Director's Report Details

SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OVI-137

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.

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 injuries that a 29-year-old-man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On June 13, 2020, at 7:05 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury. According to HRPS, on June 13, 2020, at about 12:35 a.m., the Subject Officer (SO) attempted to stop a stolen vehicle on Upper Middle Road [now known to have been Havendale Boulevard] in Burlington after activating his emergency lights. The Complainant, who was reported by police to be the driver, was in fact the passenger in the rear seat. The driver failed to stop and turned onto Havendale Boulevard. The driver was driving about 40 km/h while being followed by the SO. HRPS referred to Havendale Boulevard as a ‘dead-end’ roadway and the driver ended up driving down a 30-foot embankment. There were three other occupants who fled on foot. The Complainant was found on the ground near the vehicle. HRPS police officers were searching for two identified men [possibly accompanied by an unidentified woman], who may have been occupants of the vehicle, immediately after the incident; however, they were never found. The Complainant was taken to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital (JBMH) and diagnosed with a displaced hip and a fractured pelvis.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
 

Complainant:

29-year-old male, medical records obtained and reviewed


Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed 

Witness Officers

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 Officers

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


Evidence

The Scene

Havendale Boulevard had a general north/south orientation as it neared Mansfield Park with residences on both sides of the roadway. The roadway was paved and in a good state of repair. There were raised concrete curbs at the road’s edge. The posted speed limit was 40 km/h.

Havendale Boulevard was dead-ended, terminating at the north end with a small, turning radius for vehicle traffic to leave the termination point. There was an opening at the north end of the turning radius that opened to Mansfield Park, having a street marker of 1300 Havendale Boulevard.

Mansfield Park was a grass-covered park located at the north end of Havendale Boulevard. There was a fence to the west that opened to a portion of the Bruce Trail. At the north end of the park was longer, untidy grass that led downward into a treed ravine and the escarpment.

Uniformed members of the HRPS were at the scene restricting vehicles and pedestrians in its vicinity where a black Chrysler 300 sedan was located at the north end of the park orientated in a northerly direction partially down the embankment with the front end in collision with a large tree. Tire marks in the roadway indicated the vehicle was being operated north on Havendale Boulevard and that it struck and mounted the concrete curb and continued in a northerly direction coming into collision with the tree. The vehicle had extensive front end collision damage. The driver’s steering wheel air bag and the front passenger air bag had deployed and the trunk to the vehicle was open.

At 11:00 a.m., the vehicle operated by the SO was located and examined by an SIU forensic investigator. The vehicle was a grey, 2017 Ford Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) marked as a police cruiser displaying subdued graphics as designed by the HRPS. The vehicle was configured as a K-9 vehicle. The odometer on examination indicated that the vehicle had accumulated 64,638.2 kilometres. The vehicle’s emergency lighting was examined and found to be functioning properly as were its siren and horn. There was no evidence of any new collision damage.

Scene Diagram

Scene diagram

Forensic Evidence


SIU Route Video


Two route videos were made on June 17, 2020. The first depicted residential and geophysical/terrain features including traffic control signage encountered by the operator of the vehicle in which the Complainant was injured and the SO along Havendale Boulevard to its termination at Mansfield Park. The second video was the same as the first with the exception that it included turning west onto Havendale Boulevard from Brant Street to depict north and southbound Brant Street traffic and the traffic signal light at the intersection. 
 

HRPS Automated Vehicle Locating System/Global Positioning System (AVLS/GPS) Data


Efforts were made to procure a viable data source to view the AVLS/GPS data. When the efforts were fruitless due to technological incompatibilities, the SIU obtained, on a further request made to the HRPS, a Microsoft XL spreadsheet depicting the AVLS/GPS data specific to the SO’s police vehicle. The key and relevant elements of the data indicated the following:
  • The SO was northbound behind the vehicle in question on Brant Street at its traffic light-controlled intersection with Havendale Boulevard
2020/06/13 
12:33:54 a.m. 43.35516 79.84117

  • About ten seconds later, the SO, with his emergency lights activated, was westbound on Havendale Boulevard behind the vehicle in question.
2020/06/13 
12:34:04 a.m. 43.35486 79.84188

  • About one minute and 15 seconds later, the SO’s vehicle was stationary at the terminal radius of Havendale Boulevard at Mansfield Park, and the collision involving the vehicle in question and tree had already occurred in the ravine. The AVLS/GPS data included the HRPS Occurrence number.
2020/06/13 
12:35:19 a.m. 43.35376 79.85193

In conclusion, the data indicated that about one minute and 15 seconds after the pursuit commenced, it ended with the vehicle in question leaving the roadway and colliding with a tree in the ravine. The AVLS/GPS data, which was recorded every five seconds, may not have recorded the SO’s vehicle coming to a complete stop at the intersection of Havendale Boulevard and Knights Bridge Court. The total distance of the pursuit was about 1.20 kilometres. The average speed of the SO’s vehicle between 12:34:04 a.m. and 12:35:19 a.m., when the SO’s vehicle was stationary at the end of the pursuit, was approximately 57 km/h.

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) footage from a residence (“Residence #1”) on Havendale Boulevard;
  • CCTV footage from a residence (“Residence #2) on Havendale Boulevard; and
  • Digital photographs made by the property owner of a residence (“Residence #3) on Havendale Boulevard.


CCTV Data – Residence #1 on Havendale Boulevard


The SIU requested and received a copy of video data for June 13, 2020, relevant to the incident, from the homeowner at Residence #1 on Havendale Boulevard

The time stamp on the video data was 13 hours ahead of the actual time. The footage recovered by the SIU was stamped 2020-06-13, between 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (12:00 a.m. – 1:00 a.m., actual time).

The residence where the CCTV equipment was located was on the west side of Havendale Boulevard facing Havendale Boulevard, which had a north-south bearing at that point.

Two CCTV cameras, labeled ch1 and ch2, were situated at the front of the house with a view of the roadway. Both cameras had a similar view and captured the same information. This summary is based on ch1, which had the better view of the two.

A stop sign known to be located on Havendale Boulevard at Rosseau Place was out of the camera’s focal range.

At 1:35:04 p.m., the Chrysler 300 in which the Complainant was known to be a passenger entered the camera’s focal range from the south, continuing north in front of the residence and beyond the camera’s focal range.

A police vehicle known to have been driven by the SO entered the camera’s focal range two seconds later, at 1:35:06 p.m. The police vehicle was seen to be approximately two to three car-lengths behind the Chrysler and had its emergency lights activated.

Both vehicles appeared to be travelling at a slow rate of speed.

At 1:46:37 p.m., an ambulance was recorded crossing through the camera’s focal range northbound on Havendale Boulevard

Prior to the two involved vehicles passing the residence, six cars were recorded crossing the camera’s focal range; the last being 3.5 minutes before the Chrysler.


CCTV Data – Residence #2 on Havendale Boulevard


The SIU requested and received a copy of audio-video data for June 13, 2020, relevant to the incident, from the homeowner at Residence #2 on Havendale Boulevard

At 12:35:07 a.m., the Chrysler 300 vehicle entered the focal range of the camera as it went northwest on Havendale Boulevard toward Mansfield Park.

Three seconds later, at 12:35:10 a.m., the police vehicle with its emergency lights activated and operated by the SO, entered the same focal range about three car-lengths behind the Chrysler 300.

About four seconds later, the Chrysler 300 mounted the curb at the turning radius/dead-end of Havendale Boulevard with the SO’s police vehicle emitting a chirp-variant siren just before the Chrysler mounted the curb. The SO’s police vehicle came to a stop near the curb after the Chrysler 300 had disappeared from the focal range of the camera.

There was a modest lag in the audio’s synchronization with the video component of the data, but the front and rear wheels of the Chrysler 300 were clearly audible as they struck the curb, as was the revving of the engine and its collision with the tree in the ravine about nine seconds after the sound of the rear wheels of the Chrysler 300 were heard striking the curb.

By about 12:37 a.m., the audio component of the CCTV data included the sound of the police service dog barking in the woods and a siren of another emergency vehicle en route to the scene. 
 

Civilian Photographs


The SIU requested and received two digital photographs relevant to the incident, from the homeowner of Residence #3 on Havendale Boulevard. The photographs were made with a cellular telephone after the incident had occurred and depicted several HRPS vehicles [now known to be assigned to WO #1, WO #4, WO #3 and the SO] and a detective’s car at the terminal radius where Havendale Boulevard ends at Mansfield Park.

Police Communications Recordings

The following is a synopsis of the HRPS communications recordings relating to the incident, between 12:34 a.m. and 2:14 a.m. on June 13, 2020. There are no times announced during the recording and any times noted in the report were obtained via the event chronology provided by HRPS. These times would be reasonably accurate as they are entered by the dispatcher as the transmissions are taking place. Not all transmissions have corresponding entries in the event chronology.

  • 12:34:57 a.m., the SO radioed the dispatcher advising he was trying to stop a car with plates that had come back as stolen. He advised that the car was going “pretty slow”, about 35 km/h westbound on Havendale Boulevard from Brant Street, and had three occupants.
  • 12:35:15 a.m., WO #3 was dispatched to assist.
  • The SO advised the car appeared to have been painted blue, and that it was a Chrysler 300. The SO provided the licence plate number.
  • 12:35:31 a.m., the SO advised they were approaching the dead end at the top end of Havendale Boulevard.
  • The SO advised the car had gone into the woods.
  • 12:36:10 a.m., the SO advised the car had just “wrecked down this embankment”.
  • 12:36:13 a.m., WO #1 placed herself on the call. She asked for “K9” to attend and was informed the involved officer was a K9 unit.
  • 12:36:33 a.m., the SO indicated he was going into the woods at Mansfield Park.
  • 12:37:40 a.m., the SO advised he had ‘one here with me’ [now known to be the Complainant] and that two people had taken off on foot heading southeast. The SO’s police service dog could be heard barking.
  • 12:38:24 a.m., a detective was dispatched.
  • 12:38:41 a.m., another officer was dispatched.
  • 12:40:11 a.m., the SO advised the suspects were heading towards Hazelton Boulevard. He was informed the Tactical Unit was responding to do a track.
  • 12:40:18 a.m., WO #4 arrived on scene.
  • 12:40:57 a.m., the SO advised that the Complainant thought his leg was broken and asked that an ambulance attend.
  • 12:41:32 a.m., another officer was dispatched to check the Hazelton Boulevard area.
  • 12:41:48 a.m., WO #2 was dispatched.
  • 12:46:48 am., a detective advised that the owner of a residence on Hazelton Boulevard had informed him he saw a man run by his house four to five minutes prior.
  • WO #4 informed dispatch of the other suspect’s name.
  • A unit advised paramedics had arrived and that he would walk them to the scene.
  • Several units advised they were in the area to assist with setting up a perimeter or search for the suspects.
  • 12:57:49 a.m., Tactical Units began a track with K9 officer, the SO.
  • 1:02:59 a.m., an officer advised a passerby had seen two men running south of Upper Middle Road.
  • Radio transmissions continued regarding a search for the suspects.
  • 2:14:06 a.m., WO #4 advised that the Complainant had a dislocated hip and they were waiting on X-rays to determine if there was a fracture.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from HRPS:
  • AVLS/GPS data;
  • Communications audio recordings;
  • Event Chronology;
  • Fail to Stop Report;
  • HRPS Contact History – the Complainant and two male occupants;
  • Identification Report;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-SO;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Policy & Procedure – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; and
  • Training Record – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit, SO.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

  • CCTV data from Residence #1 on Havendale Boulevard;
  • CCTV data from Residence #2 on Havendale Boulevard;
  • Digital photographs made by the property owner of Residence #3 on Havendale Boulevard; and
  • Medical records for the Complainant relevant to the incident.

SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, reviewed police disclosure materials, including communications audio recordings, and canvassed for and obtained CCTV data and digital photographs owned/made by civilian witnesses relevant to the incident.

One SIU investigator made a video of the route taken by the operator of the vehicle in which the Complainant was injured.

The SIU forensic investigators made digital photographs of the incident scene and the SO’s vehicle, created a scale drawing of the scene, and examined the vehicle occupied by the Complainant. One SIU investigator having specialized training and qualifications in collision reconstruction was consulted during the initial investigative response to assist the forensic investigator.

Efforts, albeit to no avail, were made by SIU investigators to locate and obtain the cooperation of the driver and two other occupants of the vehicle in which the Complainant was injured.

Incident Narrative

The material events are clear on the weight of the evidence and may be summarized in short order. At about 12:30 a.m. on June 13, 2020, the Complainant was a passenger in a Chrysler 300 sedan traveling north on Brant Street, Burlington, having come off the Queen Elizabeth Way. With him in the vehicle were three acquaintances. Also on Brant Street at the time traveling north in his police cruiser was the SO. The officer performed a check of the Chrysler’s licence plates and learned that they had been stolen. He decided to pull the car over.

The Chrysler turned left on Havendale Boulevard and began to travel westward along the road. With his emergency lights activated, the SO followed suit. Aware that he was being followed by the police, the driver of the Chrysler refused to stop and continued to drive along Havendale Boulevard, ignoring two stop signs in the process. Still, the SO pursued the Chrysler from a distance of about two to three car lengths.

Havendale Boulevard comes to a dead-end as one travels west from Brant Street, then northerly until Mansfield Park. Having reached the end of the roadway, the Chrysler jumped the curb and entered onto the park where it travelled for a short distance before descending several metres down an embankment, striking a tree and coming to a stop.

The SO stopped his cruiser on the road at the dead-end, exited and retrieved his police dog. The two ventured down the embankment and found the Complainant lying on the ground east of the Chrysler and injured. With the help of another officer arriving at the scene, the SO placed the Complainant under arrest, whereupon he was escorted up to street level. The other occupants of the vehicle had managed to flee from the wreckage.

The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital, where he was diagnosed and treated for a dislocated left hip and fractured left leg.

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

In the early morning hours of June 13, 2020, the Complainant dislocated his left hip and fractured his left femur in a motor vehicle collision. As the vehicle in which the Complainant was traveling was being pursued by a HRPS police officer at the time, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The SO was identified as the driver of the police vehicle and 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 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. Liability for the offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. In my view, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

The SO was engaged in the lawful discharge of his duty at the time of the incident. Having run a licence check on the Chrysler and learned that the plates were stolen, the officer did what one would expect an officer to do – he followed the Chrysler intending to pull it over for further investigation.

I am further satisfied that the SO operated his cruiser reasonably and with due regard for public safety, including the safety of the Chrysler’s occupants, as he followed the vehicle on Havendale Road. The AVL/GPS data and video evidence indicate that this was a slow speed engagement; both the cruiser and the Chrysler were travelling in and around the speed limit the entire time. Moreover, the SO used his emergency lights to warn motorists and pedestrians in the area, of which there were little to none at that time of day, and kept a safe distance behind the Chrysler. While it may be that the SO drove past two stop signs that were along the route without fully stopping, his indiscretions, if they be such, did not endanger anyone in the neighbourhood given the late hour. Finally, it is worth noting that the environmental conditions were favourable at the time: the weather was clear and the roadway was dry.

In the result, while the driver of the Chrysler entered into the park in an attempt to flee from police, thereby resulting in the accident that injured the Complainant, I have no doubt that the SO comported himself within the limits of the criminal law throughout the brief pursuit. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the subject officer, and the file is closed.



Date: January 11, 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.