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 apparent serious injuries sustained by a 31-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 23-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU
 

On October 8, 2020 at 4:47 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) reported the following. On October 8, 2020 at 2:03 p.m., LPS officers responded to a report of man stealing a vehicle in the area of the South London Community Centre near a construction site at Jalna Boulevard. After the man was approached by people from the construction site, he boarded a vehicle with two other occupants and drove away. An LPS officer saw the vehicle and tried to stop it. In the area of Ernest Avenue and Bradley Avenue, the vehicle drove into two cruisers and left the area. An officer pursued the vehicle for about 20 seconds before the pursuit was terminated. The officer’s actions were observed by a civilian witness. The same officer then decided to check the area for the vehicle. About two minutes later, the vehicle was involved in a single motor vehicle collision at White Oak Road and Westminster Drive. All three occupants of the vehicle were ejected, and were taken to the London Health Science Centre. Complainant #2 was critical but stable; Civilian Witness (CW) #1 had undermined injuries; and, and an unidentified man had a fractured pelvis. Both scenes were secured.

The Team
 

Number of SIU Investigators assigned:     5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:     2

Complainants:
 

Complainant #1     31-year-old male interviewed

Complainant #2     23-year-old, not interviewed [1]

Civilian Witnesses
 

CW #1     Interviewed

CW #2     Interviewed

CW #3     Interviewed

CW #4     Interviewed

CW #5     Interviewed

CW #6     Interviewed

CW #7     Interviewed

CW #8     Interviewed

Witness Officers
 

WO #1     Interviewed

WO #2     Interviewed

WO #3     Interviewed

Subject Officers
 

SO     Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

The Scene
 

The single vehicle collision took place on White Oak Road, which runs in a general north / south direction. The roadway is paved with one lane in each direction. As one is driving south to the scene of the collision there is a curve to the right. There are visible lane markings on the roadway. The area is rural with overgrown vegetation on either side of the roadway. A taillight bucket assembly was located at the side of the roadway and west of the curve.

There were two involved vehicles within the scene. A GMC Sierra pickup truck, dark grey in colour, and a marked LPS police vehicle.

The GMC Sierra was orientated in a westerly direction on the east side of White Oak Road in the overgrown vegetation. The vehicle had extensive collision damage. The left rear taillight bucket assembly was missing from the vehicle. The ignition of the vehicle was punched. Tire marks from the GMC Sierra commenced on White Oak Road at the curve indicating the vehicle was being operated south on White Oak Road, and crossed over into the opposing lane at the curve in the roadway and entered the overgrown vegetation on the east side of the roadway.

The LPS police vehicle was orientated in a southerly direction on the east side of the roadway. This vehicle had collision damage to the front right corner.

Scene Diagram

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
 

The SIU obtained a closed-circuit television (CCTV) video recording from a convenience store on Jalna Boulevard, London, Ontario. The video did not record the collision on White Oak Road.

The SIU obtained a CCTV video recording from the Leicatex building at 405 Exeter Road, London, Ontario. The video did not record the collision on White Oak Road.

The SIU obtained a CCTV video recording from a store located on Exeter Road, London, Ontario. The video did not record the collision on White Oak Road.

The SIU obtained a CCTV video recording from a commercial building located at White Oak Road, London, Ontario. The video did not record the collision on White Oak Road.

Communications Recordings
 

The SIU requested and received a copy of the relevant LPS communications recordings for incident. The following is a summary of the salient portions of the recordings:
• At 2:01:51 p.m., a 911 call was received reporting someone was trying to steal stuff out of a vehicle at South London Community Centre. It was reported that a male was trying to steal a truck and construction workers were around, another male was trying to fight everyone, and a female with a black sports bra, white tank top and black tights was present.
• 2:04:41 p.m., the SO was dispatched to Jalna Boulevard.
• 2:04:43 p.m., WO #1 was dispatched to Jalna Boulevard.
• 2:05:14 p.m., the involved suspect vehicle was identified as a beige GMC Sierra pickup.
• 2:06:18 p.m., updated information was received that there were two males involved: one had a hammer and was described as having a short brush cut and wearing a black hoodie and black pants; and, the other male, with no shirt, had a 3-inch blade and was lunging at people.
• 2:06:30 p.m., an undesignated officer was dispatched to Jalna Boulevard.
• 2:07:20 p.m., WO #2 was dispatched to Jalna Boulevard.
• 2:07:25 p.m., the male with no shirt got into the passenger side, and the male with the black hoodie, into the driver’s side.
• 2:07:36 p.m., dispatch advised that a person of interest from a previous call was Complainant #2.
• 2:07:40 p.m., a second undesignated officer was dispatched to Jalna Boulevard.
• 2:07:46 p.m., dispatch advised the suspect vehicle was pulling out of the parking lot.
• 2:08:12 p.m., dispatch advised the suspect vehicle had gone into the White Oak Mall parking lot.
• 2:10:11 p.m., officers observed the suspect vehicle westbound on Exeter.
• 2:10:52 p.m., the OPP was advised of the situation.
• 2:11:14 p.m., the suspect vehicle was eastbound and its license plate was transmitted.
• 2:11:30 p.m., the SO reported that three people were inside the suspect vehicle.
• 2:11:41 p.m., the SO reported speeds of 40 km/h were normal, no vehicle traffic.
• 2:12:09 p.m., WO #1 reported his vehicle had been rammed.
• 2:12:26 p.m., the SO reported he was westbound on Exeter in pursuit.
• 2:12:55 p.m., WO #2 directed the SO to terminate the pursuit.
• 2:13:22 p.m., the SO reported he was southbound on White Oak.
• 2:14:58 p.m., the SO reported the suspect vehicle had crashed and the female was out.
• 2:15:03 p.m., the SO reported a collision at Westminster and White Oak, and that the suspect vehicle was in the ditch.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data for the SO’s cruiser

