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 suffered by a 33-year-old female (“Complainant #1) and 30-year-old male (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU

On September 7, 2021 at 8:14 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) reported a motor vehicle collision which resulted in the hospitalization of two civilians. The OPS advised that at 5:02 p.m.[1] on this date, the Subject Official (SO) was responding to a report of a missing four-year-old child when her cruiser collided with a civilian vehicle. At the time, the SO was driving north on Conroy Road when her vehicle was struck on the passenger side by a vehicle operated by Complainant #1, that was driving east[2] on Hunt Club Road.

The OPS reported that all involved persons were taken to the Ottawa Civic Hospital and awaiting diagnoses.

Three civilian witnesses had been identified.

At 9:54 p.m., the OPS further advised the injuries had been diagnosed as a ruptured spleen and spinal fractures.

The Scene

The collision occurred in the intersection of Conroy Road and Hunt Club Road in Ottawa. The scene investigation and collision reconstruction were conducted by the OPS.

The collision occurred in daylight conditions at 4:58 p.m. on September 7, 2021. Traffic was light at the time, and the roads were dry and clear, in good condition, and in good repair. The traffic control signaling system at the intersection was reported to be functioning properly at the time of the collision and subsequent investigation.

The posted speeds limits were 80 km/h for Hunt Club Road, on which Complainant #1 was travelling, and 60 km/h for Conroy Road, on which the SO was travelling.

Physical Evidence

Complainant #1’s Vehicle

Electronic data retrieved by OPS collision investigators revealed Complainant #1’s vehicle was travelling at 66 km/h five seconds prior to the collision. The vehicle generally maintained that speed and was travelling at 59 km/h at the time of impact.


Figure 1 – Complainant #1’s vehicle

The material events in question are clear on the weight of the evidence and may be briefly summarized. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.

In the afternoon of September 7, 2021, the SO was operating a police vehicle – a marked Ford Explorer – north on Conroy Road. She was responding to a call for service involving a missing four-year-old boy. The officer brought her cruiser to a stop in the passing lane behind another vehicle that was stopped for a red light at Hunt Club Road. She then activated her siren and emergency lights, and passed the stopped vehicle along its driver’s side, after which she slowly entered the intersection. As the SO’s cruiser cleared Hunt Club Road’s eastbound lanes, she began to accelerate into the westbound lanes.

At the same time, a Hyundai Tucson being operated by Complainant #1, in which Complainant #2 was a front seat passenger, entered the intersection travelling west along the curb lane of Hunt Club Road. Their vehicle was struck by the SO’s cruiser.

The impact propelled the Tucson northward, where it came to rest in the northbound lanes of Conroy Road north of the intersection. The police vehicle was sent a short distance west.

The parties involved in the collision were transported to hospital. Complainant #1 was diagnosed with a concussion. Complainant #2 had suffered fractures of the left wrist and spine. It is unclear whether the SO suffered serious injury.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

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.

(3) 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 the death of another person.

Section 144 (18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act -- Red light exemption

144 (18)  Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144(20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so. 

On September 7, 2021, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Ottawa. As their vehicle had been struck by an OPS cruiser, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The driver of the cruiser – the SO – was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. 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. 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 exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO operated the police cruiser that caused or contributed to the collision, and which was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

There is little doubt that the SO is responsible for the collision. Pursuant to section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act, police officers engaged in the lawful performance of their duties may drive through red lights but only when it is safe to do after first coming to a stop. The SO had briefly come to a stop behind a civilian vehicle but did come to a stop, on the weight of the evidence, before she drove past the vehicle and entered the intersection. Nor does it appear that the officer exercised sufficient precautions to ensure that her path was clear as she accelerated northward. In fact, the SO had reached about 50 km/h at the point of impact.

On the other hand, this is not a case in which it can be said that the officer was markedly careless. The evidence establishes that she had activated her emergency lights and siren, and slowed if not stopped, before she crossed into the intersection. As for the SO’s speed as she approached Hunt Club Road, though excessive given the speed limits in the area, I am satisfied it played no role in the collision in the intersection, nor is there any indication that it had directly imperiled other motorists or pedestrians along her route.

On the aforementioned-record, the SO’s indiscretions are best characterized as a momentary lapse of attention which fall short of transgressing 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: December 20, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit