Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries a 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On May 27, 2021, at 7:19 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) reported a serious injury involving a Guelph Police Service (GPS) vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

WRPS advised that a GPS Drug Team were arresting a party in the WRPS area. After the arrest, they were heading back to Guelph on Kossuth Road near Beaverdale Road in two vehicles at approximately 6:30 p.m. The first was a GPS department van with the prisoner and the second was a non-police vehicle with an on-duty GPS police officer in it. A civilian vehicle coming in the opposite direction crossed the line and struck the GPS van and then hit the other on-duty GPS officer’s vehicle head-on.

The driver of the civilian vehicle was being airlifted by Ornge and the officer in the second vehicle had two fractured legs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/27/2021 at 8:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/27/2021 at 9:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

63-year-old male, interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 18, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed [1]
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 1, 2021.

The Scene

The scene was on the roadway at 857 Kossuth Road. Kossuth Road is a two lane, east-west road that is frequently used as an alternative route from Kitchener to Cambridge.

The area is rural and has a speed limit of 80 km/h. The road is paved with gravel shoulders. At the time of the collision, the road was dry and weather clear.

SIU forensic investigators and WRPS police officers conducted an on-scene investigation, which included photographs, overhead drone video coverage and a collision reconstruction.

The road is divided by a yellow line with a solid line for eastbound traffic and a dotted line for westbound traffic. There are white fog lines on both sides with a paved shoulder beyond the fog lines. Beyond the paved shoulder is a gravel shoulder followed by a slightly depressed grassy area.

There were three vehicles involved in this collision.

The scene was photographed to show the road, tire marks and lighting conditions, as well as the position of the vehicles and the damage. The scene was documented via Total Station.



Figure 1 – The Complainant’s Nissan

Scene Diagram

Expert Evidence

SIU Reconstructionist Report

The SIU was assisted at the scene by a team of WRPS collision investigators.

The collision involved three vehicles: Vehicle #3 - a Nissan being operated by the Complainant traveling eastbound, Vehicle #1 - a Honda being operated by a GPS Officer #1 and owned by GPS traveling westbound, and Vehicle #2 - a Volkswagen being operated by a GPS Officer #2 traveling westbound behind Officer #1.

The collision involved two impacts. The areas of impact were both found on the north side of the westbound lane.

The first area of impact involved the collision between the Nissan and the Honda. The area of impact between the Nissan and the Honda was 2.8 metres north of the centre line separating the eastbound and westbound lanes, which was almost the entire width of the westbound lane over the centre line.

The second area of impact involved the collision between the Nissan and the Volkswagen.

The second area of impact was found to be underneath the final resting position of the Nissan and not discovered until the Nissan was moved from its position of final rest by a tow truck.

The area of impact between the Nissan and Volkswagen was about three metres north of the centre line separating the eastbound and westbound lanes, which was again, almost the entire width of the westbound lane over the centre line.

The two areas of impact were about 14.6 metres apart.

In between the first and second areas of impact there was a mark consistent with a locked and sliding tire now known to be made by the front driver’s side tire of the Nissan as the Nissan continued eastbound in the westbound lane from the impact with the Honda to the impact with the Volkswagen.

Multiple air bags were deployed in the Volkswagen during the collision with the Nissan; however, the vehicle was not supported by the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) system.

Multiple air bags were deployed in the Nissan during the collisions with the Honda and the Volkswagen; however, the vehicle was also not supported by the CDR system.

WRPS officers arranged for the retrieval of air bag module data through a contact at Nissan. A report was provided to the SIU and reviewed. The report indicated air bags were deployed; however, no collision data was recorded in the module, perhaps because of instantaneous and catastrophic power loss during the collisions. There was, therefore, no data related to speed, braking, or steering from either the Nissan or the Volkswagen.

Multiple air bags were deployed in the Honda during the collision with the Nissan. At the scene, the SIU downloaded air bag control module data from the Honda using the CDR system. The data retrieved was determined to be from the collision under investigation.