What follows is a summary of the GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser.

At 2:11:42 p.m., on Jalna Boulevard in the area of Ernest Avenue, the SO’s vehicle was stopped.

At 2:11:52 p.m., while westbound on Jalna Boulevard, about 36 metres west of Ernest Avenue, the SO was traveling at 49 km/h.

At 2:12:02 p.m., while westbound on Jalna Boulevard, just west of Clara Crescent and 280 metres west of Ernest Avenue, the SO was traveling at 87 km/h.

At 2:12:22 p.m., while westbound on Exeter Road, about 470 metres east of White Oak Drive, the SO was traveling at 91 km/h. Exeter Road was governed by a 70 km/h speed limit.

At 2:12:32 p.m., while westbound on Exeter Road, about 163 metres east of White Oak Drive, the SO was traveling at 112 km/h. Exeter Road was governed by a 70 km/h speed limit.

At 2:12:47 p.m., while southbound on White Oak Drive, about 131 metres south of Exeter Road, the SO was traveling at 91 km/h. White Oak Drive was governed by an 80 km/h speed limit.

At 2:13:12 p.m., while southbound on White Oak Drive, about 690 metres north of Dingman Drive, the SO was traveling at 64 km/h. White Oak Drive was governed by an 80 km/h speed limit.

At 2:13:37 p.m., while southbound on White Oak Drive, about 264 metres north of Dingman Drive, the SO was traveling at 100 km/h. White Oak Drive was governed by an 80 km/h speed limit.

At 2:13:52 p.m., while southbound on White Oak Drive, in the area of Dingman Drive, the SO was traveling at 5.4 km/h. White Oak Drive was governed by an 80 km/h speed limit.

At 2:14:17 p.m., while southbound on White Oak Drive, about 188 metres north of the Highway 402 overpass, the SO was traveling at 108 km/h. White Oak Drive was governed by an 80 km/h speed limit.

Expert Evidence
 

SIU Reconstructionist Findings

According to the SIU Reconstructionist, shortly after 2:00 p.m., on October 8, 2020, the SO drove westbound on Jalna Boulevard in London, Ontario. It was cloudy and the roads were dry. The SO was operating his cruiser on the left side of a westbound 2003 GMC Sierra, suspected to have been operated by Complainant #1. CW #1 and Complainant #2 were passengers in the GMC Sierra and, at that time, it is thought that CW #1 was seated in the centre. The front of the Sierra was in contact with the right rear of a police unit which was operated westbound on Jalna Boulevard in front of the GMC Sierra by WO #1. The GMC Sierra pushed WO #1’s vehicle westbound and the rear bumper WO #1’s vehicle was detached and punctured on the right side while the right rear axle was twisted. WO #1’s cruiser became inoperable as a result.

The Sierra was driven to the left and Complainant #1 escaped the police rolling block. In doing so, it was likely at this point that the right front fender of the SO’s vehicle came into collision with the left tire of the Sierra causing minor damage to the cruiser fender.

The Sierra was driven westbound on Jalna Boulevard for 220 metres, and then southbound on Chalkstone Drive for 97 metres with the SO following about 1.7 seconds behind.

Both vehicles turned right or westbound onto Exeter Road and failed to stop for the stop sign as they accelerated. The SO’s vehicle achieved a maximum speed of 112.4 km/h and, at the approach to White Oak Road, both vehicles were traveling just below 100 km/h.
After traveling 606 metres on Exeter Road both vehicles turned left or southbound onto White Oak Road with the SO’s vehicle being 2.2 to 2.6 seconds behind the GMC Sierra. Both vehicles accelerated and, at Dingman Road, the SO’s vehicle was brought to a near stop.

At a point 2.6 kilometres south of Exeter Road, the GMC Sierra was driven around a curve at 142 km/h to 161 km/h. As the speed exceeded the critical curve speed of 91 km/h to 103 km/h in a posted speed zone of 60 km/h, it failed to negotiate the curve.

The GMC Sierra slid out of control rotating clockwise across the northbound lane and off the road becoming airborne. The GMC Sierra barrel rolled counter-clockwise and, with the possible exception of CW #1, the occupants were ejected. The GMC Sierra came to rest facing west in the thicket on the southeast side of White Oak Road. The occupants, particularly Complainant #2, were seriously injured.

The precise location of the SO’s vehicle when the collision occurred is unknown.

Materials obtained from Police Service
 

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the LPS:

•  Computer-assisted Dispatch Summary;
•  Communication recordings;
•  GPS data;
•  Involved Officers LPS;
•  LPS Civilian Witnesses List;
•  Notes of the SO and WOs; and
•  Will States of the WOs.
  

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with a police officer and several civilian witnesses who observed the incident in parts, and a review of GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser. As was his legal right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU. He did, however, authorize the release of his notes.

Just after 2:00 p.m. of October 6, 2020, the LPS were called to the area of the South London Community Centre at Jalna Boulevard following reports of two males in the area trying to steal items out of a vehicle. It was further reported that one of the males had a hammer and the other was lunging at people with a knife. The males were Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. Officers were dispatched to the scene.

The SO and WO #1, in separate cruisers, were the first officers to arrive. By that time, however, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 had left in their GMC Sierra pickup truck. With them was CW #1. WO #1 located the pickup truck and began to follow it south on Wellington Road and then west on Exeter Road until Meg Drive, where it turned right and then left onto Jalna Boulevard, traveling west. The SO’s cruiser was behind WO #1’s vehicle.

The GMC Sierra continued west on Jalna Boulevard until Ernest Avenue, the next intersection, where it came to a stop at a stop sign. Deciding that they would attempt a box-in of the truck at this time, WO #1 maneuvered his vehicle around the GMC Sierra, bringing it to a stop in front of the vehicle, as the SO drove up toward the vehicle’s backend. The GMC Sierra began to ram the vehicles in front and behind it, creating enough space to escape the roadblock. WO #1’s cruiser was damaged enough that it was unable to continue past the intersection. The SO chased after the pickup truck.

The pursuit continued at speed until Chalkstone Drive, where it turned left to head south before turning right and heading westward on Exeter Road. At White Oak Drive, the vehicles turned left and travelled south. In the area of Blakie Road, the SO began to pull back at the direction of WO #2, who had directed that the pursuit be terminated.

The GMC Sierra continued southward on White Oak Drive, disregarding the stop sign at Dingman Drive. It traveled past the Highway 402 overpass and approached a right bend in the road just before Westminster Drive at speeds upwards of 140 kmh. The pickup failed to negotiate the turn and travelled past the north lane of traffic into the ditch, where it rolled several times before coming to a rest.

The SO arrived at the scene shortly after the collision and requested that an ambulance be dispatched. Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 had both been ejected from the pickup truck. The former suffered a serious brain injury in the collision. The latter was diagnosed with a several injuries, including multiple fractures. CW #1 remained inside the vehicle and was fortunate to have emerged without serious injury.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

   

On October 8, 2020, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 suffered serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision in London, Ontario. As their vehicle had been pursued by an LPS officer in the moments before the collision, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The officer in pursuit – 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 pursuit and collision.

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 any want of care on the part of the SO that contributed to the collision and/or was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The SO was engaged in the lawful discharge of his duties when he took part in an attempt to box-in the GMC Sierra and then initiated a pursuit with the intention of stopping it. He had reason to believe that the vehicle’s occupants had just engaged in a theft in the course of which they had threatened persons in the area with weapons. Officers responding to the 911 call had also received information that the pickup truck involved in the incident was also associated with an armed robbery earlier that day at an LCBO in Strathroy.
The box-in of the Sierra seems to have been a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Given the gravity of the crimes the vehicle’s occupants were suspected to have committed, and their brazen nature, concerns that the Sierra would attempt to flee police apprehension were well-founded. In the circumstances, the SO and WO #1 were entitled to preempt that contingency by physically blocking its ability to travel with their cruisers. They did so in a reasonable fashion - at an intersection where the Sierra, its occupants seemingly unaware of the cruisers behind them, had come to a stop, and there was little if any pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Thereafter, as the Sierra broke free of the police roadblock, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care for public safety as he activated his emergency equipment and pursued the vehicle. Though the officer exceeded the speed limit, he did so with few exceptions in moderate degree and without any evidence to suggest that traffic around him was at any time placed at risk. The roads were dry, the weather was clear, and the officer’s emergency equipment was on as he made his way onto Exeter Road and, then, White Oak Drive, factors that would have tempered any danger associated with the SO’s speed. Finally, though it appears that the SO did not actually bring his cruiser to a stop upon being directed to discontinue the pursuit by WO #2, in fact continuing to travel above the 80 km/h speed limit on White Oak Drive until his arrival at the site of the collision, the evidence establishes that he was well back of the Sierra as it approached the bend in the road and crashed.

In the final analysis, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO, in the course of an active engagement with the GMC Sierra over about 1.5 kilometres, transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: May 10, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit