no time were the officer’s speeds grossly excessive, particularly when weighed against the gravity of the call to which he was responding. In similar vein, mention must be made of section 128(13) of the HTA, which exempts police officers from speed limitations while engaged in the course of their duties. Though the provision does not provide officers free rein to speed as they wish without regard to public safety, it too militates against a finding of unreasonableness in the instant case.

Finally, the weight of the evidence indicates that the SO used his emergency lights and siren along his path of travel on Tecumseh Road East, giving motorists around him advance warning of his approach and allowing them time to maneuver safely out of the cruiser’s way. Indeed, it may be that the Complainant would have seen the officer’s approach with lights and siren on had it not been for a significant sightline obstruction created by the building at the southwest corner of the Tecumseh Road East and Rose-Ville Garden Drive intersection.

There are other factors that bear on the reasonableness of the SO’s conduct but none which tip the balance against the officer. For example, Tecumseh Road East was predominantly lined with commercial premises with some residential buildings along the cruiser’s path of travel. Moreover, given the time of day and the evidence from the video recordings, I am satisfied that there was a fair amount of traffic on the roadway. These considerations no doubt elevated the overall risk associated with the SO’s driving. However, they must be balanced against the fact that the roads were dry and the weather was good at the time in question, and no motorist or pedestrian (aside, of course, from the Complainant) appears to have had to take emergency evasive action to avoid the SO’s cruiser.

The liability analysis might well be different if it could be established that the SO disregarded other red lights as he travelled eastward on Tecumseh Road East. Indeed, when one cross-references the GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser with the HIT reports detailing the colour of the traffic control signals along the officer’s route, there is a suggestion that the officer may also have travelled through the red lights at Meldrum Drive, Central Avenue, George Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard and the Home Depot access road without stopping. The suggestion, however, amounts to more speculation than hard fact because the times between the GPS data and the HIT reports were not synchronized.

In the final analysis, while I am persuaded on the foregoing analysis that the SO drove dangerously and, in so doing, directly caused or contributed to the collision that resulted in the Complainant’s injuries, I am unable to reasonably conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the officer’s conduct amounted to a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case and the file is closed.



Date: February 8, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.