The CDR report indicated the following:

• The driver was not wearing a seat belt;
• The front passenger was not wearing a seat belt;
• Between 5 and 1 seconds prior to the collision, the Honda was traveling at a steady speed of about 80 km/h;
• One second prior to the collision the accelerator pedal was released, the brake was applied, and there was a sharp steering input; and
• Between one second prior to the collision and the time when the air bags were commanded to deploy, the brakes remained on and the Honda decelerated to about 68 km/h.

The physical evidence indicated the following and was consistent with the information the SIU obtained from the civilian witnesses during interviews and through reviewing documents provided to the SIU:

• The collision occurred on Kossuth Road between Beaverdale and Chilligo Roads;
• The Nissan was traveling eastbound;
• The Honda was traveling westbound;
• The Volkswagen was traveling westbound directly behind the Honda;
• The Nissan crossed over the double centre line (solid for eastbound and dashed for westbound) and travelled eastbound in the westbound lane;
• The Honda moved to its right towards the shoulder in an apparent attempt to avoid being struck by the Nissan;
• The front driver’s corner of the Nissan struck the Honda on the driver’s side rear wheel and corner area;
• The Honda rotated counterclockwise as it continued westbound, entered the ditch on the north side of the road, rotated 180 degrees, and came to rest facing eastbound in the ditch near the trees;
• The Nissan continued eastbound in the westbound lane;
• The Volkswagen moved to its right towards the shoulder;
• The front of the Nissan collided violently with the front of the Volkswagen in a head-on fashion slightly off set, with the driver’s side corner of each vehicle in line with the approximate centre of the other vehicle;
• Post-impact, the Nissan rotated counterclockwise and came to rest facing westbound in the westbound lane; and
• Post impact, the Volkswagen was forced straight backwards and came to rest facing westbound on the north shoulder.

The injuries sustained by the Complainant were consistent with the dynamics of the collision.

The physical evidence and findings of the collision reconstruction were consistent with the Honda and the Volkswagen being driven properly.
The physical evidence and findings of the collision reconstruction were consistent with the Nissan, being driven by the Complainant, having crossed over the centre line and into the path of the Honda and then the Volkswagen.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from GPS and WRPS between May 28, 2021 and June 7, 2021:

• Handwritten civilian witness statements of CW #1, CW #3 CW #4 and CW #2;
• List of Involved Officers; and
• Nissan Onboard Computer Download.

The material events in question are clear and may be briefly summarized.

At about 6:30 p.m. of May 27, 2021, Officer #1 was operating an unmarked police vehicle – a Honda – traveling west on Kossuth Road toward Beaverdale Road. The officer was engaged in lawful duties in the jurisdiction of the WRPS. Traveling west right behind him, in his personal Volkswagen, was Officer #2, assisting Officer #1 that day.

At the same time, a Nissan, being driven by the Complainant, was traveling eastward on Kossuth Road, east of Beaverdale Road. As the Complainant’s vehicle approached the Honda, it crossed over the centre line into the westbound lane.

Officer #1 noticed the Nissan in his lane heading straight for him and swerved to the right attempting to avoid a collision. The driver’s side rear end of the Honda was struck by the Nissan, sending it into a counterclockwise spin. The Honda came to rest north of the westbound lane facing east.

Following the impact with the Honda, the Nissan continued and struck the Volkswagen head-on. Officer #2 suffered a broken femur.

The Complainant was airlifted from the scene to hospital and was diagnosed with multiple fractures, a head injury, and internal bleeding.

On May 27, 2021, the Complainant suffered serious injuries when his vehicle collided with vehicles being operated by GPS officers. The SIU initiated an investigation. The investigation having concluded, I am satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the involved GPS officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision and the Complainant’s injuries.

Officer #1 and Officer #2 were on-duty police officers on lawful assignment when their vehicles were struck by the Complainant’s Nissan on Kossuth Road. There is no indication of any careless or dangerous driving on the part of the officers. They were traveling at the speed limit well within their own lane when, for reasons unknown, the Complainant’s Nissan crossed into their lane and struck their vehicles. They did what they could to avoid a collision, but simply did not have the time or space to do so.

On the aforementioned-record, it is apparent that the officers did nothing to cause or contribute to the accident. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: September 23, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit