SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-007
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 ActPursuant 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 19-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and another 19-year-old man (“Complainant #2”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn January 15, 2022, at 1:02 a.m., the Kingston Police (KP) notified the SIU of a civilian-on-civilian vehicle collision.
According to KP, the Subject Official (SO) had initiated a vehicle stop and the driver fled. The SO turned on her emergency equipment but stopped and notified dispatch. She proceeded and came upon a collision. Complainant #1 was taken to Kingston General Hospital and diagnosed with a fractured collar bone. Complainant #2 was also transported to hospital. It was unknown whether he had suffered any injuries at the time of notification.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 01/17/2022 at 9:08 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/18/2022 at 1:30 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”): Complainant #1 19-year-old male; interviewed
Complainant #2 19-year-old male; interviewed
The Complainants were interviewed between January 18 and 21, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)CW #1 Not interviewed 
CW #2 Not interviewed 
CW #3 Not interviewed 
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on March 4, 2022.
Subject OfficialSO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on January 28, 2022.
Witness Official (WO)WO Interviewed
The witness official was interviewed on January 21, 2022.
The Scene The incident took place in the intersection of Nelson Street and Concession Street. Nelson Street travelled in a north and south direction. It was a two-laned paved roadway controlled by a stop sign on opposing sides of Concession Street. Concession Street travelled in an east and west direction and intersected at Nelson Street. It was a four-laned roadway with the right-of-way.
An area of impact had been identified in the centre of the intersection. A Honda Civic had collided with the front driver side of a Nissan Versa operated by CW #2.
There were two vehicles involved in the collision.
Vehicle 1 – Honda Civic, 2-door
This vehicle was orientated north at the northeast corner of the intersection off the roadway. There was heavy front-end collision damage to the vehicle.
Vehicle 2 – Nissan Versa, 4-door
This vehicle was orientated southeast at the northwest corner of the intersection, off the roadway. There was damage to the front driver side of the vehicle.
Global Positioning System (GPS) DataThe KP vehicle, operated by the SO, was equipped with a GPS receiver which captured data related to the time, location, and speed of the vehicle. The GPS data provided by the KP commenced on January 14, 2022, at 11:46 p.m., and concluded at 11:56 p.m.
The following is a summary of the pertinent data.
- At 11:47:09 p.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Queen Street at Barrie Street at about 38 km/h.
- At 11:48:06 p.m., the SO travelled westbound on Queen Street, 50 metres west of Barrie Street, at a speed of 1.6 km/h. [It was believed this was the point when the SO was in the process of stopping her vehicle.] The SO remained stationary for about 39 seconds.
- The SO proceeded northbound onto Division Street. The SO turned right at the intersection that was controlled by a traffic control light. [It was unclear what colour the light was or if the SO had the right-of-way, due to the incremental GPS points with approximately 45-second delay between some points.]
- At 11:48:45 p.m., the SO travelled northbound on Division Street at a speed of 48 km/h, the highest speed the SO reached. She travelled through the intersecting road of Ellice Street. Ellice Street was a one-way street that travelled eastbound. It started at Division Street, making it evident that the SO had the right-of-way.
- At 11:49:03 p.m., the SO was northbound on Division Street at Main Street. She travelled at about 33 km/h and had the right-of-way.
- At 11:49:33 p.m., the SO continued northbound on Division Street at Stanley Street and had the right-of-way, with no traffic control on Division Street.
- At 11:49:57 p.m., the SO reached the Circle K located at Division Street and Stephen Street, where she stopped her police vehicle.
- At 11:52:03 p.m., the SO departed the area. It appeared that the SO returned southbound on Division Street and travelled westbound onto Stanley Street. The SO travelled 30 km/h. It was unclear if the SO came to a complete stop at the intersection controlled by a stop sign - she was 26 metres away from the intersection when the GPS documented the coordinates in that area.
- At 11:53:16 p.m., the SO travelled northbound on Alfred Street at 35 km/h.
- At t 11:53:57 p.m., the SO travelled westbound on Concession Street at 35 km/h. She subsequently reached the intersection in which the collision had occurred 100 metres west, at Concession Street and Nelson Street.
- For the remainder of the GPS data entries, the SO’s vehicle remained stationary at the collision scene.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Police Communications RecordingsThe SIU was provided with communications recordings from the KP in relation to this incident on January 14, 2022. The audio recordings were not time-stamped.
The following is a summary of the pertinent information contained in the recordings.
- On January 14, 2022, the SO alerted the dispatcher of a blue four-door vehicle occupied by two men. It had fled from her heading northbound on Division Street from Queen Street.
- Officer #1 alerted the dispatcher he was southbound on Division Street.
- The SO asked the dispatcher if she could continue to check for the vehicle.
- The dispatcher confirmed the SO could continue.
- The SO informed the dispatcher the vehicle had performed a ‘donut’ in the intersection of Queen Street and Clergy Street, driven at her police vehicle head-on, swerved around her police vehicle, and continued. Officer #1 informed the SO that a blue vehicle had pulled into the Circle K.
- The dispatcher directed that officers attend at 316 Nelson Street for a two-vehicle collision involving injuries.
- The SO requested more ambulances.
- A police officer informed the dispatcher that they had one individual in custody for impaired driving.
- The same officer informed the dispatcher that the male in custody was identified as CW #1.
SIU Canvass Efforts - SummaryOn February 12, 2022, a SIU investigator attended the identified area in the central core of the City of Kingston. The area from the intersection of Queen Street and Clergy Street, and west on Queen Street to an area just west of the intersection of Queen Street and Barrie Street, and northbound on Division Street to the intersection of Division Street and Concession Street, was the focus of the canvass. The investigator was unsuccessful in obtaining security camera video footage or witness testimony after a canvass of the area.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials from KP between January 19, 2022 and March 22, 2022:
- Email from KP regarding the unavailability of Crash Data Retrieval information;
- Email from KP regarding GPS data;
- Email from KP regarding vehicles;
- Communications recordings;
- Detailed Call Summary Chronology;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Field Sketch-Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) diagram;
- MVC Report;
- MVC Vehicle Movement Synopsis;
- Statement-CW #4;
- Notes-the WO; and
- Notes-the SO.
At about 11:47 p.m. of January 14, 2022, the SO, operating a marked cruiser, briefly attempted to stop a vehicle on Queen Street in and around its intersection with Barrie Street. While travelling eastbound, she had observed a vehicle being operated recklessly westbound towards her location. The vehicle had spun out in the intersection of Queen Street and Clergy Street, after which it travelled west in the eastbound lanes before swerving around the officer’s cruiser and continuing through the Queen and Barrie Streets intersection on a red light. After executing a U-turn, the SO followed after the vehicle through the Barrie Street intersection but quickly abandoned any thoughts of a pursuit as it accelerated away westbound and turned north onto Division Street. The officer stopped her cruiser curbside, radioed what had just happened and, receiving permission to follow the route taken by the vehicle, continued onto Division Street travelling north.
A couple of minutes after her communication with the dispatcher, the police received word of a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Concession Street and Nelson Street. A 2-door Honda Civic, occupied by three males, had run the stop sign at Concession Road traveling north into the intersection, and struck a Nissan Versa. The SO attended at the scene of the collision to render assistance. Suspecting that the Civic might have been the vehicle she had earlier observed, the officer notified a sergeant.
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, passengers in the Civic, were seriously injured. The former was diagnosed with a fractured collarbone and the latter reportedly suffered a concussion. The driver of the vehicle, CW #1, was charged with impaired driving. The occupants of the Nissan Versa, CW #3 and CW #2, were fortunate to have escaped serious injury.
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
Analysis and Director's Decision
There is no evidence of any dangerous driving or want of care in the manner in which the SO operated her vehicle that could attract criminal lability under either section 320.13 or 221 of the Criminal Code. Having observed a vehicle being operated dangerously, the officer was within her rights in deciding to stop it. She did so reasonably without creating any hazards on the roadway – she activated the cruiser’s emergency lights, briefly turned on its siren to safely clear the intersection at Barrie Street, and wisely pulled over after the intersection when it became clear that the driver of the vehicle had fled the area at speed. Thereafter, there is again no indicia of risky driving by the SO as she travelled north on Division Street and then towards the scene of the collision at Nelson Street and Concession Street. Her speed was at all times within the speed limit.
In the final analysis, it remains unclear whether the Civic involved in the collision was the same vehicle that the SO had seen minutes earlier. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the moments prior to the collision, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer. The file is closed.
Date: May 13, 2022
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) CW #1 had no memory of the incident. [Back to text]
- 2) The SIU was unable to locate CW #2. [Back to text]
- 3) The SIU was unable to locate CW #3. [Back to text]
- 4) 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]
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.