SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OVI-262
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 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.
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.
- 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 a serious injury sustained by a 15-year-old youth (the “Complainant”).
“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 sustained by a 15-year-old youth (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 9, 2020, at 3:01 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of a possible injury to the Complainant. The DRPS reported that on October 8, 2020, at 9:58 p.m., the Complainant was observed speeding at 140 km/h on Simcoe Street in Oshawa. A stop stick was placed on the roadway and the Complainant attempted to avoid it, losing control and striking a guardrail. The collision occurred near Simcoe Street and Howden Road West. The collision caused the airbag to deploy and the Complainant had a bloody nose. The Complainant attempted to flee from the scene and was arrested at 10:07 p.m. The Complainant was taken to the Lakeridge Health-Oshawa Hospital (LH-OH) with an unconfirmed fracture to his nose.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Complainant:
15-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewedWitness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
Police Employee Witnesses
PEW #1 Interviewed PEW #2 Interviewed
Subject Officers
SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
Evidence
The Scene
Simcoe Street North, north of Howden Road West.Forensic Evidence
Summary of SO #1’s Police Vehicle Data
The following is a summary of the Global Positioning System (GPS)/Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) data received for the police vehicle operated by SO #1. Thirty-eight GPS data points were analyzed and uploaded into Google Earth Pro to map the route.Point 1
The time stamp from the data is 9:56:54 p.m. SO #1 first sees the Honda operated by the Complainant. The Honda is parked on the lot near the north end by the Esso gas pumps. SO #1 travels northbound on Simcoe Street and observes the Honda to his right as he drives by. SO #1 turns right to travel eastbound on Hwy 7A from Simcoe Street North, then turns right into the parking lot at the east end of the small plaza/gas station.
The Complainant moves his vehicle to the front of the ‘On the Reel’ takeout restaurant as SO #1 pulls into the parking lot. The Complainant makes a three-point turn and drives westbound through the parking lot past the Esso gas station, exiting out onto Simcoe Street North, and travels southbound. SO #1 exits the parking lot at the north end onto Scugog Street (Hwy 7A) and travels westbound to the intersection where he turns left to travel southbound onto Simcoe Street North.
Point 2
The time stamp from the data is 9:57:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North (Regional Road 2), just south of Lorne Street. The speed of SO #1 is 82.8 km/h. The posted speed limit in this area is 50 km/h.
Point 3
The time stamp from the data is 9:57:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North just south of Vanedward Drive. To the east side of the roadway is Lake Scugog Lumber Inc. and to the west side of the roadway is a McDonald’s. The speed of SO #1 is 126.1 km/h. The posted speed limit is still 50 km/h.
Point 4
The time stamp is 9:57:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 315 metres north of King Street. The speed of SO #1 is 129.1 km/h. The posted speed limit is 50 km/h. The posted speed limit changes from 50 km/h to 80 km/h just south of King Street for southbound vehicular traffic.
Point 5
The time stamp is 9:57:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 270 metres south of King Street. The speed of SO #1 is 141.3 km/h. The posted speed limit in this area is 80 km/h. The posted speed limit changed from 50 km/h to 80 km/h just south of King Street.
Point 6
The time stamp is 9:58:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North and is about 500 metres north of Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 169.6 km/h and the posted speed limit is 80 km/h.
Point 7
The time stamp is 9:58:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 150 metres south of Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 152.9 km/h in a posted 80 km/h zone.
Point 8
The time stamp is 9:58:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 780 metres south of Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 142.9 km/h.
Point 9
The time stamp is 9:58:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 230 metres north of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 127 km/h.
Point 10
The time stamp is 9:59:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 310 metres south of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 128.9 km/h.
Point 11
The time stamp is 9:59:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North about 0.5 kilometres north of Shirley Road. The speed of SO #1 is 140.9 km/h.
Point 12
The time stamp is 9:59:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North and just north of Shirley Road. SO #1 is slowing to 43.5 km/h to make a U-turn at Shirley Road to go northbound on Simcoe Street North. The red-coloured Honda vehicle operated by the Complainant makes a U-turn at this intersection to change direction and travel northbound on Simcoe Street North past SO #1.
Point 13
The time stamp is 9:59:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North after making a U-turn at Shirley Road. The speed of SO #1 is 92.8 km/h.
Point 14
The time stamp is 10:00:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North about 3/4 kilometres north of Shirley Road. The speed of SO #1 is 162 km/h.
Point 15
The time stamp is 10:00:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North just south of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 113.9 km/h.
Point 16
The time stamp is 10:00:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North about 365 metres north of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 113.3 km/h.
Point 17
The time stamp is 10:00:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North about halfway between Scugog Lines 3 and 4. The speed of SO #1 is 130.7 km/h.
Point 18
The time stamp is 10:01:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling northbound on Simcoe Street North just before Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 108.7 km/h.
Point 19
The time stamp is 10:01:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling westbound on Scugog Line 4 after turning left from Simcoe Street North. The speed of SO #1 is 108 km/h. Scugog Line 4 at this location is a well travelled dirt/packed gravel stone roadway. There are no posted speed limit signs. The speed limit with no signs posted is 50 km/h. There are several residential houses on each side of the roadway and the area is mainly agricultural.
Point 20
Point 20
The time stamp is 10:01:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling westbound on Scugog Line 4 coming up to the intersection with Old Simcoe Road. There is an incline in the roadway just east of the intersection as vehicular traffic is westbound along the roadway. The intersection is hidden until vehicles crest the incline just before the stop sign. The intersection is controlled by stop signs for eastbound and westbound vehicular traffic on Scugog Line 4. Old Simcoe Road is well travelled asphalt. The speed of SO #1 is 30.9 km/h.
Point 21
The time stamp is 10:02:09 p.m. SO #1 is southbound on Old Simcoe Road after turning left from westbound Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 124.6 km/h. The roadway is well travelled asphalt and the roadway is very narrow with no lane markings. The posted speed limit is 70 km/h on Old Simcoe Road. There is a 70 km/h posted speed limit sign just south of Scugog Line 4.
Point 22
The time stamp is 10:02:24 p.m. SO #1 is southbound on Old Simcoe Road south of Scugog Line 4. The speed of SO #1 is 121.7 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone. The roadway is unlit with several homes on either side of the roadway in predominantly agricultural land.
Point 23
The time stamp is 10:02:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road approaching Scugog Line 3. The roadway is narrow with inclines and declines in the roadway. The speed of SO #1 is 122.6 km/h.
Point 24
The time stamp is 10:02:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road about 300 metres south of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 127.2 km/h.
Point 25
The time stamp is 10:03:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road and is about 850 metres south of Scugog Line 3. The speed of SO #1 is 127.6 km/h. Just north of this point the posted speed limit changes from 70 km/h to a posted 50 km/h zone for southbound traffic. The posted 50 km/h speed limit sign with watch for children is about 725 metres south of Scugog Line 3.
Point 26
The time stamp is 10:03:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road approaching the T-intersection with Scugog Line 2. The speed of SO #1 is 126.7 km/h in a posted 50 km/h zone.
Point 27
The time stamp is 10:03:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road in a slight left bend in the roadway passing numerous residential homes on the east side of the roadway. The speed of SO #1 is 115.9 km/h.
Point 28
The time stamp is 10:03:54 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Old Simcoe Road and approaching a stop sign at the intersection with Simcoe Street North. The speed of SO #1 is 78.1 km/h.
Point 29
The time stamp is 10:04:09 p.m. SO #1 has turned right off Old Simcoe Road to travel southbound on Simcoe Street North. The speed of SO #1 is 111.1 km/h.
Point 30
The time stamp is 10:04:24 p.m.. SO #1 is travelling soutbhound on Simcoe Street North coming up to Coates Road. The speed limit is posted 80 km/h. The speed of SO #1 is 127.2 km/h.
Point 31
The time stamp is 10:04:39 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southgbound on Simcoe Street North under the railway overpass at Raglan Industries on the east side of the roadway. The speed of SO #1 is 145.6 km/h in a posted 80 km/h zone.
Point 32
The time stamp is 10:04:54 p.m. SO #1 is southbound on Simcoe Street North. The speed of SO #1 is 146.7 km/h.
