SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OVI-339
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 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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have 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
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 an 18-year-old male (the “Complainant”) sustained.
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 an 18-year-old male (the “Complainant”) sustained.
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 9, 2021, at 10:15 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of an injury to Civilian Witness (CW) #1 and the Complainant.OPS advised that on October 9, 2021, at 7:57 p.m., an OPS police cruiser had collided with a civilian vehicle in the intersection of Aviation Parkway and Privé La Cité in Ottawa. The driver of the civilian vehicle sustained a ruptured spleen. A passenger in the same vehicle sustained a fractured pelvis and clavicle. Both the driver and passenger were taken to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH) with non-life threatening injuries.
The collision was witnessed by a third party.
The involved police officer had sustained a minor injury to his left hand. He was treated and released from hospital.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 10/09/2021 at 10:32 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/09/2021 at 10:46 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
18-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on October 13, 2021.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 12 and 13, 2021.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed. Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; designated for Collision Reconstruction Report
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
Evidence
The Scene
On October 21, 2021, at 12:00 p.m., an SIU Forensic Investigator attended at the scene of the collision located at Aviation Parkway and Privé La Cité. The intersection was photographed, including black tire rub marks still visible. The black tire rub marks indicated that the point of impact was in the northbound curb lane of Aviation Parkway at the eastbound curb lane of Privé La Cité.
Figure 1 – The scene.
Physical Evidence
Police Cruiser
The vehicle was a marked OPS police cruiser - a white Ford Explorer four-door SUV. There was significant damage to the entire front end, ahead of the wheel well, which had shifted from left to right. The emergency lights on the cruiser were switched on but were inoperative due to the damage from the collision as the power cable had severed. The four-way emergency lights were functioning. A mobile laptop was located in the front of the cruiser. The front and left side air bags were deployed.
Figure 2 – The SO’s vehicle.
Civilian Vehicle
The second vehicle was a grey four-door Mazda-3. There was extensive damage to the passenger side and roof, as well as secondary impact damage near the left C-pillar, possibly from striking a pole. A partial imprint of the cruiser’s front licence plate was located centre left of the passenger door. The side air bags on both sides were deployed.
Figure 3 – The Complainant's vehicle.
Forensic Evidence
OPS Global Positioning System (GPS) Data
The GPS data were captured on October 9, 2021 and established the following.At 7:53 p.m., the SO was stopped on City Park Drive at Transitway.
At 7:53 p.m., the officer was mobile doing 31.1 km/h heading northwest on City Park Drive.
At 7:54 p.m., the SO was doing 56.9 km/h heading northwest on City Park Drive north of Harper Avenue.
At 7:54 p.m., the SO had turned left onto Ogilvie Road going westbound towards Aviation Parkway doing 60.9 km/h.
At 7:54 p.m., the SO was doing 82.9 km/h going west on Ogilvie Road just past Halmont Drive.
At 7:54 p.m., the SO was doing 78.2 km/h west on Ogilvie Road having just past Palmerston Drive.
At 7:54 p.m., the SO had turned right onto Aviation Parkway doing 27.7 km/h heading northbound.
At 7:55 p.m., the SO was doing 77.5 km/h going north on Aviation Parkway.
At 7:55 p.m., the SO had reached a speed of 80.7 km/h still northbound on Aviation Parkway. He was doing 89.4 km/h approaching Ambercrest Street to the east. He was doing 93.8 km/h approaching Meadowcroft Crescent to the east. He was doing 96 km/h heading north on Aviation Parkway approaching Privé La Cité.
At 7:55 p.m., the SO’s cruiser came to a stop at Aviation Parkway and Privé La Cité, northeast of the intersection.
Expert Evidence
OPS Collision Reconstruction Report
On January 14, 2022, the SIU received the OPS Reconstruction Report from OPS. The report concluded that the incident involved a two-vehicle collision at the intersection of the Aviation Parkway and Privé La Cité in the City of Ottawa on October 8, 2021 about 7:57 p.m. Weather conditions were mostly clear at the time of the collision, and the road was dry. The Mazda had slowed to 5 km/h but failed to stop at the stop bar. The police vehicle was travelling 96 km/h in the seconds leading up to the collision. The police vehicle’s headlights and emergency light switches were in the full-on position.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
OPS Communications Recordings
These recordings were made on October 9, 2021 beginning at 7:57:14 p.m., and captured the following information.At 7:57:14 p.m., the SO notified the dispatcher he had been in a collision.
At 7:57:54 p.m., the SO advised the dispatcher there were two people in the other vehicle involved in the collision. There was one man, the Complainant, and one woman, CW #1. According to the SO, both were conscious and talking.
At 7:58:23 p.m., a sergeant was on his way to the collision scene.
At 7:58:38 p.m., the SO reported to the dispatcher that he was uninjured.
At 7:58:50 p.m., the SO advised that police were trying to cut the seatbelts worn by the occupants. The SO asked the dispatcher to put Ottawa Fire Department (OFD) on notice for a possible extraction.
At 8:00:51 p.m., the SO advised the dispatcher the OFD was on scene and extracting the occupants of the other vehicle. Both CW #1 and the Complainant were conscious and talking.
At 8:01:36 p.m., another police unit reported to the dispatcher that a power line was down and City Works was needed to attend to the matter.
At 8:20:38 p.m., the ambulance left the scene with CW #1 and the Complainant heading to OCH.
At 8:38:24 p.m., the dispatcher received an update from police at OCH advising CW #1 had non-life threatening injuries and the Complainant had non-life threatening injuries.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between October 13, 2021 and January 14, 2022:- Collision Reconstruction Report;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Call Hardcopies (x2);
- Collision Field Notes-WO #3;
- Communication Recordings;
- Equipment Usage Policy;
- Investigative Action (IA)-WO #2;
- IA-WO #5;
- IA-the SO;
- IA-WO #1;
- IA-WO #3;
- Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-the SO;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #3;
- GPS Data;
- Identification Photographs; and
- Witness Statement-CW #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU received the following records from other sources: - Medical Records for CW #1; and
- Medical Records for the Complainant.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of October 9, 2021, the SO was operating a marked police SUV north on Aviation Parkway. He was travelling at speed to a scene on Montreal Road. A call had come in from a gas station attendant suggesting a woman had taken refuge in the station concerned about her personal safety.
At the same time, CW #1, driving a Mazda 3 south on Aviation Parkway, had turned left to travel east on Privé La Cité. In the passenger seat was her brother, the Complainant. CW #1 came to a stop at a stop sign within the wide median that divided north and southbound traffic on Aviation Parkway, after which she accelerated intending to cross the northbound lanes of traffic to continue east on Privé La Cité.
As he approached the Privé La Cité, the SO noticed CW #1’s vehicle mere seconds before he entered the intersection. The officer was unable to avoid a collision, and struck the passenger side of the Mazda 3 with the front end of his cruiser. The time was about 7:57 p.m.
The collision sent the Mazda 3 rolling over in a northwest direction. The cruiser was propelled in a northeast direction following the impact, and came to a stop within the intersection.
The SO exited his cruiser and went to check on the occupants of the Mazda 3.
Paramedics and firefighters attended the scene, and CW #1 and the Complainant were transported to hospital. CW #1 was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. The Complainant was diagnosed with fractures of his pelvis and collarbone. The SO reportedly also suffered a minor hand injury.
In the evening of October 9, 2021, the SO was operating a marked police SUV north on Aviation Parkway. He was travelling at speed to a scene on Montreal Road. A call had come in from a gas station attendant suggesting a woman had taken refuge in the station concerned about her personal safety.
At the same time, CW #1, driving a Mazda 3 south on Aviation Parkway, had turned left to travel east on Privé La Cité. In the passenger seat was her brother, the Complainant. CW #1 came to a stop at a stop sign within the wide median that divided north and southbound traffic on Aviation Parkway, after which she accelerated intending to cross the northbound lanes of traffic to continue east on Privé La Cité.
As he approached the Privé La Cité, the SO noticed CW #1’s vehicle mere seconds before he entered the intersection. The officer was unable to avoid a collision, and struck the passenger side of the Mazda 3 with the front end of his cruiser. The time was about 7:57 p.m.
The collision sent the Mazda 3 rolling over in a northwest direction. The cruiser was propelled in a northeast direction following the impact, and came to a stop within the intersection.
The SO exited his cruiser and went to check on the occupants of the Mazda 3.
Paramedics and firefighters attended the scene, and CW #1 and the Complainant were transported to hospital. CW #1 was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. The Complainant was diagnosed with fractures of his pelvis and collarbone. The SO reportedly also suffered a minor hand injury.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) 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
The Complainant was seriously injured in a car crash in Ottawa on October 9, 2021. As the vehicle he was in had collided with an OPS cruiser, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The driver of the OPS vehicle – the SO – was identified as a 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 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. 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 issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The evidence establishes that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety as he responded in his cruiser to a priority call for service. While the officer drove north on Aviation Parkway at speeds in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit, at times close to 100 km/h as he approached Privé La Cité, I am satisfied that he did so reasonably. He was responding to a call involving a threat of personal violence and time was of the essence. The officer also had his emergency lights activated as he approached the intersection so that motorists in the vicinity had some notice of his presence and the speeds at which he was travelling. Lastly, it is important to note that the SO had the right of way and was reasonably entitled to expect that motorists in CW #1’s position would not enter the intersection until it was safe to do so, particularly as the officer had his emergency lights flashing.
It remains unclear why CW #1 entered the intersection when she did. The evidence suggests she might have misjudged the speed at which the cruiser was travelling toward her, or simply did not see the vehicle because of a sightline obstruction or inattention on her part. Be that as it may, the SO cannot be faulted for any of these indiscretions.
For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law as he travelled north on Aviation Parkway toward the site of the collision. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.
Date: February 4, 2022
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. 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 issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The evidence establishes that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety as he responded in his cruiser to a priority call for service. While the officer drove north on Aviation Parkway at speeds in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit, at times close to 100 km/h as he approached Privé La Cité, I am satisfied that he did so reasonably. He was responding to a call involving a threat of personal violence and time was of the essence. The officer also had his emergency lights activated as he approached the intersection so that motorists in the vicinity had some notice of his presence and the speeds at which he was travelling. Lastly, it is important to note that the SO had the right of way and was reasonably entitled to expect that motorists in CW #1’s position would not enter the intersection until it was safe to do so, particularly as the officer had his emergency lights flashing.
It remains unclear why CW #1 entered the intersection when she did. The evidence suggests she might have misjudged the speed at which the cruiser was travelling toward her, or simply did not see the vehicle because of a sightline obstruction or inattention on her part. Be that as it may, the SO cannot be faulted for any of these indiscretions.
For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law as he travelled north on Aviation Parkway toward the site of the collision. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.
Date: February 4, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [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.