SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-116


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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On April 20, 2022, at 5:26 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, at 2:39 a.m., PRP officers responded to a break and enter in progress at a business at 5165 Dixie Road, Mississauga. The Complainant was at the back of the business and was arresting Civilian Witness (CW) #2 when the Subject Officer (SO) struck the Complainant and CW #2 with his cruiser. Both individuals were taken to Trillium Health Partners (THP) in Mississauga. The Complainant had been diagnosed with a fractured nose and lacerations of the face that would need plastic surgery. CW #2 had yet to diagnosed with any injuries at the time of notification.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/20/2022 at 6:31 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/20/2022 at 6:34 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) assigned: 2

The SIU canvassed the area for security cameras and witnesses.

The FIs completed a scene examination, measured it with a Total Station device for forensic mapping purposes, and took photographs.

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

42-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 26, 2022.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 20, 2022.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 9, 2022.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 21, 2022.


The Scene

On April 20, 2022, the SIU FIs attended the scene, a strip-plaza at 5165 Dixie Road in the City of Mississauga. The plaza was surrounded by Dixie Road on the front (south) side, Matheson Boulevard at the back (north) side, and Amico Boulevard on the east side of the road. There was a large construction site on the west side of the plaza. The scene included a large parking lot that was adjacent to Matheson Boulevard.

There was an un-plated 53-foot Fruehauf trailer in the parking lot. It had been placed against the north curb of the parking lot, extending south towards the plaza. It was behind tire marks on the boulevard and a running shoe.

The tire tracks led from the east side of the trailer over a curb, across a grass median and sidewalk to a fully marked and decaled PRP cruiser. This police cruiser had damage to its front left corner. The police cruiser was facing in a northerly direction across the eastbound lane of Matheson Boulevard, with its rear left wheel up on the curb. There were black scuff marks to the bumper and the plastic was cracked. A section of the front bumper had broken away and was pushed back towards the engine area. The black wheel well molding had broken away from the metal fender.

A running shoe was found on the sidewalk behind the police cruiser.

Tire marks were noticeable in the parking lot, onto the parking lot curb, and across the grassy surface leading to the police vehicle. It was apparent that the police vehicle was travelling north through the parking lot before it mounted the curb and crossed over the boulevard.

The commercial building at the south side of the parking lot housed several restaurants. A second storey window was noticeably broken. A quantity of two dollar coins was on the north of the building and east of the trailer.

Figure 1 – Image of scene

Physical Evidence

On April 21, 2022, at 8:30 a.m., a SIU FI attended a business and retrieved five CEW probes and one blast door that were reportedly found in the parking lot (west side parking lot on the northeast corner of Matheson Boulevard and Simset Road).

The parking lot was photographed and further CEW debris was located. Also located were two blast doors, internal protective plastic pieces, and three Anti-felon Identification Disks.

Expert Evidence

Incident Reconstruction

On April 20, 2022, at 2:38 a.m., a collision occurred between a marked PRP vehicle being driven by the SO and the Complainant. CW #2 and the Complainant (pedestrians) were heading northbound on the west side of a parked trailer. The police vehicle was heading diagonally (roughly northwest) on the east side of the parked trailer. The pedestrians emerged from around the trailer at about the same time as the police vehicle and an impact occurred.

Available GPS and Event Data Recorder (EDR) data, and video camera footage, of the incident were analyzed.

The incident occurred in a commercial parking lot at 5165 Dixie Road:
  • The involved police vehicle came to rest in the eastbound lane of Matheson Boulevard facing in a northwest direction (see Figure 2).
  • Curved tire marks extended from the north edge of the parking lot to the final rest position of the police vehicle (see Figure 3).
  • The Complainant came to rest on the sidewalk to the south of the involved police vehicle.
  • A parked box trailer was located at the north side of the parking lot just south of the police vehicle and was aligned in a north-south direction.

Figure 2 – Image depicting the final rest position of the police vehicle. The shoe found at the scene can been seen on the sidewalk near the middle of the photograph.

Figure 3 – Image depicting the curved tire marks leading to the final rest position of the police vehicle.
The EDR data from the cruiser were of no evidentiary value.

The GPS data extended from 2:29:00 a.m. to 2:41:00 a.m. in roughly one second increments. The data included a time stamp, GPS co-ordinates, vehicle speed, and vehicle heading.

Point of Impact
The point of impact was determined based on the physical evidence and the video footage. In particular, the investigator relied on the damage to the left front corner of the vehicle, the location of the curved tire marks, and the body camera video from the Complainant.

Reconstruction of Events
The movement of the pedestrians and of the police vehicle was assessed based on the police GPS data and on the video footage.

At 2:38:52 a.m., the police vehicle is captured on the video footage emerging from the right side of the frame and nearing the area of impact. It took approximately 1.6 seconds for the vehicle to travel about 20 metres, which translated to an average speed of about 45 km/h. The GPS data showed the police vehicle was traveling about 50 km/h and slowing to 30 km/h at impact.

In summary, CW #2 and the Complainant were running in a northeast direction on the west side of the parked trailer. The police vehicle was traveling in a northwest direction on the east side of the parked trailer. It was unlikely CW #2 and the Complainant were visible to the SO, or that the police vehicle was visible to CW #2 and the Complainant until just before impact. The speed of the police vehicle was primarily between 40 and 50 km/h as it negotiated through the parking lot and slowed to about 30 km/h at impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

On May 4, 2022, the SIU received the PRP communications recordings pertaining to the incident. The following is a summary of the pertinent information.

Radio Transmissions

Patrol units were requested to attend at a break and enter at 5165 Dixie Road.

Two men were reported to have entered a business.

Unknown police officers confirmed that they saw two men inside the building. One of the men ran from the ground floor upstairs to the second floor. Another man ran on Matheson Boulevard.

One of the men was in custody and an ambulance was requested because the Complainant had been run over by a police cruiser.

Telephone Calls

A man called police and indicated he saw two men breaking into a business on Dixie Road.

An alarm company called 911 and indicated that someone was inside the restaurant. The alarm company called the registered owner of the business. The registered owner stated he could see the electronic images of the men on his computer. He could see two men walking about. He gave his contact information to the call-taker. He was told to wait for police officers.

An ambulance was requested to attend at the police service for a man who was required to go to hospital. The man was conscious and breathing. He had minor lacerations.

Security Footage

Sunoco Flexible Packaging, 1691 Matheson Boulevard
On April 20, 2021, the SIU obtained video from a security camera set up on the south wall of Sunoco Flexible Packaging, 1691 Matheson Boulevard. The following is a summary of the relevant footage.

At 12:04:27 a.m., the illuminated glow of a flashlight appeared on the south wall of the business. The Complainant was seen walking through the parking lot.

At 12:04:55 a.m., CW #2 ran from the business through the parking lot. The illuminated glow from the Complainant’s flashlight followed the path taken by CW #2.

At 12:04:58 a.m., the headlights of a police vehicle, driven by the SO, appeared on the east side of the parking lot of 5165 Dixie Road. The vehicle drove in a northwesterly direction on an intersecting trajectory towards CW #2. The emergency lights were activated.

Between 12:05:03 a.m. and 12:05:05 a.m., the figure of either the Complainant or CW #2 was backlit by the headlights of the SO’s police vehicle by the rear of a parked transport trailer. The SO’s police vehicle continued to travel northwest before stopping on Matheson Boulevard.

7-5165 Dixie Road
On April 23, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage captured from two exterior security cameras located at 7-5165 Dixie Road.

Camera #1- Exterior North Wall (Pedestrian Door)

At 2:38:43 a.m., the glow of an illuminated flashlight was observed in the parking lot moving in a northeast direction. The Complainant was running and disappeared behind a parked transport trailer, out of camera view.

Between 2:38:52 a.m. and 2:38:55 a.m., a police vehicle driven by the SO drove through the parking lot towards the transport trailer. The emergency flashing roof lights were activated. The SO’s police vehicle stopped beyond the rear of the trailer.

Camera #2- Exterior North Wall (Parking Lot)

At 2:38:09 a.m., a police vehicle driven by the SO with its emergency flashing lights activated travelled through the parking lot and disappeared out of camera view.

Restaurant at 5165 Dixie Road
On April 25, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage from a restaurant at 5165 Dixie Road. One camera was mounted in the dining room and captured the dining room and front of the house counter area. A second camera was mounted behind the counter at the front of the house and captured the front entrance.

Camera - Dining Room

At 2:21:32 A.M., CW #1 and CW #2 walked around the interior of the closed and unoccupied restaurant.

Camera - Front Entrance

At 2:21:58 a.m., one of CW #1 and CW #2 broke the front entrance glass door allowing both to enter the restaurant.

Camera at Rear of Plaza
On April 25, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage from a security camera from the rear of the plaza located at 5165 Dixie Road. The video was of no evidentiary value.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The Complainant’s BWC Footage
On April 21, 2022, the SIU received the Complainant’s BWC video footage.

At 2:33:00 a.m., the Complainant arrived at the parking lot. He brought his police vehicle to a stop. A police officer said on the radio that one man was now in police custody. The Complainant drove around the building and located an officer (Officer 2) at an exterior door.

At 2:35:46 a.m., Officer 2 said she saw the second suspect [now known to be CW #2] as he ran back into the building. Officer 2 remained out of her police vehicle and the Complainant walked around the building with his flashlight in hand.

At 2:38:00 a.m., the Complainant went on the air and said he saw CW #2 break and exit a second-floor window. CW #2 ran across the parking lot towards a parked trailer. The Complainant gave chase on foot and yelled, “Show me your hands.” CW #2 attempted to round the northside of the trailer. He tripped over a concrete curb, lost his footing, and fell onto the grass area by the trailer.

At 2:38:16 a.m., the Complainant camera went skewed. The camera showed blood in the hand of the Complainant. The Complainant went to the ground.

At 2:38:24 hrs, WO #2 ran towards the Complainant to assist him.

Officer 2’s BWC Footage
On April 21, 2022, the SIU received Officer 2’s BWC video footage.

Between 2:31:34 a.m. and 2:35:44 a.m., Officer 2 ran to a perimeter door and remained at that spot with her service gun out, pointed down a long hallway. The Complainant attended at her door and asked if she was alright. He gave her directions to remain at her location.

At 2:38:07 a.m., the Complainant could be heard on the air. He saw CW #2 break glass, jump, and run from the building. The Complainant was in a foot chase.

Between 2:38:34 a.m. and 2:39:35 a.m., a police officer came on the air and asked for an ambulance for an injured police officer, the Complainant. Officer 2 left her perimeter point and ran around the corner of the building to where a parked trailer could be seen.

At 2:40:35 a.m., Officer 2 moved towards the Complainant. He lay face down on the grass area by the trailer. There were two uniformed police officers, one of them was the SO, at the side of the trailer. The SO appeared distraught and was physically supported by the second police officer.

At 2:40:49 a.m., Officer 2 approached police officers. As they spoke, however, her camera stopped recording the audio. After a few seconds, she walked away from the SO and returned to the Complainant. The Complainant was being treated by the EMS.

Between 2:41:18 a.m. and 2:43:49 a.m., Officer 2 ran back across the parking lot to her police vehicle. As she ran, she opened her cellular phone and dialed a phone number. She arrived at her police vehicle and, while on the phone, she was approached by a uniformed police officer. They spoke briefly, however, no audio was recorded. Officer 2 walked back to the trailer and the Complainant was still on the ground being treated by EMS.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between April 21, 2022, and May 9, 2022:
  • Airbag Control Module Log;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • Notes- the SO;
  • Notes- WO #2;
  • Notes- WO #1;
  • Notes- the Complainant;
  • Notes- WO #3;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Global Positioning System data;
  • BWC footage;
  • Event Chronology;
  • Policy-Criminal Investigations; and
  • Policy-Operation of Police Vehicles.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:
  • Ambulance Call Reports;
  • Medical Records – CW#2 - THP; and
  • Security camera video footage.

Incident Narrative

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and the SO. Video footage that captured the incident in parts was also of assistance to the investigation.

In the early morning of the day in question, PRP officers were dispatched to 5165 Dixie Road, Mississauga, following reports of a break and enter in progress at businesses located at the address. The suspects – CW #2 and CW #1 – had been spotted in and around the premises.

Aware of the police presence around the building, CW #1 and CW #2 attempted to flee the area. The former exited the building and ran westward on Matheson Avenue, where he was caught and apprehended by police officers.

The Complainant was among the officers arriving at the scene. He took a position north of the strip plaza and watched as CW #2 broke a second storey window from the inside, jumped and attempted to escape across the parking lot. The officer chased after CW #2 as they ran in a northeast direction towards Matheson Avenue and a trailer parked along the northern end of the lot, oriented north and south lengthwise.

At about the same time, the SO, just arrived at the scene, heard a radio broadcast indicating CW #2 was running towards Matheson Avenue attempting to get away. He drove his cruiser – a marked SUV – behind the plaza and observed CW #2 running in the direction of the trailer. Intending to cut him off, the SO travelled around the end of the trailer, jumped the parking lot curb and onto the grass boulevard. Seeing the Complainant in his path of travel, the officer attempted to steer to the right to avoid a collision but was unable to do so.

The Complainant was within metres of CW #2 when CW #2 tripped on the parking lot curb by the trailer and fell onto the boulevard. Unable to break his momentum, the officer fell over CW #2 and travelled past him in the process. He was struck shortly after falling by the SO’s cruiser.

CW #2 was handcuffed by other officers responding to the area.

An ambulance took the Complainant to hospital from the scene. He was diagnosed with a broken nose and several lacerations.

Relevant Legislation

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

(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

The Complainant of the PRP was seriously injured when he was struck by a police vehicle on April 20, 2022. The driver of the vehicle – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing 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 Complainant’s injuries.

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 a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, in the moments leading to the vehicle’s impact with the Complainant. In my view, there was not.

There is no question that the SO was within his rights in seeking to prevent CW #2 from evading arrest. Based on the reports they had received about a break and enter in progress, and CW #2’s flight from police in the parking lot, there were reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the crime.

I also accept that the SO’s manner of driving was objectively dangerous. One wonders about the wisdom of using a motor vehicle in motion to assist in the apprehension of a person on foot with all of its attendant risks, particularly when the crime in question was a property offence. Moreover, the dangerousness was enhanced by the presence of the trailer which blocked the SO and CW #2 from each other’s line of sight, making it more difficult for the SO to apprehend and avoid objectively foreseeable risks, such as CW #2 running into the path of his cruiser. CW #2 was fortunate to have tripped and fallen when he did as he too might have been struck and seriously injured by the SO’s cruiser. The Complainant was not as lucky albeit his injuries could have been far more serious than they were.

The real question is whether the SO’s conduct represented a marked departure from a reasonable person. I find the SO’s conduct concerning, but am unable to conclude it was so egregious that it was criminal. The officer’s conduct was not without justification. His intention was not to strike CW #2, but to obstruct the getaway efforts of a man freshly fleeing from break and enter. In this regard, it should be noted that the officer slowed his vehicle significantly as he neared the point of impact, and he did what he could in the split second he had available to avoid colliding with the Complainant. In addition, the SO had his emergency lights activated which would mitigate the danger caused by the trailer obstructing his line of sight by alerting others to his presence. In fact, both CW #2 and WO #2 (who was also involved in the foot pursuit) described being aware of the presence of the SO’s vehicle before the collision. In the final analysis, while I think the SO’s conduct was regrettable and, possibly, negligent. I am not persuaded, in the heat of the moment, that it was criminal.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 18, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
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.