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 14-year-old girl (“Complainant #1”) suffered, the death of a 40-year-old man (“Complainant #2”), and the serious injuries a 26-year-old man (“Complainant #3”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On November 7, 2021, at 2:45 p.m., the West Grey Police Service (WGPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 7, 2021, WGPS officers had been notified by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) that they were following a vehicle heading for the town of Durham, West Grey County, on Grey Road 4. WGPS successfully deployed a tire deflation device (TDD). The vehicle travelled a distance and crashed head-on into an uninvolved vehicle, killing the driver of that vehicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 11/07/2021 at 3:05 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/07/2021 at 5:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The scene was located on Grey County Road 4, just east of Concession Road 2.

Debris at the scene and tire marks indicated that a Ford F150 had been westbound on Grey County Road 4 approaching the curve and downhill decline between Baseline Road and Concession Road 2. The Ford F150 crossed into the eastbound lane and struck an eastbound Nissan. The area of impact was near the south shoulder.

The Nissan had been propelled down the embankment on the southside of the road. The left front tire from the Ford F150 was found near the area of impact. There were tire marks and scrapes on the roadway from the Ford F150 which continued in a westbound direction and returned to the westbound lane. The Ford F150 travelled onto the north shoulder and hit the cable and post guard rail knocking out several posts before it came to a stop.

An examination of a TDD indicated that spikes were missing, which indicated that its deployment was successful. There was no evidence located at the scene to determine how many tires were impacted by the TDD.


Figure 1 – The Nissan


Figure 2 – The Ford F150, located 0.2 km from the collision site, with white metal from
the Nissan attached

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with police officers and civilians who witnessed parts of the incident in question. The investigation was also assisted by GPS and ‘black box’ data associated with the vehicles operated by the SO and Complainant #3, respectively. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

Shortly before 1:30 p.m., as he was driving to Midland east on Grey County Road 4, just east of Concession Road 2, Complainant #2’s Nissan Rogue was struck head-on by a pickup truck. The collision occurred as Complainant #2 was negotiating a rightward curve in the road. The westward travelling truck had entered onto the eastbound lane and struck the truck at about 136 km/h.

The police had been tracking the pickup truck – a Ford F150. It had been stolen and the owner, using a GPS device on the vehicle, was feeding police information about its location of travel.

Complainant #3 – the driver of the truck – had been on a rampage that morning. His father had contacted the OPP expressing concern for his son, who had assaulted him. OPP and WGPS officers had located Complainant #3 and attempted to stop the truck, but he had been able to break away.

Aware from OPP reports that Complainant #3 was travelling west on Grey County Road 4 from Flesherton towards their jurisdiction, the SO, and WO #4 and WO #3, of the WGPS decided to intervene. They were concerned about the pickup truck entering the populated area of Durham, and so headed as far east as they could from the town in their separate cruisers to try to stop it. They stopped at the intersection of Camp Oliver Road and Grey County Road 4, where the plan was to deploy a spike stick ahead of the pickup truck.

Just east of Camp Oliver Road, Complainant #3 travelled over the spike stick that had been laid out by the SO across the westbound lane. One or more of the pickup truck’s tires were spiked. It continued at speeds in excess of 150 km/h past the intersection. Led by WO #4, the officers accelerated after the pickup truck.

Within about a minute or so, the pickup truck - one or more of its tires deflated or shredded – entered into a leftward bend in the road, swerved into the eastbound lane, and struck Complainant #2’s Nissan. It continued for a distance west – about 200 metres – before coming to a stop by the northern side of the road after knocking down some guard rail and posts. The Nissan had been sent tumbling into the ditch south of the road.

Following the collision, Complainant #3 exited the vehicle and accosted another motorist who had pulled over to see if he was okay, assaulting him and trying to steal his pickup truck. WO #4 and the SO, who had arrived at the scene by this time, arrested Complainant #3 after a struggle.

Complainant #2 died in the collision and his daughter sustained a fractured left wrist. CW #4 was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. The nature and extent of Complainant #3’s injuries remain unclear.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death

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.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

On November 7, 2021, Complainant #2 lost his life and his daughter, Complainant #1, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision just east of Durham, Ontario. Their vehicle had been struck by a pickup truck operated by Complainant #3. As Complainant #3’s vehicle had travelled over a police spike stick in the moments before the collision, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The SO of the WGPS 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 collision.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. [2] The former 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. The latter is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the conduct of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The officers who responded to the intersection of Camp Oliver Road and Grey County Road 4 to try to stop the pickup truck from entering into Durham, including the SO, were in the lawful execution of their duties at the time. They had reason to believe that Complainant #3 was operating a stolen pickup truck with reckless disregard for public safety, and were right to be concerned about what would happen should it enter into the populated area of Durham – about five kilometres away.

I am also satisfied that the decision to deploy the spike stick was a reasonable one. A police pursuit or the use of police vehicles to stop the pickup truck was off the table as Complainant #3 had in prior encounters with the police failed to stop when signaled to do so and rammed other vehicles. In the circumstances, the use of a spike stick had the potential to safely bring the pickup truck to a stop if it worked as intended, namely, to create a gradual and controlled tire deflation. The location the officers had chosen to execute the tactic – a rural road that ran straight for a couple of kilometres - was also ideal as it would mitigate the risk to public safety in the event the tire deflation resulted in a loss of control by the driver.

Mitigate - not eliminate – as there was always going to be risk in any decision taken by the officers. They could have decided to do nothing and hope that Complainant #3 would reduce his speed and alter his reckless driving as he approached Durham. However, the officers had no reason to think he would do that. By the time they got involved, Complainant #3 had embarked on a protracted course of dangerous driving. Indeed, with no police officers pursuing or following him, he travelled at speeds upwards of 150 km/h en route to the site of the spike stick. Perhaps the officers ought to have arranged to stop eastbound traffic for a distance behind them before deploying the spike stick to further reduce the risk. However, events were unfolding quickly and it was not long before the pickup truck was on them – time was not on their side. In the face of these difficult choices, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the tactic they adopted was unreasonable or, if it was so, that it was markedly unreasonable.

With respect to the speeds reached by WO #4, WO #3 and the SO as they accelerated after the truck following the spike stick deployment, I am satisfied that the officers did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. These speeds, as the GPS data from the SO’s cruiser establish, reached as high as 175 km/h, well in excess of the 80 km/h speed limit. That said, there is no indication of other users of the road being directly imperiled by the cruisers, nor does it appear that the officers fueled Complainant #3’s flight from police. The evidence indicates that Complainant #3 was bent on driving at incredible speeds, with or without police officers behind him, and that the officers were never so close to the pickup truck so as to prevent Complainant #3 reducing his speed, had he been so inclined.

For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the SO and the other WGPS officers comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety with respect to their involvement in the series of events that culminated in the tragic death of Complainant #2 and serious injury of his daughter. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: March 7, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit