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 a serious injury sustained by a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 23, 2021, at 2:00 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) notified the SIU of an injury sustained by the Complainant.

The WPS advised that on October 22, 2021, at about 8:30 p.m., an off-duty WPS police officer saw a pickup truck driven erratically in the area of Huron Church Road and Cabana Road in Windsor. The off-duty police officer called the WPS communications centre to report the incident. A marked police vehicle observed the pickup truck on Howard Avenue, Amherstburg, and a police officer activated the police vehicle’s emergency lights to try to pull the vehicle over. The driver of the pickup truck did not stop and continued southbound on Howard Avenue. The pursuing police officer turned off the emergency lights on the police vehicle and continued to follow the pickup truck southbound on Howard Avenue. When the pickup truck was in the area of Alma Street, the driver jumped from the moving pickup truck. The pickup truck continued for a short distance and struck a pole. Police officers went to the aid of the injured driver.

The driver was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital-Ouellette Campus with a suspected head injury.

The scene, which was on Howard Avenue, Amherstburg, was being held for the SIU.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/23/2021 at 3:24 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/23/2021 at 8:10 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

The Scene

On October 23, 2021, at 8:10 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene on Howard Avenue, Amherstburg. The scene had been properly secured and guarded. Howard Avenue travelled primarily in a north/south direction. It was a two-lane paved roadway that travelled straight and level. Road pavement markings were in good condition and visible. There was no street lighting in the immediate vicinity of the incident.

On the centre of the roadway close to the driveway of an address on Howard Avenue were scuff marks. A police emergency sign was also erected in the centre of the roadway. Beside the emergency sign was an area of staining suspected to be blood. South of this area, along the west shoulder, were tire marks that travelled in a southwest direction into the ditch where they continued to the resting point of a 2007 GMC Sierra pickup white.

The pickup truck was orientated in a southwest direction and had collided with a hydro pole in the west ditch. There was considerable front-end damage due to impact with the pole. There were other minor scratches in many areas of the vehicle’s exterior and collision damage to the passenger side rear wheel well. The damage appeared historical as dirt on the surface of the vehicle had not been disturbed. There was no evidence of recent contact with another vehicle.

The scene and pickup truck were photographed. A swab of the staining from the roadway was collected. The scene was measured using the Total Station device.

At 10:43 a.m., a video of the pursuit route was recorded. The route commenced at an address on Howard Avenue and travelled south to the collision scene, which was a distance of seven kilometres.

At 11:20 a.m., at the WPS Headquarters, photography was commenced of a WPS police vehicle, which was a blue 2017 Dodge Charger. This was a marked police vehicle, which displayed WPS graphics. Emergency lighting and a siren were installed and found operable at the time of examination. There were no collision markings on this vehicle that would suggest recent contact with another vehicle.

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

GPS Report for WPS Police Vehicle

The GPS data from a WPS police vehicle, which was operated by the SO on October 22, 2021, were imported into Google Earth mapping, and reviewed.

Per the data, at 8:00 p.m., the SO had been stationary on Howard Avenue, south of North Townline Road, Amherstburg. At 8:09 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was in motion southbound on Howard Avenue. It accelerated to a speed of 100.6 km/h within a kilometre of its starting point. The SO’s police vehicle then slowed to a speed of approximately 85 km/h for the next 5.5 kilometres. The speed limit was 80 km/h.

At 8:14:10 p.m., the SO began to slow his vehicle and, at 8:14:50 p.m., the SO came to a stop in front of an address on Howard Avenue.

The total distance travelled by the SO was 7.11 kilometres.

Howard Avenue was a rural area, which was straight and level with a speed limit of 80 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Communications Recordings

On October 22, 2021, at 8:06 p.m., the WPS received a driving complaint, which had been transferred from the OPP. The caller reported that a white GMC pickup, with the tailgate down and sparks flying, was southbound on Howard Avenue, Amherstburg. The pickup truck was all over the road and had driven into oncoming traffic. Several other calls were received from citizens regarding the pickup truck.

At 8:09 p.m., the SO advised he was on County Road 8 at Howard Avenue. The SO reported that the pickup truck had passed him southbound on Howard Avenue, and he was following with his emergency lights and siren activated.

At 8:10 p.m., WO #2 reported that he was at County Road 8 and Howard Avenue, Amherstburg. The SO advised that the pickup truck was travelling at about 85 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and had driven into oncoming traffic. At 8:11 p.m., the SO advised that he had turned off his emergency lights and siren but was continuing to follow for the safety of other drivers.

At 8:15 p.m., the SO advised that the driver of the pickup truck had fallen out of the truck and the truck had collided into a pole at County Road 9 (Howard Avenue). The SO requested an ambulance and that the road be shut down.

At 8:16 p.m., the SO advised that the driver, later identified as the Complainant, was bleeding and was incoherent when he spoke.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, and may be briefly summarized.

In the evening of October 22, 2021, the WPS received a report of an erratic driver from a motorist. The motorist had observed a white pickup truck traveling south on Howard Avenue, Amherstburg. It had driven into oncoming traffic and had its tailgate down. Sparks were flying off the truck.

Shortly after the call, the SO, located on Howard Avenue south of County Road 8, observed the truck and started to follow it in his marked cruiser. The officer activated his emergency lights and siren to signal the pickup driver to pull over, but he continued southbound at about 85 km/h. At the direction of WO #2, monitoring the pursuit over the radio, the SO de-activated his emergency equipment, but continued to follow the truck. Shortly thereafter, fearing the possibility of a head-on collision between northbound traffic and the truck, which had moved into the northbound lane travelling south, the SO reactivated his lights to alert drivers of the danger ahead.

The Complainant was operating the pickup truck, one of several vehicles he had stolen that day that he had crashed. At a point slightly north of the residential driveway at the scene on Howard Avenue, the Complainant either jumped or otherwise fell out of the pickup truck onto the roadway. The truck continued a distance without him, entering the west ditch and striking a utility pole south of the same driveway.

The SO pulled up to the scene, exited his cruiser, and rendered assistance to the Complainant. Paramedics arrived at the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant was diagnosed with internal head injuries and multiple fractures.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

The Complainant was seriously injured in an incident involving a motor vehicle collision on October 22, 2021. As the vehicle he was in was briefly pursued by a WPS officer prior to the collision, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. 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 predicated, 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 vehicle that contributed to the Complainant’s injuries and/or was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The SO was in the lawful discharge of his duties when he tried to stop the Complainant’s pickup truck. In light of the information about the Complainant’s reckless driving provided via dispatch, and what he observed for himself, the Complainant was a clear danger on the roadway and the SO was within his rights in attempting to pull him over.

Thereafter, in the course of a relatively brief engagement with the truck over a rural, straight stretch of roadway, the evidence indicates that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The officer engaged the Complainant at moderate speed and used his emergency lights judiciously to warn oncoming traffic of the dangers posed by the pickup truck. The SO cannot be faulted for the series of events that resulted in the Complainant falling from a moving vehicle.

It remains uncertain whether one or more of the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in his fall from the pickup truck, or whether they were the result of his misadventures throughout the day. Reportedly, he had been involved in several motor vehicle collisions prior to his encounter with the SO. Be that as it may, as there is no evidence that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 18, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit