SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-066
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 injuries sustained by a 22-year-old-man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIUOn March 6, 2022, at 2:28 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU and reported the following.
On March 6, 2022, at approximately 1:22 p.m., a LPS officer – the Subject Official (SO) was operating a marked police vehicle when he pulled up alongside a motorcyclist while activating his emergency lights in the area of St. George Street and Oxford Street in London. The officer motioned at the driver to pull to the side of the road. The motorcyclist ignored the request and proceeded to cross over four lanes of traffic and continued on St. George Street. The officer continued through the intersection across the four lanes, turned off his emergency lights, and travelled in the same direction.
At approximately 1:25 p.m., the officer came upon a motor vehicle collision involving the same motorcycle and a civilian vehicle in the area of St. George Street and Regent Street in London. Both the motorcyclist and the civilian were transported to the London Health Sciences Centre.
The motorcyclist was revealed to have a laceration to one of his legs and was to be admitted to hospital. The civilian’s injuries were believed to be limited to soft tissue injuries.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 03/06/2022 at 5:15 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/06/2022 at 5:32 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1
The SIU canvassed the area for witnesses and cameras.
The Forensic Investigators completed a scene examination, took photographs and video of the route, and measured it with a Total Station device for forensic mapping purposes.
The SIU entered into an agreement with the LPS that they complete a reconstruction report to be reviewed by an SIU Reconstructionist.
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):Interviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on March 6, 2022.
Civilian WitnessesCW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 7 and 14, 2022.
Subject OfficialsSO Declined to be interviewed, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness OfficialsWO Interviewed
The witness official was interviewed on March 8, 2022.
The Scene St. George Street was predominately a north/south street. It was a two-lane paved roadway that travelled through a residential area. There were no pavement markings on the roadway.
Regent Street intersected St. George Street in an east/west direction and was controlled by stop signs. Regent Street was also a two-lane paved roadway with a centre line marking on the pavement.
There were two vehicles involved within the confines of the secured area.
2001 Yamaha MotorcycleThe black motorcycle was orientated southeast lying on its right side near the middle of the intersection. There was heavy collision damage to the entire vehicle.
An area of impact was located on the pavement slightly east of the motorcycle. A tire mark was also noted east of the motorcycle that suggested travel northerly along St. George Street to the area of impact.
2013 Kia ForteThe red vehicle was orientated south on St. George Street south of the intersection. There was heavy collision damage to the driver side rear door and quarter panel.
Expert Evidence The SIU Reconstructionist analyzed the global positioning system (GPS) data of the SO’s cruiser.
The following is a summary of the pertinent GPS data from the SO’s cruiser.
At about 1:20 p.m., the cruiser exited a parking lot located on the south side of Oxford Street East, just west of Waterloo Street, and travelled westbound on Oxford Street East reaching a maximum recorded speed of 63 km/h.
At about 1:21:21 to 1:22:41 p.m., the cruiser was stationary on Oxford Street East, just east of the intersection of Oxford Street East and Richmond Street.
At about 1:22:46 to 1:23:01 p.m., the cruiser turned left onto Richmond Street and drove southbound a distance of about 115 metres. The maximum recorded speed was 40 km/h. The cruiser then turned right onto westbound Piccadilly Street.
At about 1:23:01 to 1:23:16 p.m., the cruiser travelled westbound on Piccadilly Street to St. George Street. As per Google Maps, Piccadilly Street was a one-way street for westbound traffic. The distance was about 175 metres. The maximum recorded speed was 56 km/h.
At about 1:23:16 p.m., the cruiser turned right to travel northbound on St. George Street.
At about 1:23:31 p.m., the cruiser stopped northbound on St. George Street at Oxford Street East where, as per Google Maps, there was a stop sign for St. George Street. From the intersection of Piccadilly Street and St. George Street [where the SO believed he first activated his flashing emergency lights] to the intersection of St. George Street and Oxford Street East [where the SO verbally interacted with the Complainant], the SO drove a distance of about 100 metres in about 15 seconds, which calculated to an average speed of about 23 km/h. His maximum recorded speed was about 35 km/h.
At about 1:23:56 p.m. (about 25 seconds after having stopped), the cruiser crossed the intersection of St. George Street and Oxford Street East and travelled northbound.
At about 1:24:01 to 1:25:06 p.m., the cruiser travelled northbound on St. George Street. It passed Sydenham Street where, as per Google Maps, St. George Street traffic had the right of way, and St. James Street, where there was an all-way stop sign. The data were consistent with the SO having slowed to at least 18 km/h (and perhaps slower) at the all-way stop sign at St. George Street and St. James Street.
The cruiser continued northbound and passed College Avenue, where St. George Street traffic had the right of way, and Grosvenor Street, where there was an all-way stop sign. The data were consistent with the SO having slowed to at least 8 km/h (and perhaps slower) at the all-way stop sign at St. George Street and Grosvenor Street. The cruiser continued northbound on St. George Street and passed Cromwell Street, where St. George Street traffic had the right of way.
At about 1:25:06 p.m., the cruiser was northbound on St. George Street at Cheapside Street, the third all-way stop sign on St. George Street between Oxford Street East and Cheapside Street. The SO slowed to at least 26 km/h (and perhaps slower). The distance the SO drove northbound on St. George Street from Oxford Street East to Cheapside Street was about 725 metres. His average speed was about 34 km/h, and the maximum recorded speed was about 50 km/h.
At about 1:25:11 to 1:25:41 p.m., the SO drove northbound on St. George Street. He passed Bridport Street, where there was no traffic control for St. George Street, and Victoria Street, where he slowed to at least 32 km/h (perhaps slower). He passed Sherwood Avenue where there was no traffic control for St. George Street. He drove northbound on St. George Street from Cheapside Street to the collision scene at Regent Street at an average speed of about 56 km/h, with a maximum recorded speed of 66 km/h.