Point 33
The time stamp is 10:05:09 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North just north of Raglan Road. There is a slight left curve in the roadway. The speed of SO #1 is 142.9 km/h.
Point 34
The time stamp is 10:05:24 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbond on Simcoe Street North just south of Raglan Road. The speed of SO #1 is 138.3 km/h.
Point 35
The time stamp is 10:05:37 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North just south of Hambly Road. The speed of SO #1 is 160 km/h in a posted 80 km/h zone.
Point 36
The time stamp is 10:05:55 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North just north of the Durham Kubota Tractor Dealership. The speed of SO #1 is 150.5 km/h.
Point 37
The time stamp is 10:06:10 p.m. SO #1 is travelling southbound on Simcoe Street North approaching Howden Road. The speed of SO #1 is decreasing to 73.3 km/h.
Point 38
The time stamp is 10:06:25 p.m. SO #1 has stopped his police vehicle at the collision scene on Simcoe Street North about 100 metres north of Howden Road.
The total distance travelled is about 18.3 kilometres. The total time taken to travel this distance, according to the time stamps from the data received, is nine minutes and 31 seconds (571 seconds). The average velocity for this distance and time is about 32.04 m/sec or 115 km/h.
Police Communications Recordings
Summary of 911 call
A 911 call was received on October 8, 2020, at 9:47:35 p.m., reporting a possible impaired driver operating a red-coloured small vehicle near the Canadian Tire Store on Simcoe Street, Port Perry. The call was one minute and 41 seconds in duration:The 911 caller said she believed she was following a drunk driver. A small red-coloured vehicle, like an Accent or something, had skidded into a parking lot at the Canadian Tire store on Simcoe Street in Port Perry. The licence plate on the back was not very visible and it appeared to be hanging out of the trunk area. The driver looked like he was driving into oncoming traffic. She honked her horn and the driver woke up and swerved back into the middle of the roadway. She tried to get the plate number, but the driver swerved off into the parking lot at the Canadian Tire.
Summary of communication recordings
The dispatch recordings are 22:26 minutes in duration and commence at 9:50:02 p.m. on October 8, 2020. Dispatch called to WO #2, WO #3 and SO #1 patrol units for a report of an impaired driver. The impaired call was at the Canadian Tire store located at 14325 Simcoe Street. A small red vehicle was seen weaving on Simcoe Street. A woman honked at the driver of the red vehicle and the vehicle then pulled off Simcoe Street into the parking lot at the Canadian Tire. No plate number was given.
SO #1 asked the dispatcher to run a plate number. The dispatcher indicated the plate was stolen.
SO #1 said he believed it was the same red vehicle reported earlier as the possible impaired and the vehicle was southbound going through Greenway. SO #1 asked the dispatcher to get Air One up and he would see if the vehicle stopped when he got close to it.
SO #1 said the driver of the vehicle did not know he was behind him and they were going through King Street at speeds of 140 km/h. The dispatcher asked SO #1 if he was in pursuit or lit up at all. SO #1 said, “No, not at all,” but the driver was not wasting any time. The vehicle was southbound coming up to the pump house turn.
SO #1 told the dispatcher he assumed it was the impaired driver and the driver was on and off the brakes. SO #1 said, just to confirm, he had not activated his lights and did not believe the driver knew he was behind him.
SO #1 told the dispatcher the vehicle was now coming up to Shirley Road and was down to about 120 km/h. SO #1 gave him a bit of road now so the driver did not know it was the police behind him.
Air One advised they were in the air. The dispatcher updated Air One of the locations of the vehicle.
SO #1 said the vehicle just did a “U-bolt” and almost lost control. The vehicle had spun around and travelling northbound.
Another unit, believed to be the road sergeant, asked SO #1 if he had the vehicle lit up. SO #1 said he did not have it lit up, he had a clean roof car and the driver had to be drunk. SO #1 said he did not believe the driver knew he was there.
The red vehicle just passed three other vehicles northbound coming up to the pump house turn. SO #1 said the traffic was clear and the driver was on the brakes, then indicated he thought he may have lost him northbound.
SO #1 said he had spotted the vehicle again coming into Port Perry and it was turning onto fourth travelling westbound. SO #1 was westbound and did not have any emergency lighting on. The vehicle was all over the road and SO #1 was about 300 to 400 metres back behind the vehicle he described as a red-coloured Honda.
The Honda turned left onto Old Simcoe Road travelling southbound. SO #1 said he was not getting too close to him and the Honda was back up to the mid-100s.
SO #1 indicated he hoped Air One got up soon and said the Honda was continuing southbound on Old Simcoe Street past Scugog Line three.
A unit asked for the authorization of a spike belt and for other north units to be made aware in case the Honda went southbound. SO #1 again said he had no lights on and was about a few hundred yards behind the Honda.
The Honda was southbound on Simcoe Street through Coates Road, coming down the hill. SO #1 asked for permission of a spike belt and WO #1 came on the radio saying permission given. The Honda was southbound on Simcoe Street going through Raglan, SO #1 had no lights activated, and the speed of his police vehicle was 140 km/h.
The Honda was coming up to the Kubota dealership and the speed was about 145 km/h. SO #1 said there was one in front of him and the Honda was on the brakes. The Honda went past a vehicle and was moving now, out of sight.
The Honda was coming up to Howden Road and the vehicle had spun out. The driver was walking towards him and then the driver was in custody. SO #1 requested an ambulance attend. The driver wanted to go to the hospital and the paramedics said the injuries were not that serious.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the DRPS:- AVL data for SO #1’s vehicle;
- Detailed Call Summary;
- Communications recordings;
- Directive - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
- Directive - Arrest and Warrant;
- Directive - Use of Force;
- DRPS dispatch transcript;
- General Occurrence (GO) Report;
- GO Report – SO #1;
- GO Report - SO #2;
- Narrative Text - WO #6; and
- Notes of SOs and WOs.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following document from the Hamilton General Hospital:- Region of Durham Paramedic Services-Ambulance Call Report;
- Medical Record-LH-OH; and
- Letter from Durham Children’s Aid Society regarding legal guardian.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and both subject officers, as well as a review of the police communications recordings and AVL/GPS data associated with SO #1’s cruiser. At about 9:47 p.m. on October 8, 2020, the OPP received a 911 call from a motorist reporting the presence of a possibly impaired driver on the roadway. The caller noted that the driver, who appeared to be asleep, had travelled into oncoming traffic before swerving off the road into the Canadian Tire parking lot on Simcoe Street in Port Perry.
SO #1 was among the officers dispatched to the area to investigate. While traveling north on Simcoe Street approaching Highway 7A, he looked to the right and noticed a car that matched the description of the one that had been given by the 911 caller – a small red Honda. It was in the parking lot situated on the southeast corner of the intersection. SO #1 turned into the parking lot and noticed that the vehicle’s rear licence plate was affixed with only one bolt. He provided the plate number to his dispatcher, learned that it had been reported stolen, and followed the Honda as it travelled through the lot and eventually out onto southbound Simcoe Street.
The Complainant travelled at speeds upwards of 150 km/h on Simcoe Street. In the area of Shirley Street, after he had travelled a distance of about six kilometres, the Complainant executed a U-turn on the road and continued at speed northward on Simcoe Street.
SO #1, though some three to four hundred metres behind the Honda, attempted to keep pace with the Complainant. After the Complainant passed him going north on Simcoe Street, the officer also performed a U-turn, overtook several other northbound vehicles and resumed his pursuit of the Honda.
At Scugog Line 4, the Complainant turned left to travel west toward Old Simcoe Road, where he turned left again and accelerated southward before re-entering southbound Simcoe Street. SO #1 followed suit, still a distance behind the Honda.
As the pair of vehicles sped southward, SO #1 asked whether another officer was in the area who could deploy a stop stick. The request was approved and SO #2 responded that he would attempt to do so.
SO #2, driving north on Simcoe Street, stopped his vehicle north of Howden Road East. The officer retrieved his stop stick and laid it out across the southbound lane of Simcoe Street as the Honda crested a hill north of his location and approached Howden Road.
The Complainant swerved to the right to avoid the belt and lost control of his vehicle, which entered into a spin, came back onto the roadway and struck the guardrail on the east side of the road before coming to a rest.
SO #1 had not seen the collision as he was on the other side of the crest when it occurred. As he came down the incline, he approached the site of the wreckage and arrested the Complainant without incident.
SO #1 was among the officers dispatched to the area to investigate. While traveling north on Simcoe Street approaching Highway 7A, he looked to the right and noticed a car that matched the description of the one that had been given by the 911 caller – a small red Honda. It was in the parking lot situated on the southeast corner of the intersection. SO #1 turned into the parking lot and noticed that the vehicle’s rear licence plate was affixed with only one bolt. He provided the plate number to his dispatcher, learned that it had been reported stolen, and followed the Honda as it travelled through the lot and eventually out onto southbound Simcoe Street.
The Complainant travelled at speeds upwards of 150 km/h on Simcoe Street. In the area of Shirley Street, after he had travelled a distance of about six kilometres, the Complainant executed a U-turn on the road and continued at speed northward on Simcoe Street.
SO #1, though some three to four hundred metres behind the Honda, attempted to keep pace with the Complainant. After the Complainant passed him going north on Simcoe Street, the officer also performed a U-turn, overtook several other northbound vehicles and resumed his pursuit of the Honda.
At Scugog Line 4, the Complainant turned left to travel west toward Old Simcoe Road, where he turned left again and accelerated southward before re-entering southbound Simcoe Street. SO #1 followed suit, still a distance behind the Honda.
As the pair of vehicles sped southward, SO #1 asked whether another officer was in the area who could deploy a stop stick. The request was approved and SO #2 responded that he would attempt to do so.
SO #2, driving north on Simcoe Street, stopped his vehicle north of Howden Road East. The officer retrieved his stop stick and laid it out across the southbound lane of Simcoe Street as the Honda crested a hill north of his location and approached Howden Road.
The Complainant swerved to the right to avoid the belt and lost control of his vehicle, which entered into a spin, came back onto the roadway and struck the guardrail on the east side of the road before coming to a rest.
SO #1 had not seen the collision as he was on the other side of the crest when it occurred. As he came down the incline, he approached the site of the wreckage and arrested the Complainant without incident.
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
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 broke his nose in a motor vehicle collision on October 8, 2020. Because he was being pursued at the time by a DRPS officer, the SIU was notified by the police service and initiated an investigation. The driver of the cruiser who had pursued the Complainant, SO #1, and the officer who had laid out a stop stick [1] in and around the area of the collision, SO #2, were identified as subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injury.
The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is premised, 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. The latter is a more serious offence and requires that the departure from reasonable conduct be not only marked, but substantial. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which SO #1 and SO #2 conducted themselves that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury and/or was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
I accept that SO #1 was in the lawful execution of his duty when he began to pursue the Complainant on Simcoe Street from Highway 7A. By that time, he had grounds to believe that the Complainant was possibly impaired, given the 911 call, and implicated in the theft of the licence plates being displayed on his vehicle.
Thereafter, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1 transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law as he followed the Complainant Of principal concern were the speeds reached by the officer, which were consistently and significantly in excess of the posted speed limits. For example, in the first portion of the pursuit, as SO #1 followed the Complainant south on Simcoe Street in an 80 km/h zone, the officer was regularly above 140 km/h, topping out at one point at about 170 km/h. At those speeds, I am satisfied that SO #1 constituted a danger on the roadway to other motorists. This is particularly so as the officer did not have his emergency equipment activated at the time. That decision, an intentional one by SO #1 so as not to alert the Complainant to his presence, prevented other users of the road from some advance warning of the officer’s approach. That said, there is no suggestion in the evidence that the risk created by the officer ever materialized in any close calls with third-parties. In this vein, it is worth noting that SO #1 maintained a safe distance behind the Complainant at all times, in the neighbourhood of hundreds of metres, such that it cannot be said he unduly pushed or fueled the Complainant’s reckless driving. Moreover, the environmental and roadway conditions that prevailed at the time did not aggravate the dangers inherent in the SO #1’s speeds – the weather was clear, traffic would have been light to moderate given the time of day, and the roads, for the most part, were in good condition.
