SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OVI-397

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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.

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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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 injury a 27-year-old woman (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On November 21, 2021, at 12:37 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s injury.

According to NRPS, on November 20, 2021, at 8:42 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 were in separate cruisers at B&C Truck Centre, 39 Main Street West, also known as Highway 3, in Port Colborne when a red vehicle driven by the Complainant drove westbound at a high rate of speed. Before the police officers could go after her, she made a U-turn and went eastbound at a high rate of speed passing them a second time. The SO and WO #1 pursued the Complainant with their emergency lights activated.

The Complainant was quite a distance ahead of the police officers and went through a red traffic signal light at West Side Road. The SO and WO #1 stopped at the red traffic signal light and lost sight of the Complainant’s vehicle. They continued and were ‘waved down’ by a man [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #3] regarding a collision at 509 Main Street West, at the roadway’s intersection with Oakwood Street. The Complainant had driven into a house.

The SO and WO #1 found the vehicle on its side. The Complainant was taken to Welland County General Hospital (WCGH) before being airlifted to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) where she was diagnosed with a fractured sacrum.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 11/21/2021 at 1:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/21/2021 at 3:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
 
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
 
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

27-year-old woman; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on November 21, 2021.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on November 21, 2021.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 24, 2021.

Evidence

The Scene

A SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the incident scene at 3:45 a.m. The scene had been properly secured and guarded by NRPS police officers. Main Street West had an east/west bearing and was a two-laned, paved roadway. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h and 50 km/h, west and east of West Side Road / Highway 58, respectively. The roadway surface was dry and in good condition, and pavement markings visible. Oakwood Street had a north/south bearing and was also a two-laned paved roadway. Oakwood Street intersected with Main Street West and was controlled by stop signs at the intersection. The roadway surface was dry and in good condition, and pavement markings visible. There was street lighting present in the vicinity of the intersection.

At the northeast corner of the intersection was a residence. This residence faced south toward Main Street West. At the west side of the residence was the red Ford Focus operated by the Complainant. The vehicle was overturned on its passenger side and orientated southeast. There was extensive damage to the vehicle because of it colliding with the residence. There was extensive damage to the west wall exterior of the residence. Tire marks found on both roadways suggested that the vehicle had been travelling east on Main Street West and veered northeast through the intersection toward the residence where the collision occurred.

The NRPS vehicles involved in the incident and operated by the SO and WO #1 were examined and photographed. Their emergency lighting and sirens were found to be in working order. Both vehicles were found to be free of any collision damage that would suggest contact with another vehicle.


Figure 1 – Ford Focus

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

The SIU obtained a copy of the GPS data for the vehicle operated by the SO, and the vehicle operated by WO #1, on November 20, 2021. The following is a summary of the data relevant to the SO’s vehicle.

At 8:35 p.m., the map showed the SO stationary in the parking lot at B&C Truck Centre at 639 Main Street West. The data points between 2079 and 2093 indicated a speed of zero. At 8:39 p.m., the vehicle operated by WO #1 was stationary with the SO.

The next data point recorded was 2094 and indicated a speed of 62 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:40:27 p.m., and depicted the SO’s vehicle on Main Street West heading eastbound.

At data point 2095, the speed was recorded as 106.1 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:40:38 p.m., and the SO had just passed by 1st Avenue. At data point 2096, the SO’s speed had reduced to 86.8 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:40:47 p.m., and depicted the vehicle’s location just past the driveway to the Harvey’s Restaurant at 575 Main Street West.

At data point 2097, the speed indicated was 74.8 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:40:52 p.m., and depicted the SO’s location just west of Highway 58/West Side Road.

At data point 2098, the speed indicated was recorded as zero. The map indicated a time of 8:41:48 p.m., when the SO was west of Steele Street in a stationary position east of the collision scene, having passed the collision scene at Main Street West and Oakwood Street.

At data point 2099, the speed indicated was 55.9 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:41:07 p.m., [1] when the SO’s vehicle was at the intersection of Main Street West and Oakwood Street heading west.

The data points between 2100 and 2105 indicated a speed of zero.

The map indicated that at 8:49:58 p.m., the SO’s vehicle was stopped on Oakwood Street north of Main Street West. Data point 2106 indicated his speed was 33.2 km/h. The map indicated a time of 8:41:57 p.m., [2] and showed the location of the SO’s vehicle just east of Oakwood Street heading westbound. The remaining data points 2107 to 2118 indicated a speed of zero, meaning the SO’s vehicle was stationary at the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

NRPS Communications Recordings

911 Call

At 8:42 p.m., on November 20, 2021, a very upset woman called 911. She advised that the police had arrived and that a car had crashed into her house at the corner of Main Street West and Oakwood Street

Radio Transmissions

At 8:40 p.m., on November 20, 2021, the SO reported a red Ford Focus traveling at a high rate of speed westbound on Main Street.

When asked if he was pursuing, the SO replied, “No, he’s way ahead of me.” The SO reported he had lost the vehicle’s direction of travel at Main Street West and Steele Street. WO #1 reported an ambulance was required at Oakwood Street [later identified as 509 Main Street West]. A car had flipped, and somebody [now known to be the Complainant] was inside it. The SO stated he was there as well.

The Port Colborne Fire Department was requested and the SO advised it was the red Ford Focus operated by the Complainant that was involved. The Complainant was taken to the WCGH. An Air Ornge Ambulance Service helicopter subsequently took the Complainant to the HGH.

Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) Data

The SIU canvassed for and located CCTV data relevant to the incident from four locations in Port Colborne.

575 Main Street West [Harvey’s Restaurant]

The data obtained from 575 Main Street West were provided to the SIU by Harvey’s Restaurant. The following is a summary of the data.

At about 8:32 p.m., there were two vehicles depicted heading westbound on Main Street West, out of town. The first appeared to be a taxi, followed by an unidentifiable vehicle. There was nothing remarkable about their appearance. At 8:35:06 p.m., in the distance, two sets of emergency lights appeared. One second later, at 8:35:07 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be operated by the Complainant] entered the camera’s focal range travelling eastbound at a speed that was greater than other vehicles seen on Main Street West. At 8:35:12 p.m., an eastbound police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] with its emergency lights on was recorded pursuing the Complainant. Four seconds later, at 8:35:16 p.m., a second eastbound police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1] with its emergency lights on, followed the SO.

Residence #1 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street

The data depicted the flashing emergency lights of WO #1’s vehicle after the incident and beyond the focal range of the camera, the arrival of the SO’s vehicle with its emergency lights flashing, and both police officers approaching the Complainant’s vehicle.

Residence #2 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street

Clip One

At 8:40:49 p.m., the headlights of an eastbound vehicle on Main Street West were depicted.

At 8:40:51 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be a black Mazda operated by CW #3] had reached the east side of the intersection of Main Street West and Oakwood Street.

At 8:40:52 p.m., headlights illuminated the intersection as a vehicle [now known to be the vehicle operated by the Complainant] crossed Oakwood Street on the north side of the intersection and, one second later, struck the west side of the house at 509 Main Street West.

At 8:40:56 p.m., the Complainant’s vehicle ceased movement on its passenger side with its headlights toward the house. The black Mazda remained stationary against the south curb of Main Street West.

At 8:41:07 p.m., a NRPS cruiser [operated by the SO], with its emergency lights flashing and without decelerating, went eastbound on Main Street West, and beyond the camera’s focal range.

Three seconds later, a second NRPS cruiser [operated by WO #1], with its emergency lights flashing, passed through the intersection without deceleration and continued eastbound beyond the focal range of the camera. The flashing emergency lights on WO #1’s cruiser were continuously reflecting off the houses east of the intersection.

At 8:41:22 p.m., WO #1’s vehicle was depicted westbound on Main Street West and turning right on Oakwood Street. CW #3’s vehicle made a U-turn and stopped in front of 509 Main Street West as a man was depicted running across Main Street West.

Four seconds before the video recording ended, the SO’s police cruiser appeared travelling westbound on Main Street West returning to its intersection with Oakwood Street.

Clip Two

At 8:36:55 p.m., a set of headlights came into view moving westbound on Main Street West and quickly left the focal range of the camera.

At 8:40:42 p.m., the first set of headlights [now known to be on the black Mazda operated by CW #3] were seen illuminated in the eastbound lane. The second set of headlights [now known to be on the Complainant’s vehicle] were seen illuminated straddling the east and westbound lanes of Main Street West as though overtaking CW #3’s vehicle.

At 8:40:51 p.m., CW #3’s Mazda was just about through the intersection when the Complainant’s vehicle jumped the north curb and was within a few feet of the yellow sandbox and poles for the street signs at the northwest corner of Oakwood Street and Main Street West. The Complainant’s vehicle ran over the box and poles and continued its trajectory into the west side of the house at the northeast corner of Oakwood Street and Main Street West.

At 8:40:53 p.m., the Mazda stopped on Main Street West in front 508 Main Street West.

Four seconds later, the Complainant’s vehicle had ceased moving after colliding with and bouncing off the west side of the house at the northeast side corner of Oakwood Street and Main Street West.

At 8:41:02 p.m., a man was depicted stepping out onto his porch as a vehicle passed going westbound. At 8:41:06, the SO’s police cruiser with its emergency lights flashing drove eastbound on Main Street West through its intersection with Oakwood Street and left the camera’s focal range as the man was depicted pointing across the street. Four seconds later, WO #1’s vehicle with its emergency lights flashing drove through the same intersection as the man was depicted waving his right hand.

At 8:41:24 p.m., a NRPS police cruiser [believed to be operated by WO #1] travelled westbound with its emergency lights flashing, made a right turn onto Oakwood Street, and stopped.

At 8:41:37 p.m., the man was depicted leaving the porch to go to his neighbour’s house as the Mazda operated by CW #3 was depicted making a U-turn and stopping in front of 509 Main Street.

At 8:41:50 p.m., the video ended.

Residence #3 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street

The first video was of poor quality without any date and time stamp, and was 18 seconds in duration. Although the video depicted the Complainant’s vehicle colliding with the house, it was of no probative value in relation to the pursuit of the Complainant’s vehicle prior the collision.

The second video recorded flashing emergency lights from a NRPS police cruiser [now known to be operated the SO] first depicted reflecting off the house at 509 Main Street West before the SO’s vehicle, still with emergency lights flashing, was depicted travelling eastbound on Main Street West. About four seconds later, a second NRPS policed cruiser [now known to be operated by WO #1] with its emergency lights flashing, passed at a noticeably slower rate of speed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from the NRPS between November 23, 2021, and December 21, 2021:
  • Civilian Witness Statements (x5);
  • Communications Audio Recordings;
  • Detailed Call Summary Computer Aided Dispatch Log;
  • General Order-Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
  • GPS Coordinate Map – the SO’s vehicle and WO #1’s vehicle;
  • Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
  • Narrative Text Hardcopy-Motor Vehicle Collision;
  • Narrative Text Hardcopy-Prosecution Summary;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Notes-Officer #1;
  • Notes-WO #5;
  • Notes-WO #6;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-the SO;
  • Training Summary-the SO;
  • GPS Data – the SO’s vehicle; and
  • GPS Data – WO #1’s vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • HGH medical records for the Complainant;
  • Video Footage – Harvey’s Restaurant, 575 Main Street West;
  • Video Footage – Residence #1 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street;
  • Video Footage – Residence #2 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street; and
  • Video Footage – Residence #3 near Main Street West and Oakwood Street.

Incident Narrative

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

In the evening of November 20, 2021, the Complainant, following a quarrel with her partner, entered her vehicle – a red Ford Focus – and drove at speed westbound on Main Street West. Her intention was to confront her partner at her home. Thinking better of it, the Complainant changed her mind, executed a U-turn, and continued eastward on Main Street West towards its intersection with West Side Road / Highway 58 at speeds upwards of 100 km/h.

The SO was stationary in a marked police SUV in the parking lot of B & C Truck Centre at 639 Main Street West, about 600 metres west of West Side Road / Highway 58. With him, also in a marked SUV, was WO #1. They had observed the Complainant speeding on Main Street West and decided to pursue her for a traffic infraction as she accelerated eastbound past them. They activated their emergency lights and exited the parking lot, the SO leading the way.

The Complainant picked up her speed and blew through a red light at West Side Road / Highway 58. Within seconds of doing so, the Complainant’s vehicle failed to negotiate the slight rightward bend in the road. It entered onto the westbound lane, flipped and struck the west wall of the home on the northeast corner of Main Street West and Oakwood Street. The time was about 8:40 p.m.

The SO and WO #1 were in the area of West Side Road / Highway 58 when the collision occurred. The SO had not seen the collision and continued past the wreckage a short distance before being called back to the scene by WO #1. WO #1 had also not seen the collision, but had been directed to the scene by a motorist in the area.

The Complainant was extricated from her vehicle and taken to hospital. She was diagnosed with a fractured nose.

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

On November 20, 2021, the Complainant crashed her vehicle into a home in Port Colborne, suffering a serious injury in the process. As her vehicle had briefly been pursued by two NRPS officers prior to the collision, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The lead officer in pursuit – the SO – was identified as the subject official for purposes of the SIU investigation. 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 and the Complainant’s injury.

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 contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The officers were in the lawful execution of their duties when they decided to pursue the Complainant for a traffic infraction. They had observed her travelling well in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit on Main Street West and performing a reckless U-turn at speed.

Thereafter, in the context of a very brief pursuit in time and distance – not more than a minute and several hundred metres – I am satisfied that the SO comported himself within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The officer did exceed the speed limit, at times traveling in excess of 100 km/h, but did so with his emergency lights activated (giving notice of the pursuit to other motorists and pedestrians in the area), in clear and dry conditions with little traffic on the road, and in circumstances in which a burst of acceleration was to be expected if he was to catch up to the Complainant and attempt a traffic stop. The evidence also indicates that the SO and WO #1 travelled through the red light at West Side Road / Highway 58 having decelerated as they approached the intersection, but without fully stopping as they were legally obligated to do. The indiscretion was significant but not enough, standing alone or in combination with the other evidence, to constitute a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, particularly as there was minimal traffic on West Side Road / Highway 58 and the officers were well back – upwards of a hundred metres – from the Complainant’s vehicle at the time.

In the result, there are no reasonable grounds on the aforementioned-record to believe that the SO drove dangerously in violation of the criminal law. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: March 8, 2022

Electronically approved by


Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) This time appears to have been in error. [Back to text]
  • 2) This time also appears to have been in error. [Back to text]
  • 3) 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.