Director's Report Details

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.

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: 

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.

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.

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.

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

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
Director
Special Investigations Unit