At about 1:25:46 p.m., the cruiser was stationary at the collision scene where it remained for the duration of the GPS data that were provided.
From the intersection of St. George Street and Oxford Street East, where the SO verbally interacted with the Complainant, to the collision scene at St. George Street and Regent Street, the SO drove a distance of about 1.2 kilometres. He drove the distance in about one minute and 45 seconds for an average rate of speed of about 41 km/h. His maximum speed, which was 66 km/h, was recorded just south of Regent Street as he approached the collision scene.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence The SIU obtained audio and video records of relevance, as set out below.
Communication RecordingsOn March 7, 2022, the SIU received communication recordings from the LPS. A summary of the pertinent information from the recordings follows.
On March 6, 2022, at 1:04 p.m., a LPS officer reported that a white un-plated motorcycle had fled from him, last seen southbound on Pond Mills Road. He had not pursued the vehicle.
At 1:21 p.m., the SO reported that a dark-coloured motorcycle, travelling with the white motorcycle, had fled from him northbound on St. George Street following a request to pull over. The SO said, “I’m not going after him,” and provided the Complainant’s description. The SO then proceeded northbound on St. George Street. He requested additional police officers, “Code 1,” and the EMS (Emergency Medical Services), believing the Complainant had “wiped out” ahead.
While travelling at approximately 30 km/h, the SO was flagged down by bystanders at Sherwood Avenue, alerting him of a man lying in the roadway. The Complainant was unconscious, breathing, and bleeding from the mouth. An off-duty paramedic was supporting his neck and spine.
The SO requested that additional officers attend the intersection of St. George and Regent Streets for scene control and witness statements.
The SO informed a sergeant he had not gone after the Complainant when he took off.
At 1:58 p.m., the SO requested that a video canvass along St. George Street between Oxford Street and Regent Street be completed. A LPS officer reported locating and reviewing a doorbell camera from an address on St. George Street, which did not capture the incident.
Video FootageOn March 7, 2022, a woman provided the SIU video footage from a camera on the east side of her home. The following is a summary of the pertinent information from the footage.
On March 6, 2022, at 1:24:08 p.m., a motorcycle was seen and heard travelling north on St. George Street with a loud engine reeving noise. The motorcycle was in view for two seconds and continued north out of camera view. The engine could still be heard for several seconds.
At 1:24:48 p.m., a white marked LPS SUV police cruiser was captured travelling north on St. George Street at normal speed with no emergency lights or siren activated. The LPS police cruiser was 40 seconds behind the motorcycle, travelling at normal speed.
Materials Obtained from Police Service The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the LPS:
- Detailed Call Summary;
- Field Sketch;
- General Occurrence Report;
- GPS data for the SO’s cruiser;
- Event Data Recorder Report;
- Ministry of Transportation Checks;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Occurrence Report (SO);
- Police Witness Statement-WO;
- Reconstruction Field Notes;
- Traffic and Motor Vehicles-Police Vehicles Operating Procedures;
- Vehicle Diagram;
- Vehicle Examination Notes-Kia;
- Vehicle Examination Notes-motorcycle; and
- Communications recordings.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
- Middlesex-London EMS - Ambulance Call Report;
- Medical record - London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC); and
- Video footage from a camera on the east side of a home facing St. George Street.
In the early afternoon of March 6, 2022, the SO was in his marked police SUV travelling westbound on Oxford Street East when his attention was drawn to a couple of motorcycles stopped ahead of him at the Richmond Street intersection. There had earlier in the day been a report of a motorcycle having fled from the police, and one of the two motorcycles matched the description. When the light turned green, the suspect motorcycle accelerated at speed westward on Oxford Street East. The other motorcycle turned left to travel south on Richmond Street. The SO decided to follow the vehicle on Richmond Street as it had appeared to him that the two motorcyclists were riding together.
The Complainant was operating the motorcycle. At modest speeds, with the cruiser behind him, he travelled south until Piccadilly Street, where he turned to travel west and then north on St. George Street. As he approached Oxford Street East, the cruiser’s emergency lights came on and the officer motioned to him to pull over. The Complainant momentarily came to a stop, but then accelerated north on St. George Street across Oxford Street East.
The SO followed northwards on St. George Street past the intersection, scanning the side streets to try to re-locate the motorcycle. As he reached Cheapside Street, the officer could see in the distance the motorcycle lying on the roadway at the intersection of St. George Street and Regent Street. He continued to the intersection and observed that a collision had taken place.
Once across Oxford Street East, the Complainant had raced northwards on St. George Street at breakneck speed, completely disregarding stop signs in the process. As the Complainant entered Regent Street, he struck the rear driver’s side of a Kia proceeding westbound through the intersection. Both vehicles came to rest in and around the intersection.
The driver of the Kia – CW #6 – was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. The Complainant was not so lucky. He suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured orbital bone.
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
Analysis and Director's Decision
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 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 caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was none.
I am satisfied that the SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he signaled the Complainant to pull over. The officer hoped to speak with the Complainant as he had appeared to be riding together with a motorcyclist wanted for having fled the police earlier in the day.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the Complainant. There is no indication of excessive speed at any time by the officer as he traveled along the same route he had seen the Complainant take before losing sight of him. Nor is there any indication of any traffic being directly imperiled by the officer as he slowed, but did not stop, at one or more of the stop signs he encountered on St. George Street en route to the site of the collision. Lastly, it bears noting that the officer was about a minute behind the motorcycle at the time of the collision, negating any suggestion that he unduly pushed the Complainant.
In the result, as I am satisfied that the officer did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the events that preceded the collision, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 28, 2022
Special Investigations Unit
- 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]
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.