SIU Director’s Report - Case # 21-OVI-430
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 a serious injury sustained by a 68-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 68-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On December 31, 2021, at 3:33 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU and reported the following.On December 31, 2021, at approximately 8:24 a.m., a PRP officer was operating a marked police vehicle in the area of Dixie Road and Bloor Street. The officer was responding to a ‘priority one’ call with her lights and siren activated. The officer entered the intersection and was struck by a civilian vehicle. The civilian driver and officer were transported to Mississauga General Hospital. The officer was treated for minor injuries and released. The civilian driver was diagnosed with a fractured sternum.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 12/31/2021 at 4:23 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/31/2021 at 5:30 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
68-year-old male interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on February 15, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 2, 2022, and January 3, 2022.
Subject Officials
SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on February 16, 2022.
Witness Officials
WO Interviewed The witness official was interviewed on January 7, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The Complainant sustained his injuries in a motor vehicle collision in the intersection of Dixie Road and Bloor Street. Dixie Road travelled in a north and south direction, intersecting with Bloor Street – an east and west roadway. Dixie Road and Bloor Street were both controlled by traffic signal lights. Dixie Road was a multi-lane road with a raised median dividing north and southbound traffic. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h. Bloor Street was also a multi-lane road with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h.
There was evidence of a scrape in the northeast quadrant of the intersection where the collision occurred.
There was a total of two motor vehicles involved:
2019 PRP Dodge Charger
The vehicle was on top of a flatbed tow truck in the westbound lanes west of the intersection. It had the markings of PRP and was equipped with exterior emergency lights. There was damage to the front end, concentrated on the right front corner, and further damage to the right rear quarter panel. 
Figure 1 – The 2019 PRP Dodge Charger.
2017 Mazda CX3
The vehicle was attached to a tow truck in the northbound lanes, north of the intersection. It had severe damage to the front end concentrated on the left front corner. It also had damage to the left rear corner.
Figure 2 - The 2017 Mazda CX3.
Forensic Evidence
2017 Mazda CX3 – Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data
The CDR system for the Complainant’s vehicle revealed that five seconds prior to the collision, the Mazda was travelling at 69 km/h and that it maintained that speed up until the point of impact. The continuity of speed suggests that the Complainant never saw the police vehicle until the point of impact.The SO’s PRP Cruiser – Global Positioning System (GPS) Data
The following is a summary of the pertinent GPS data from the SO’s cruiser.After turning onto Dixie Road from Dundas Street East, the SO travelled about 1.2 kilometres northbound until the collision scene. She accelerated to a top speed of 111.6 km/h in the posted 60 km/h zone.
The SO’s PRP Cruiser – CDR Data
At 5 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 35 km/h.At 4 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 19 km/h.
At 3.2 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 15 km/h.
At 3 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 16 km/h.
At 2 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 28 km/h.
At 1 second prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 39 km/h.
At 0.1 seconds prior to collision, the cruiser was travelling at 47 km/h.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
The SIU searched for and obtained audio and video records of relevance, as set out below. On December 31, 2021, a PRP officer was responding to a call for service – a ‘medical assist’ - and was involved in a collision with a civilian vehicle at the intersection of Dixie Road and Bloor Street. The PRP supplied the SIU with a copy of pertinent telephone calls and radio transmissions. The following is a summary of the relevant information.
Telephone Calls - Medical Assist
- At 8:18:50 a.m., the police service received a call from the ambulance service requesting that a police officer attend at a residence in the area of Burnhamthorpe Road East and Fieldgate Drive, Mississauga. A 52-year-old man had suffered a seizure and was verbally aggressive towards paramedics. The paramedics had removed themselves from the house and were speaking to family outside.
Telephone Calls - Motor Vehicle Collision
- At 8:23:58 a.m., a 911 call from CW #2 was received. She reported that a police vehicle [redacted] was hit at Dixie Road and Bloor Street. A police officer had exited the vehicle and the ambulance was on scene. CW #2 said her father saw more of the collision than she did.
- At 8:24:00 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #3. She said a PRP vehicle had been involved in a collision at Dixie Road and Bloor Street. She reported that the police officer seemed alright, and the other driver in the Mazda was still in the vehicle. The police officer was driving through the intersection with her lights on, very slow, and it appeared the other driver did not see her.
- At 8:24:02 a.m., a 911 call was received from CW #5. CW #5 reported he was on his balcony when he saw a police vehicle with its siren activated go through the intersection of Dixie Road and Bloor Street on a red light when another vehicle struck it. An ambulance and a tow truck were at the scene.
- At 9:46:16 a.m., CW #1 called to report that he had witnessed a collision. CW #1 said he saw a police vehicle pass to the left of him northbound in the left turn lane, then drive in front of him. The lights came on as it was going through the intersection. A vehicle travelling westbound, a bit too fast, collided with the police vehicle.
Radio Transmissions – Medical Assist
- At 8:19:08 a.m., the dispatcher asked an officer to attend a “Priority Medical Assist” at a residence in the area of Burnhamthorpe Road East and Fieldgate Drive, Mississauga. It was reported that paramedics had arrived five minutes ago. A 52-year-old man was having a seizure. Paramedics requested police attend as the man was aggressive.
- At 8:20:28 a.m., the SO said she would respond.
Radio Transmissions – Motor Vehicle Collision
- At 8:26:04 a.m., the dispatcher advised the SO that she was getting calls of a motor vehicle collision. The dispatcher asked the SO if she was okay. The SO said, “No, I have been in an MVC [Motor Vehicle Collision].” The SO said an ambulance was on scene. The dispatcher asked the WO to attend the scene.
- The WO asked the dispatcher what the injuries were. The dispatcher said the SO was not injured, and she was trying to determine if anyone else was.
- At 8:32:05 a.m., the WO requested that additional units attend. He told the SO to leave the property where it was on the roadway. The SO was asked if anyone else was injured and she said, “No.”
- At 8:36:05 a.m., the WO provided the dispatcher with the licence plate of the other involved vehicle. He said there was one man in the back of the ambulance, and that there was not much in the way of injury.
- At 8:50:51 a.m., the WO said the ambulance was taking the man to Trillium and that an officer would meet him there.
Video Footage – Husky Gas Station
On January 3, 2022, SIU investigators obtained video footage from the Husky gas station located on the northeast corner of Dixie Road and Bloor Street in Mississauga. There were several cameras located at the Husky that captured portions of Dixie Road and Bloor Street. There were no time stamps on the video recordings except for the start time. The following is a summary of the footage, beginning at 8:20:00 a.m.
- At 00:03:46 hrs into the recoding, the traffic light for westbound traffic on Bloor Street turned green.
- At 00:03:58 hrs into the recording, the light remained green for west and eastbound traffic on Bloor Street.
- At 00:04:00 hrs into the recording, a fully marked police vehicle was seen with emergency lights activated travelling north on Dixie Road in the right through lane approaching Bloor Street.
- At 00:04:02 hrs into the recording, a white SUV vehicle stopped in the left turn lane on Bloor Street at Dixie Road.
- At 00:04:05 hrs into the recording, the police vehicle slowed and then continued north into the intersection.
- At 00:04:06 hrs into the recording, a blue vehicle going west on Bloor Street in the through lane approached Dixie Road and continued into the intersection.
- At 00:04:08 hrs into the recording, the police vehicle and the blue vehicle collided in the westbound lanes of Bloor Street at the intersection of Dixie Road.
- At 00:04:10 hrs into the recording, the blue vehicle came to a stop facing north in the left northbound lane of Dixie Road. The police vehicle came to a stop facing west in the southbound lanes of Dixie Road at Bloor Street.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the PRP:- GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser;
- Communications recordings;
- Event Details Report regarding a ‘medical-assist’ call for service;
- Event Details Report regarding a motor vehicle collision involving the SO’s cruiser;
- Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
- CDR data associated with a 2017 Mazda and the SO’s cruiser;
- Notes of the SO; and
- PRP Scene Photos.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:- Photo of scene from CW #3; and
- Video footage from Husky Gas.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, and may be briefly summarized.
In the morning of December 31, 2021, the Complainant, alone in a Mazda vehicle, was travelling west on Bloor Street approaching Dixie Road. He was driving in the passing lane at a speed of about 70 km/h.
At the same time, the SO was travelling north on Dixie Road at speed on her way to an urgent call for service. She had been dispatched to attend at an address to assist paramedics who were dealing with an aggressive male. The officer approached the roadway’s intersection at Bloor Street with her emergency equipment on. She slowed her cruiser and entered the intersection without stopping, after which she accelerated northward.
The Complainant entered the intersection on a green light and struck the SO’s cruiser. The impact sent the Mazda northward where it came to rest facing north in the northbound lanes of Dixie Road. The cruiser ended up in the intersection, facing southwest.
The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital in ambulance. He was reportedly diagnosed with a fractured sternum.
The SO was not seriously injured in the collision.
In the morning of December 31, 2021, the Complainant, alone in a Mazda vehicle, was travelling west on Bloor Street approaching Dixie Road. He was driving in the passing lane at a speed of about 70 km/h.
At the same time, the SO was travelling north on Dixie Road at speed on her way to an urgent call for service. She had been dispatched to attend at an address to assist paramedics who were dealing with an aggressive male. The officer approached the roadway’s intersection at Bloor Street with her emergency equipment on. She slowed her cruiser and entered the intersection without stopping, after which she accelerated northward.
The Complainant entered the intersection on a green light and struck the SO’s cruiser. The impact sent the Mazda northward where it came to rest facing north in the northbound lanes of Dixie Road. The cruiser ended up in the intersection, facing southwest.
The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital in ambulance. He was reportedly diagnosed with a fractured sternum.
The SO was not seriously injured in the collision.
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.
Section 128(13)(b), Highway Traffic Act – Police vehicles and speeding
128(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,
(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.
Sections 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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant suffered a serious injury in a motor vehicle collision in Mississauga on December 31, 2021. As his vehicle had collided with a PRP 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 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 her cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful execution of her duties as she made her way to the scene of a call for service. As such, the officer was entitled to exceed the speed limit pursuant to section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act provided she did not unduly compromise public safety. The officer achieved speeds as high as 112 km/h as she travelled northward on Dixie Road, in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit, before activating her emergency equipment. While concerning, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law vis-à-vis her speed, particularly in light of the ideal road conditions, brief nature of the conduct and the urgent call for service to which she was responding.
The SO’s failure to come to a complete stop at the Bloor Street intersection is also subject to legitimate scrutiny. Section 144(20) makes clear that an officer may proceed through a red light, but only when it is safe to do so after first coming to a full stop. The provision is there to guard against the very collision that materialized in this case by requiring an officer, whose focus may be on arriving at a scene as quickly as possible, to take stock of the situation at an intersection by coming to a full stop at a red light. It is apparent that the SO failed to do just that. She ought to have stopped fully. And she ought to have noticed the Complainant’s vehicle approaching the intersection without slowing down. In so doing, I am satisfied that the officer drove dangerously.
That said, I am also satisfied that the SO’s conduct did not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. Though she failed to stop at red light, the evidence establishes that she significantly slowed to a speed below 15 km/h with her emergency equipment activated and had observed that eastbound traffic had come to stop before accelerating into the intersection. On this record, weighed in the balance with these extenuating considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s indiscretion was sufficiently wanting to attract criminal sanction. Rather, her transgression is fairly characterized as a momentary lapse of judgement, which the case law makes clear will rarely be sufficient to give rise to liability: R v Roy, [2012] 2 SCR 60; R v Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds on the totality of the evidence to believe that the SO drove dangerously in violation of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 27, 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 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 her cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful execution of her duties as she made her way to the scene of a call for service. As such, the officer was entitled to exceed the speed limit pursuant to section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act provided she did not unduly compromise public safety. The officer achieved speeds as high as 112 km/h as she travelled northward on Dixie Road, in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit, before activating her emergency equipment. While concerning, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law vis-à-vis her speed, particularly in light of the ideal road conditions, brief nature of the conduct and the urgent call for service to which she was responding.
The SO’s failure to come to a complete stop at the Bloor Street intersection is also subject to legitimate scrutiny. Section 144(20) makes clear that an officer may proceed through a red light, but only when it is safe to do so after first coming to a full stop. The provision is there to guard against the very collision that materialized in this case by requiring an officer, whose focus may be on arriving at a scene as quickly as possible, to take stock of the situation at an intersection by coming to a full stop at a red light. It is apparent that the SO failed to do just that. She ought to have stopped fully. And she ought to have noticed the Complainant’s vehicle approaching the intersection without slowing down. In so doing, I am satisfied that the officer drove dangerously.
That said, I am also satisfied that the SO’s conduct did not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. Though she failed to stop at red light, the evidence establishes that she significantly slowed to a speed below 15 km/h with her emergency equipment activated and had observed that eastbound traffic had come to stop before accelerating into the intersection. On this record, weighed in the balance with these extenuating considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s indiscretion was sufficiently wanting to attract criminal sanction. Rather, her transgression is fairly characterized as a momentary lapse of judgement, which the case law makes clear will rarely be sufficient to give rise to liability: R v Roy, [2012] 2 SCR 60; R v Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds on the totality of the evidence to believe that the SO drove dangerously in violation of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 27, 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.