The decision to deploy a stop stick is also subject to legitimate scrutiny. It was, after all, directly at the root of the collision as the Complainant lost control of his vehicle swerving to avoid it. There can be little doubt that the decision carried with it risk to the health and safety of the traveling public, including the Complainant. If successful, there existed the very real possibility that a loss of control caused by deflating tires, given the speed at which the Complainant was traveling, might result in a collision with other motorists. The same would be true if, as actually occurred, the Complainant took steps to by-pass the stick. In this regard, it is important to note that steps had not been taken to block northbound traffic on Simcoe Street in the area. That said, the officers who requested, approved and executed the tactic, SO #1, WO #1 and SO #2, respectively, had a difficult choice to make. They could allow a driver they had good reason to believe was impaired and driving recklessly, even before the police pursuit, to continue on the road, or take a calculated step to bring the Complainant’s dangerous driving to an end. Faced with difficult options, I am not persuaded that the choice they made, even were it considered unreasonable, was not so wanting as to amount to a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, there is insufficient evidence in my view to reasonably conclude that either of SO #1 and SO #2 fell afoul of the criminal law via their involvement in the train of events that resulted in the Complainant’s collision. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officers and the file is closed.
Date: April 19, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is premised, 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. The latter is a more serious offence and requires that the departure from reasonable conduct be not only marked, but substantial. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which SO #1 and SO #2 conducted themselves that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury and/or was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
I accept that SO #1 was in the lawful execution of his duty when he began to pursue the Complainant on Simcoe Street from Highway 7A. By that time, he had grounds to believe that the Complainant was possibly impaired, given the 911 call, and implicated in the theft of the licence plates being displayed on his vehicle.
Thereafter, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1 transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law as he followed the Complainant Of principal concern were the speeds reached by the officer, which were consistently and significantly in excess of the posted speed limits. For example, in the first portion of the pursuit, as SO #1 followed the Complainant south on Simcoe Street in an 80 km/h zone, the officer was regularly above 140 km/h, topping out at one point at about 170 km/h. At those speeds, I am satisfied that SO #1 constituted a danger on the roadway to other motorists. This is particularly so as the officer did not have his emergency equipment activated at the time. That decision, an intentional one by SO #1 so as not to alert the Complainant to his presence, prevented other users of the road from some advance warning of the officer’s approach. That said, there is no suggestion in the evidence that the risk created by the officer ever materialized in any close calls with third-parties. In this vein, it is worth noting that SO #1 maintained a safe distance behind the Complainant at all times, in the neighbourhood of hundreds of metres, such that it cannot be said he unduly pushed or fueled the Complainant’s reckless driving. Moreover, the environmental and roadway conditions that prevailed at the time did not aggravate the dangers inherent in the SO #1’s speeds – the weather was clear, traffic would have been light to moderate given the time of day, and the roads, for the most part, were in good condition.
The decision to deploy a stop stick is also subject to legitimate scrutiny. It was, after all, directly at the root of the collision as the Complainant lost control of his vehicle swerving to avoid it. There can be little doubt that the decision carried with it risk to the health and safety of the traveling public, including the Complainant. If successful, there existed the very real possibility that a loss of control caused by deflating tires, given the speed at which the Complainant was traveling, might result in a collision with other motorists. The same would be true if, as actually occurred, the Complainant took steps to by-pass the stick. In this regard, it is important to note that steps had not been taken to block northbound traffic on Simcoe Street in the area. That said, the officers who requested, approved and executed the tactic, SO #1, WO #1 and SO #2, respectively, had a difficult choice to make. They could allow a driver they had good reason to believe was impaired and driving recklessly, even before the police pursuit, to continue on the road, or take a calculated step to bring the Complainant’s dangerous driving to an end. Faced with difficult options, I am not persuaded that the choice they made, even were it considered unreasonable, was not so wanting as to amount to a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, there is insufficient evidence in my view to reasonably conclude that either of SO #1 and SO #2 fell afoul of the criminal law via their involvement in the train of events that resulted in the Complainant’s collision. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officers and the file is closed.
Date: April 19, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) A device intended to puncture, and deflate in a controlled fashion, the tires of a vehicle. [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.