SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-OVI-244
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 serious injuries sustained by a 56-year-old woman (“Complainant #1”) and a 27-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).
“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 serious injuries sustained by a 56-year-old woman (“Complainant #1”) and a 27-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 1, 2020, at 11:55 a.m., the Sarnia Police Service (SPS) contacted the SIU and reported an injury to Complainant #1.The SPS reported that at approximately 6:00 a.m., uniformed police officers attempted to stop a vehicle on Talfourd Street in Sarnia. The driver of the vehicle refused to stop, and a pursuit was commenced. The driver of the vehicle travelled westbound on Talfourd Street before turning onto Indian Road South, where he became involved in a collision with another vehicle.
There were two people in the fleeing vehicle and one in the civilian vehicle. All were taken to Bluewater Health for further examination. It was concluded that the injuries to the drivers of the fleeing vehicle and civilian vehicle were minor, but Complainant #1, the passenger of the fleeing vehicle, was diagnosed with a fractured pelvis.
The Team
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4 Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Complainants:
Complainant #1 56-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed Complainant #2 27-year-old male, medical records obtained and reviewed
Civilian Witnesses
CW Interviewed Witness Officers
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
Subject Officers
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.Evidence
The Scene
The scene was at the intersection of Talfourd Street and Indian Road South. Areas of interest were the centre of the intersection and the southwest corner of the intersection. Indian Road South is a through street and Talfourd Street is controlled by a stop sign.In the area of this collision, Indian Road South is a four-lane paved asphalt road which permits two lanes of northbound and two lanes of southbound vehicular movement. The opposing lanes are delineated with a solid yellow paint mark near the centre of the road and the lanes permitting travel in the same direction are delineated with intermittent white paint marks.
Talfourd Street is a two-lane paved asphalt road with one westbound and one eastbound lane delineated with a solid yellow painted line near the centre of the road. Talfourd Street intersects at near right angles. It is controlled with a functioning stop sign and white painted stop bars on both sides of Indian Road South.
A pedestrian crosswalk traverses Indian Road South on the south side of Talfourd Street. Both roads are bordered by concrete curbs, grassed boulevards and light commercial development.
The grade at the intersection is level and the sightlines are good.
The posted speed limit on Indian Road South is 50 km/h and is presumed to be 50 km/h on Talfourd Street in accordance with section 128(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA).
The initial area of impact was identified as being in the centre of the intersection. Separate and corresponding tire marks, scrapes, and fluid trails were visible from the initial area of impact to where the vehicles were resting.
Vehicle #1:
- 2001 blue-coloured Chevrolet Blazer
- Faced east across the west sidewalk of Indian Road South and the south sidewalk of Talfourd Street
- The complete front end and the left rear corner were crushed
Figure 1 - The damaged Chevrolet that was driven by Complainant #2.
Vehicle #2:
Figure 2 - The damaged Ford driven by the CW.
Figure 3 - The damaged GMC.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Summary
The GPS data indicated that an SPS Unit travelled through 11 intersections equipped with traffic signals. Except for three data points, where the SPS Unit was stopped, the colour of the traffic signals was not known and could not be determined. The SPS Unit travelled through five stop signs. Only one, the data point at Talfourd Street and Lansdowne Avenue, was where the SPS Unit did not stop. It could not be determined definitively if the SPS Unit stopped at the others due to the sampling locations not being at the intersections.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Video Synopsis
The external camera faced the northeast corner of Talfourd Street and Indian Road South. Indian Road South is a major through fare in Sarnia with two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound. Talfourd Street is a side road that travelled in an east and westbound direction, controlled by stop signs at Indian Road South.
A ten-minute window prior to the collision showed very little traffic flowing on Indian Road South, and even less on Talfourd Street. At 5:30:15 a.m., headlights were seen in the distance of what was later determined to be a blue Ford F150 [occupied by the CW]. There were no police vehicles or emergency lights in the area that were captured on this video clip. No northbound traffic was seen on Indian Road South. Four seconds later (5:30:19 a.m.) headlights appeared from a vehicle [occupied by Complainant #2 and Complainant #1] travelling westbound on Talfourd Street heading towards Indian Road South. The Blazer made no attempt to stop at the stop sign and collided with the Ford F150, which was lawfully travelling on Indian Road South. The Ford F150 was struck behind the driver’s area. At 5:30:28 a.m., a police cruiser can be seen, and emergency lighting was engaged on the first, followed by a second SPS cruiser.
The first of the two SPS cruisers, later determined to be driven by the SO, pulled into the intersection, stopped to block traffic and got out to assist. The second SPS cruiser, later determined to be driven by WO #2, drove northbound and pulled up next to the Ford F150.
Within seconds, a third SPS vehicle arrived from the north on Indian Road South and stopped, blocked traffic and assisted. Followed by a fourth, fifth and sixth SPS vehicle.
At 5:33 a.m., SPS cruisers moved their vehicles to create a perimeter to block Indian Road South. SPS officers attended to the three involved civilian vehicles.
At 5:37 a.m., emergency medical services arrived, with Sarnia Fire Department arriving at 5:38 a.m.
Police Communications Recordings
The first segment was date and time stamped 2020-10-01 at 5:17:57 a.m.
5:17:57 a.m. The SO announced he saw a dark-coloured Chevrolet Blazer all over the road, westbound on London Road. It just ran two stop lights. The vehicular traffic was clear, and his speed was approximately 60-65 km/h. He then stated the vehicle had now taken off at a speed of approximately 100 km/h.
WO #1 advised the SO to pull over, discontinue the pursuit and give his mileage. The SO acknowledged he had pulled over and gave his mileage.
5:19:36 a.m. The SO advised the marker for the Blazer, and indicated he had grounds to arrest the driver for dangerous driving and erratic driving.
5:21:09 a.m. Dispatch confirmed the plate number was registered to a 2016 Chrysler Van, red in colour. It was not wanted and registered to a female.
WO #3 stated the vehicle was now northbound on East Street approaching Exmouth Street and not stopping. Vehicular traffic was light, and he was going 60 km/h. The vehicle took off again and WO #3 stated he was discontinuing his pursuit. He stopped and deactivated his roof lights. The vehicle was doing approximately 120 km/h. WO #3 stated he was pulling over out front of Lizards Bar and Grill. The suspect was now on Indian Road South, near the No Frills.
5:22:44 a.m. WO #4 asked if any units could head east with stop sticks.
5:23:34 a.m. Dispatch advised the licence plate given was to be on a Chrysler van, red in colour. WO #2 confirmed the vehicle that fled was a dark-coloured Chevrolet Blazer.
5:24:03 a.m. The SO confirmed the plate did not match the vehicle he saw. An unknown unit asked dispatch to contact the OPP.
5:25:19 a.m. The vehicle was now in the Canadian Tire Parking lot, heading southbound and back onto London Road.
5:29:02 a.m. WO #2 stated he and the SO were following at least 300 metres back of the suspect vehicle. The suspect vehicle was now going under 100 km/h. No sirens could be heard in the background.
5:29:26 a.m. The suspect vehicle turned onto Abbott Street, going east on Connaught Street. WO #2 updated the dispatcher stating there was no vehicular traffic on the road. Suspect vehicle was now approaching Lambton Street and westbound towards Indian Road South.
5:30:15 a.m. An unknown patrol unit advised the speeds of the suspect vehicle was approximately 70 km/h. A subsequent update stated there was a traffic collision at Indian Road South and Talfourd Street.
5:31:20 a.m. An unknown unit advised the name of the suspect driver was Complainant #2.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the SPS:
- 2012 blue-coloured Ford F150
- Faced north on the west side grassed boulevard of Indian Road South
- Two left doors and the left front fender were crushed.
Figure 2 - The damaged Ford driven by the CW.
Vehicle #3:
- 2015 charcoal-coloured GMC Sierra- Faced northeast in the parking lot of Orr Chrysler- The right front corner was crushed
Figure 3 - The damaged GMC.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Summary
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence
Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Video Synopsis
A ten-minute window prior to the collision showed very little traffic flowing on Indian Road South, and even less on Talfourd Street. At 5:30:15 a.m., headlights were seen in the distance of what was later determined to be a blue Ford F150 [occupied by the CW]. There were no police vehicles or emergency lights in the area that were captured on this video clip. No northbound traffic was seen on Indian Road South. Four seconds later (5:30:19 a.m.) headlights appeared from a vehicle [occupied by Complainant #2 and Complainant #1] travelling westbound on Talfourd Street heading towards Indian Road South. The Blazer made no attempt to stop at the stop sign and collided with the Ford F150, which was lawfully travelling on Indian Road South. The Ford F150 was struck behind the driver’s area. At 5:30:28 a.m., a police cruiser can be seen, and emergency lighting was engaged on the first, followed by a second SPS cruiser.
The first of the two SPS cruisers, later determined to be driven by the SO, pulled into the intersection, stopped to block traffic and got out to assist. The second SPS cruiser, later determined to be driven by WO #2, drove northbound and pulled up next to the Ford F150.
Within seconds, a third SPS vehicle arrived from the north on Indian Road South and stopped, blocked traffic and assisted. Followed by a fourth, fifth and sixth SPS vehicle.
At 5:33 a.m., SPS cruisers moved their vehicles to create a perimeter to block Indian Road South. SPS officers attended to the three involved civilian vehicles.
At 5:37 a.m., emergency medical services arrived, with Sarnia Fire Department arriving at 5:38 a.m.
Police Communications Recordings
The first segment was date and time stamped 2020-10-01 at 5:17:57 a.m.5:17:57 a.m. The SO announced he saw a dark-coloured Chevrolet Blazer all over the road, westbound on London Road. It just ran two stop lights. The vehicular traffic was clear, and his speed was approximately 60-65 km/h. He then stated the vehicle had now taken off at a speed of approximately 100 km/h.
WO #1 advised the SO to pull over, discontinue the pursuit and give his mileage. The SO acknowledged he had pulled over and gave his mileage.
5:19:36 a.m. The SO advised the marker for the Blazer, and indicated he had grounds to arrest the driver for dangerous driving and erratic driving.
5:21:09 a.m. Dispatch confirmed the plate number was registered to a 2016 Chrysler Van, red in colour. It was not wanted and registered to a female.
WO #3 stated the vehicle was now northbound on East Street approaching Exmouth Street and not stopping. Vehicular traffic was light, and he was going 60 km/h. The vehicle took off again and WO #3 stated he was discontinuing his pursuit. He stopped and deactivated his roof lights. The vehicle was doing approximately 120 km/h. WO #3 stated he was pulling over out front of Lizards Bar and Grill. The suspect was now on Indian Road South, near the No Frills.
5:22:44 a.m. WO #4 asked if any units could head east with stop sticks.
5:23:34 a.m. Dispatch advised the licence plate given was to be on a Chrysler van, red in colour. WO #2 confirmed the vehicle that fled was a dark-coloured Chevrolet Blazer.
5:24:03 a.m. The SO confirmed the plate did not match the vehicle he saw. An unknown unit asked dispatch to contact the OPP.
5:25:19 a.m. The vehicle was now in the Canadian Tire Parking lot, heading southbound and back onto London Road.
5:29:02 a.m. WO #2 stated he and the SO were following at least 300 metres back of the suspect vehicle. The suspect vehicle was now going under 100 km/h. No sirens could be heard in the background.
5:29:26 a.m. The suspect vehicle turned onto Abbott Street, going east on Connaught Street. WO #2 updated the dispatcher stating there was no vehicular traffic on the road. Suspect vehicle was now approaching Lambton Street and westbound towards Indian Road South.
5:30:15 a.m. An unknown patrol unit advised the speeds of the suspect vehicle was approximately 70 km/h. A subsequent update stated there was a traffic collision at Indian Road South and Talfourd Street.
5:31:20 a.m. An unknown unit advised the name of the suspect driver was Complainant #2.
Materials obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the SPS:- Computer-assisted Dispatch Chronology;
- Communication recordings;
- Booking and cell video;
- GPS data associated with cruiser;
- The CW’s and an additional civilian’s statement;
- Information for Complainant #1 and Complainant #2;
- Notes of WOs; and
- Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy.
Materials obtained from Other Sources
The SIU also received the following records from non-police sources:- Medical records from Bluewater Health regarding Complainant #2 and Complainant #1;
- Medical records from London Health Sciences Centre regarding Complainant #1; and
- CCTV video.
Incident Narrative
The following scenario emerges on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with Complainant #1, Complainant #2, the SO and WO #2 (also in pursuit operating the cruiser behind the SO). The investigation was also assisted by the GPS data relating to the SO’s speeds and direction in the course of the engagement.
Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on October 1, 2020, the SO was in his cruiser in the area of Russell and Davis Streets when a blue SUV drew his attention. The vehicle did not have its headlights on and was being driven erratically eastward on Davis Street. Complainant #2 was the driver of the SUV. Complainant #1 was a passenger.
Suspecting that Complainant #2 was impaired, the SO followed the SUV as it turned north onto Russell Street and was able to ascertain the licence plate marker. He provided that information to the dispatcher and was advised that the licence plate was registered as being affixed to a red minivan. The SO watched as the SUV accelerated through a red light while turning left onto London Road. The officer activated his emergency lights and commenced a pursuit.
The SO chased after the SUV and watched as Complainant #2 went through another red light and occasionally travelled in the opposing lanes of traffic. While southbound on Front Street in the area of Derby Lane, the SO was directed to terminate the pursuit by WO #1, whereupon he pulled over and de-activated his emergency lights. He resumed his travel eastward on George Street, the direction in which he had last seen the SUV. The time was 5:13 a.m.
At about 5:17 a.m., the SO located the SUV again, this time turning into the Canadian Tire parking lot in the Lambton Mall off of Exmouth Street. The officer followed the SUV southward through the lot, watched as it disregarded two stop signs, and initiated another pursuit of the vehicle, reactivating his emergency lights and siren as he followed it onto eastbound London Road. It was about this time that WO #2 fell in behind the SO’s cruiser and joined in the pursuit.
The procession of vehicles made its way onto the grounds of the Lambton College parking lot and exited onto Wellington Street, where they proceeded westward. The pursuit wound its way onto westbound Talfourd Street headed toward Indian Road South. By this time, the cruisers were well back of the SUV.
At about this time, the CW was in his Ford F150 pickup truck traveling south on Indian Road South toward Talfourd Street. As he entered the intersection with the right-of-way, the SUV broadsided his vehicle behind the driver’s door. Complainant #2 had sped through the stop sign at Indian Road South.
The SO and WO #2 arrived at the intersection, radioed that there had been a collision and summoned for assistance. They checked on the condition of the persons involved in the collision. Complainant #2 was placed under arrest.
Both Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 sustained serious injuries in the collision.
Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on October 1, 2020, the SO was in his cruiser in the area of Russell and Davis Streets when a blue SUV drew his attention. The vehicle did not have its headlights on and was being driven erratically eastward on Davis Street. Complainant #2 was the driver of the SUV. Complainant #1 was a passenger.
Suspecting that Complainant #2 was impaired, the SO followed the SUV as it turned north onto Russell Street and was able to ascertain the licence plate marker. He provided that information to the dispatcher and was advised that the licence plate was registered as being affixed to a red minivan. The SO watched as the SUV accelerated through a red light while turning left onto London Road. The officer activated his emergency lights and commenced a pursuit.
The SO chased after the SUV and watched as Complainant #2 went through another red light and occasionally travelled in the opposing lanes of traffic. While southbound on Front Street in the area of Derby Lane, the SO was directed to terminate the pursuit by WO #1, whereupon he pulled over and de-activated his emergency lights. He resumed his travel eastward on George Street, the direction in which he had last seen the SUV. The time was 5:13 a.m.
At about 5:17 a.m., the SO located the SUV again, this time turning into the Canadian Tire parking lot in the Lambton Mall off of Exmouth Street. The officer followed the SUV southward through the lot, watched as it disregarded two stop signs, and initiated another pursuit of the vehicle, reactivating his emergency lights and siren as he followed it onto eastbound London Road. It was about this time that WO #2 fell in behind the SO’s cruiser and joined in the pursuit.
The procession of vehicles made its way onto the grounds of the Lambton College parking lot and exited onto Wellington Street, where they proceeded westward. The pursuit wound its way onto westbound Talfourd Street headed toward Indian Road South. By this time, the cruisers were well back of the SUV.
At about this time, the CW was in his Ford F150 pickup truck traveling south on Indian Road South toward Talfourd Street. As he entered the intersection with the right-of-way, the SUV broadsided his vehicle behind the driver’s door. Complainant #2 had sped through the stop sign at Indian Road South.
The SO and WO #2 arrived at the intersection, radioed that there had been a collision and summoned for assistance. They checked on the condition of the persons involved in the collision. Complainant #2 was placed under arrest.
Both Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 sustained serious injuries in the collision.
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
On October 1, 2020, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were injured in a motor vehicle collision in Sarnia. As their vehicle was being pursued by two SPS cruisers at the time, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The SO, operating the lead cruiser in pursuit, was identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision.
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 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. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle that was sufficiently remiss to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
By the time the SO picked up the pursuit of Complainant #2’s SUV eastbound on London Road, he had seen the vehicle speeding, driving the wrong way and disregarding red lights. In the circumstances, there were grounds to believe that Complainant #2 had committed the criminal offence of dangerous driving. [1] Under O. Reg. 266/10, police officers are entitled to initiate a pursuit where they have reason to believe a criminal offence has been committed provided the balance of public safety considerations are not prohibitive. I am satisfied that the SO was in compliance with the regulation.
The question arises whether the SO, having previously been directed by a senior officer to terminate the pursuit, ought to have obtained explicit permission to resume the chase. Perhaps, but I am unable to hold his failure to do so against him to any large degree. Several minutes had elapsed from the end of the first pursuit and the officer was now in an empty parking lot when he re-engaged with the SUV before it turned onto London Road. Given the hour of day, there was very little vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the roadways to suggest public safety was at any significant risk. Moreover, senior officers were apprised over the radio of what the SO and WO #2 were doing but issued no direction that the officers desist.
There is also nothing in the evidence to suggest that the SO operated his cruiser without due care and regard for public safety. While his speeds exceeded the speed limit, rising as high as an average speed upwards of 100 km/h over two kilometres on Wellington Street, there is no indication of any users of the roadway being directly imperiled by the cruiser’s speed. Nor is there any affirmative evidence, but for one occasion at the intersection of Talfourd Street and Lansdowne Avenue, that the SO failed to stop at a red light or a stop sign. The use by the officer of his emergency equipment throughout the pursuit and the favourable environmental conditions at the time – the weather was clear, traffic was light, and the roadways were dry and in good repair – further tempered the inherent dangers associated with a speeding cruiser.
Finally, it is important to note that the SO was well back of Complainant #2’s SUV in time and distance as the vehicles sped westward on Talfourd Street toward Indian Road South. That is to say, it was not the case that the officer unduly pushed Complainant #2 or otherwise prevented him from bringing his vehicle to a stop at the stop sign before he entered the intersection and caused the collision. In fact, it remains unclear whether Complainant #2 even knew he was being followed by police cruisers at any point.
On the aforementioned-record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the manner of the SO’s driving in the course of his pursuit of the SUV was substandard or, that if it was in any respect, that it deviated markedly from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. Accordingly, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges against the officer.
Date: March 15, 2021
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. Liability for the offence 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. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle that was sufficiently remiss to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.
By the time the SO picked up the pursuit of Complainant #2’s SUV eastbound on London Road, he had seen the vehicle speeding, driving the wrong way and disregarding red lights. In the circumstances, there were grounds to believe that Complainant #2 had committed the criminal offence of dangerous driving. [1] Under O. Reg. 266/10, police officers are entitled to initiate a pursuit where they have reason to believe a criminal offence has been committed provided the balance of public safety considerations are not prohibitive. I am satisfied that the SO was in compliance with the regulation.
The question arises whether the SO, having previously been directed by a senior officer to terminate the pursuit, ought to have obtained explicit permission to resume the chase. Perhaps, but I am unable to hold his failure to do so against him to any large degree. Several minutes had elapsed from the end of the first pursuit and the officer was now in an empty parking lot when he re-engaged with the SUV before it turned onto London Road. Given the hour of day, there was very little vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the roadways to suggest public safety was at any significant risk. Moreover, senior officers were apprised over the radio of what the SO and WO #2 were doing but issued no direction that the officers desist.
There is also nothing in the evidence to suggest that the SO operated his cruiser without due care and regard for public safety. While his speeds exceeded the speed limit, rising as high as an average speed upwards of 100 km/h over two kilometres on Wellington Street, there is no indication of any users of the roadway being directly imperiled by the cruiser’s speed. Nor is there any affirmative evidence, but for one occasion at the intersection of Talfourd Street and Lansdowne Avenue, that the SO failed to stop at a red light or a stop sign. The use by the officer of his emergency equipment throughout the pursuit and the favourable environmental conditions at the time – the weather was clear, traffic was light, and the roadways were dry and in good repair – further tempered the inherent dangers associated with a speeding cruiser.
Finally, it is important to note that the SO was well back of Complainant #2’s SUV in time and distance as the vehicles sped westward on Talfourd Street toward Indian Road South. That is to say, it was not the case that the officer unduly pushed Complainant #2 or otherwise prevented him from bringing his vehicle to a stop at the stop sign before he entered the intersection and caused the collision. In fact, it remains unclear whether Complainant #2 even knew he was being followed by police cruisers at any point.
On the aforementioned-record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the manner of the SO’s driving in the course of his pursuit of the SUV was substandard or, that if it was in any respect, that it deviated markedly from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. Accordingly, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges against the officer.
Date: March 15, 2021
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Given that the licence plate was supposed to be affixed to a red minivan, there were also grounds to believe that a theft had been committed. [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.