SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-087
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 injury a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn March 24, 2022, the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to HRPS, on March 24, 2022, at approximately 3:30 a.m., HRPS police officers responded to a robbery call and a related ‘theft from mailbox’ occurrence in Georgetown. The suspect vehicle from both events was located and observed by police heading down a dead-end road in Georgetown. Police officers set up a roadblock and waited for the suspect vehicle to return. The suspect vehicle did a U-turn and proceeded towards the roadblock. Upon nearing the roadblock, the suspect vehicle veered onto the shoulder and then into the ditch. The suspect driver, the Complainant, fled on foot but was captured by police officers a short distance away. The other two occupants of the vehicle were arrested at the vehicle.
All three individuals complained of soreness and were transported to Georgetown Hospital (GH) for assessment. It was determined that the driver of the vehicle had sustained a broken clavicle as a result of the motor vehicle collision. The passengers were identified as Passenger 1 and Passenger 2. 
The Team Date and time team dispatched: 03/24/2022 at 10:15 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/24/2022 at 2:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):28-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on March 24, 2022
Civilian Witnesses (CW)CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 24, 2022.
Witness Officials (WO) WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on March 31, 2022
The Scene The collision occurred outside a residence on Roydon Place. The GMC SUV struck a concrete light pole on the front yard of the property. No scene examination was conducted by the SIU.
HRPS Scenes of Crime Officer took photographs.
Figure 1 – Google Maps aerial view of scene
Figure 2 – HRPS photograph of the GMC SUV in contact with the pole
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
HRPS Radio CommunicationsAt 2:39 a.m.,  the radio dispatcher called for units to attend a ‘Circle K’ in Georgetown for two men in the store motioning as if they had a gun. A gun was not seen by the caller. The men stole an amount of cash and a few lighters. A description of the males was provided. They were last seen southbound on foot.
At 2:39 a.m., a call-out was made for a canine unit.
At 3:27 a.m., it was reported that two males were breaking into mailboxes on Rosefield Drive. The canine unit reported turning right on Delroy and then going onto Roydon Place - a dead-end street. A unit was heard to broadcast, “Block him in, block him.” A unit broadcast, “We’ve got quite a bit of a scene here, we are going to need units for support.”
At 3:33 a.m., a unit reported they had a ‘92’ (arrested person) at an address on Rosefield Drive. Another unit advised he had a ‘92’ at his location - a male, probably 30 years of age, in and out of consciousness. He had been in a car accident.
An officer requested a marker for the vehicle involved in the accident and it came back as stolen. The officer advised there were three in custody. The vehicle had driven head-on into a light standard. One of the occupants was not responding to sternum rubs. He was breathing but was not doing great. A request was made for a rush on the ambulance.
There was a broadcast requesting a second ambulance and for the town to look at the light pole.
911 Call to HRPSAt 3:27 a.m., on March 24, 2022, CW #1 called 911 to report two men armed with a crowbar and flashlight were attempting to pry open mailboxes on Rosefield Drive. She described the two men as wearing dark clothing.
While on the phone with the call-taker, CW #1 saw police vehicles with emergency lights activated proceeding on Rosefield Drive. She then saw police officers pursuing two men on foot on Rosefield Drive. The call-taker thanked CW #1 for calling after the two men were placed in custody.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage - WO #3’s Police CruiserThe camera in WO #3’s police cruiser was pointed out the front windshield. It was not activated at the time of the events in question.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from HRPS between March 25 and 28, 2022:
- Call History;
- Communication recordings;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
- ICCS footage; and
- Scene photographs.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
- Medical records from GH – the Complainant;
- Medical records from GH – Passenger 1; and
- Medical records from GH – Passenger 2.
At about 3:30 a.m. of March 24, 2022, the Complainant was in the company of two associates in the area of Roydon Place and Rosefield Drive, Georgetown, when they were approached by several HRPS vehicles. The Complainant, operating a stolen SUV with his associates as passengers, travelled east on Rosefield Drive and then south onto Roydon Place to get away. At the end of Roydon Place, a dead-end road, the Complainant turned left to execute a U-turn.
Led by WO #1, the police vehicles followed the Complainant onto Roydon Place. In an effort to prevent the Complainant’s escape, WO #1 also turned left intending to block his path. Behind WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2 maneuvered their cruisers into position in front of the homes on the east side of the roadway.
Aware of the blockade taking shape in front of him, the Complainant mounted the curb onto the front lots of the east side homes and attempted to negotiate a path around the police vehicles. Just before WO #2’s cruiser, he turned to the left and struck a concrete light standard with the front driver’s end of the SUV. The Complainant was not wearing a seatbelt at the time and suffered an injury – a fractured left clavicle – in the collision.
The Complainant and one of his associates were taken into custody from the SUV. The other party exited the vehicle and fled a short distance before he too was arrested.
Section 320.13 (2) 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. Being an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, what is required, in part, is negligence amounting 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 on the part of the officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3 were in the lawful execution of their duties at the time of the events in question. They had received information of a 911 call from a home in the area reporting persons attempting to break into a mailbox on Rosefield Drive. They had cause to believe that these persons were also implicated in a recent robbery at a Circle K store a couple of kilometres away. In both instances, the suspects were thought to be in possession of weapons. On this record, I accept that the officers were within their rights in seeking to stop the vehicle for investigation of criminal offences.
I am also satisfied that the officers conducted themselves with due care and regard for the health and safety of the SUV’s occupants. The entire intervention took place at moderate speeds and lasted no more than a matter of seconds. During that time, there is no evidence of any police officer intentionally striking the SUV. The decision made by the officers to maneuver their cruisers to block the SUV’s egress from the dead-end street was reasonable. While the tactic created a risk of collision, the risk was a calculated one in light of the nature of the crimes for which the Complainant and his associates were being pursued, the moderate speeds, and the lack of third-party traffic on the roadway at that time of day.
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence does not establish that any of the officers involved in the pursuit of the Complainant transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.
Date: July 21, 2022
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) Passenger 1 and Passenger 2 declined to provide interviews to the SIU. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
- 3) The times were retrieved from the Call History Report. [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.