SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-304
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have 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
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into serious injuries sustained by a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into serious injuries sustained by a 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On November 28, 2022, at 7:22 a.m., the Belleville Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU to report that members of the BPS had been involved in a short pursuit that resulted in a motor vehicle collision between the pursued pick-up truck and an uninvolved civilian motor vehicle. The driver of the pick-up truck [now known to be the Complainant] was subsequently arrested and determined to have suffered a serious injury because of the collision.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 11/28/2022 at 8:30 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/02/2022 at 12:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
35-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on December 19, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on December 5, 2022.
Subject Officials
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between December 1, 2022, and December 5, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question occurred over a stretch of Bell Boulevard and Adam Street, from a point as far west as in and around the Veteran’s Bridge west of Cannifton Road, to the area of a motor vehicle collision at Adam Street and University Avenue, a distance of about one kilometre. The picture below, taken by BPS, depicts the scene of the collision. The front façade of the structure faced south.
Figure 1 - The collision scene.
That facility was in a commercial/industrial area just north of a residential area, further south on University Avenue.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – SO’s Cruiser
At 8:27:04 p.m., November 27, 2022, the SO stopped her marked patrol vehicle in the eastbound lanes of Bell Boulevard near the Veteran’s War Memorial Bridge. She was assisting with a R.I.D.E. program for eastbound vehicles. Bell Boulevard had a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. At about 8:48:23 p.m., the SO’s cruiser left that location and travelled east towards the intersection of Bell Boulevard and Cannifton Road. Traffic at that intersection was controlled by standard traffic lights.
Bell Boulevard became Adam Street east of Cannifton Road. Adam Street had a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. The SO continued eastward to the intersection of Adam Street and University Avenue, which was a ‘T’ intersection. [At that location, the pursued Dodge struck the rear of an uninvolved motor vehicle that was stopped for a traffic signal. The Complainant continued through the intersection and then struck a commercial building on the east side of the intersection.]
The SO stopped at the scene of the collision at 8:49:18 p.m.
The SO’s eastward travel covered a distance of about one kilometre and lasted for about 57 seconds. During this time, the SO’s patrol vehicle reached a top speed of 116 km/h.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
The SIU searched for and obtained audio and video records as set out below.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
The following is a summary of the video footage captured by the BWCs of the SO, WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6. The Complainant was captured surrendering himself to WO #4 and WO #5, at 9:04 p.m., in a field adjacent to railway tracks near the Meyers Transport Compound at 296 University Avenue.
The Complainant was directed to get on the ground. He went to the ground, on his stomach, placed his hands behind his back, said his wrist was sore and explained he was having a cigarette in the field when an unknown man ran by and pushed him to the ground causing his wrist injury. As the police officers secured handcuffs on the Complainant’s wrists, blood trickled down his right hand.
The Complainant denied he had been driving a vehicle and denied running from a R.I.D.E. spot check.
The Complainant initially verbally identified himself using a different name; however, once at the police vehicle, he identified himself as the Complainant. His identification was confirmed via a driver’s licence and health card located during a search of his person.
Paramedics were called, attended, and assessed the Complainant before they transported him to Belleville General Hospital (BGH) in the company of WO #4 and WO #5. A paramedic asked if he was wearing his seatbelt and the Complainant said, “Yes”; however, when asked if he was driving and involved in a collision, he did not respond.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between November 30, 2022, and December 2, 2022:- Occurrence Summary;
- Incident Synopsis;
- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Arrest Booking Report;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Occurrence Summary and Report;
- Advanced Log Data and Collisions Report;
- GPS data;
- Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
- Policy - Use of Force;
- BWC footage;
- Photos of collision scene;
- BPS communications recordings;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-WO #4; and
- Notes-WO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources: - The Complainant’s medical records from Belleville General Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and a civilian eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.
In the evening of November 27, 2022, the SO was working a spot check on Bell Boulevard in the area of the bridge west of Cannifton Road. She and her colleagues were pulling vehicles over to check for impaired driving. An eastbound pick-up truck arrived at the spot check and initially came to a stop for the SO before it accelerated away, eastward on Bell Boulevard. The SO alerted the officers of what had occurred, entered her cruiser, and chased after the pick-up truck.
The pick-up truck fled at speed, disregarding a red traffic signal at Cannifton Road. It travelled as far east as the T-intersection of Adam Street and University Avenue, about a kilometre from the ride check, where it collided into the rear end of another vehicle before travelling a further short distance and striking the wall of a business.
The Complainant exited the pick-up truck and fled on foot. He was located by officers arriving at the scene and taken into custody.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.
In the evening of November 27, 2022, the SO was working a spot check on Bell Boulevard in the area of the bridge west of Cannifton Road. She and her colleagues were pulling vehicles over to check for impaired driving. An eastbound pick-up truck arrived at the spot check and initially came to a stop for the SO before it accelerated away, eastward on Bell Boulevard. The SO alerted the officers of what had occurred, entered her cruiser, and chased after the pick-up truck.
The pick-up truck fled at speed, disregarding a red traffic signal at Cannifton Road. It travelled as far east as the T-intersection of Adam Street and University Avenue, about a kilometre from the ride check, where it collided into the rear end of another vehicle before travelling a further short distance and striking the wall of a business.
The Complainant exited the pick-up truck and fled on foot. He was located by officers arriving at the scene and taken into custody.
Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on November 27, 2022. As the vehicle in which he was in was being pursued by a BPS cruiser at the time of the collision, the SIU was notified of the incident and launched an investigation. The driver of the BPS cruiser – the SO – was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’ injury.
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. Rather, 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collisions involving the pick-up truck. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the execution of her duty when she decided to pursue the pick-up truck after it had accelerated away from the checkpoint. Motorists are obligated to come to a stop when directed to do so by a police officer, and the SO was within her rights in attempting to stop the pick-up truck when its driver failed in that obligation.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her engagement with the pick-up truck. I arrive at this conclusion having in mind the very short duration of the pursuit and the officer’s distance from the pick-up truck at the time of the collisions – multiple car lengths away. Thus, while it appears the SO reached significant speeds at points in the pursuit, there is no evidence of other motorists having had to take evasive action because of that speed. Nor is there evidence that the SO unduly pushed the pick-up truck or somehow fueled its reckless travels. That is to say, there was at all times sufficient space between the cruiser and the pick-up truck such that the driver of the latter was free to come to a safe stop if so inclined.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the context of a very short pursuit in distance and time – a kilometre over about a minute – there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 28, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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. Rather, 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collisions involving the pick-up truck. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the execution of her duty when she decided to pursue the pick-up truck after it had accelerated away from the checkpoint. Motorists are obligated to come to a stop when directed to do so by a police officer, and the SO was within her rights in attempting to stop the pick-up truck when its driver failed in that obligation.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her engagement with the pick-up truck. I arrive at this conclusion having in mind the very short duration of the pursuit and the officer’s distance from the pick-up truck at the time of the collisions – multiple car lengths away. Thus, while it appears the SO reached significant speeds at points in the pursuit, there is no evidence of other motorists having had to take evasive action because of that speed. Nor is there evidence that the SO unduly pushed the pick-up truck or somehow fueled its reckless travels. That is to say, there was at all times sufficient space between the cruiser and the pick-up truck such that the driver of the latter was free to come to a safe stop if so inclined.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the context of a very short pursuit in distance and time – a kilometre over about a minute – there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 28, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
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.