Director's Report Details

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.

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.

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 a serious injury suffered by a 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On June 27, 2020, at 4:00 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported the following.

On June 27, 2020, at 12:30 p.m., an officer was on general patrol in the Presqu’ile Park, Trenton. [1] As the officer drove across a cycle path, the Complainant rode into the cruiser striking it on the passenger side. The Complainant fell off his bicycle and landed on the ground. EMS attended and took the Complainant to the Trenton Memorial Hospital where he was assessed. The Complainant was released from the hospital with a possible separated shoulder. He was told to return back to the hospital within six or seven weeks for further assessment. The OPP was processing the scene at the time of notification and taking measurements.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

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

Subject Officer (SO)

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The SIU Forensic Investigator photographed the roadway, the cruiser and the bicycle. The weather was clear, hot and dry at that time.

The scene was a paved one-way roadway known as Lighthouse Lane, at the entrance to number 630, the first entrance to Stonehedge Cottage. The roadway was made of asphalt and was 4.5 metres wide with a solid white line dividing it into two-thirds and one-third. The larger portion on the left (facing east) was for motorized traffic and the smaller portion on the right was for pedestrian and cycling traffic, all travelling in an easterly direction. The actual location of the collision was 3.2 kilometres east of Bayshore Road, the start of Lighthouse Lane, and 0.9 kilometres west of Paxton Road at the end of Lighthouse Lane.

The collision involved an eastbound unmarked silver Ford OPP police cruiser that appeared to be making a right turn into the driveway of Stonehedge Cottage. The cruiser collided with an orange bicycle which appeared to be going straight. There was a distinct mark on the lower front of the right front passenger door where it appeared that the left pedal came in contact with the door. There was minor damage to the cruiser (door and fender) and bicycle (front wheel). The bicycle had a working headlight, which was still on. The rider was thrown from the bicycle and landed approximately 7.3 metres from the point of impact.




Figure 1 - The scene of the collision




Figure 2 – The front right corner of the SO’s police vehicle

The material events in question are apparent on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized.

In the morning of June 27, 2020, the Complainant was cycling in Presqu’ile Provincial Park, Brighton. He found himself cycling east in the bike path on Lighthouse Lane approaching the Nature Centre. In front of him was a convoy of several other cars, also traveling east on the one-way road. The vehicles were traveling slowly and the Complainant gained ground on them, traveling about 35 to 37 km/h.

At about the same time, the SO, on patrol in his unmarked grey Ford, was traveling east on Lighthouse Lane also approaching the Nature Centre. His was the last car in the line of vehicles immediately ahead of the Complainant. Intending to enter into the Nature Centre driveway, the SO began to turn right and collided with the Complainant on his bicycle.

The impact sent the Complainant and his bicycle tumbling to the ground. The SO immediately stopped his vehicle, exited and went to check on the Complainant. Firefighters and paramedics arrived at the scene, and the Complainant was taken to hospital.

The Complainant was diagnosed as having suffered “a grade 3 acromioclavicular joint separation”.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

On June 27, 2020, the Complainant was involved in a collision with an unmarked OPP vehicle and suffered a serious injury in the process. The driver of the OPP vehicle – the SO – was 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 injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO that caused or contributed to the collision and was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

While I am satisfied on the evidence that the SO is responsible for the collision, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. There is no indication in the evidence of any unlawful or reckless behaviour on the part of the Complainant as he cycled eastward in the bike path on Lighthouse Lane. Rather, it appears that the officer, perhaps owing to the speed differential between the bike and cruiser – the former was traveling faster – simply failed to ensure that his way was clear and that he could complete his turn in safety before embarking on the turn. That said, there was no other indicia of dangerous driving on the part of the SO in and around the time of the collision. To reiterate, he had been traveling at slow speed at the time – between about 20 to 25 km/h. In the circumstances, the SO’s indiscretion amounts to a momentary lapse of care, which is not enough to render his conduct a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds in the evidence to believe that the SO comported himself in breach of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges and the file is closed.


Date: April 26, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit