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 injuries of a 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 2, 2022, at 6:00 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of an injury that occurred at 2:04 a.m. The OPS reported that a private security company had notified OPS that two men were seen breaking into a construction site at 2210 Bank Street in Ottawa. At approximately 2:00 a.m., police arrived at the construction site. The Subject Official (SO) saw a man flee the scene on an electric bicycle (e-bike) and gave chase. A short distance away, the man fell from the e-bike and was arrested. When the man, identified as the Complainant, complained of pain in his shoulder, he was taken to Ottawa General Hospital where he was examined and diagnosed with a broken collarbone.

Later that day, the SIU was further advised that the Complainant had also been diagnosed with four broken ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/02/2022 at 6:38 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/02/2022 at 10:28 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The weather was dry when the incident occurred at night on asphalt-paved surfaces at the north end of South Keys Shopping Plaza in Ottawa.

The following screenshot from Google Earth shows the general area, providing a broader view of the location of the incident. It captures the residential area around Johnston Road, Southgate Road and Dazé Street, along where the SO drove attempting to stop the Complainant.


Figure 1 – Google Earth aerial view of the scene (with captions added by the SIU)

The following photograph shows the area of the parking lot, in line with what is believed to have been the Complainant’s direction of travel. The curb at the edge of the parking lot was higher than a normal curb as the parking lot grade in that area lowered towards the storm catch basin at the corner.



Figure 2 – Parking lot area where the Complainant fell

Forensic Evidence

Examination of the E-Bike

On October 6, 2022, a SIU forensic investigator examined the Complainant’s e-bike involved in this incident, which had remained in OPS custody since the incident occurred.

The examination revealed that the saddle was twisted slightly to the right and the rear metal carrier above the rear wheel was slightly bent towards the left. The saddle bags attached to the carrier were dirty along the right side, consistent with a fall to the right. The chain was off the front sprocket, the rear tire was deflated, there was a small scuff on the right brake lever and right-hand grip, and the left rear-view mirror was broken and missing.

The following image shows the right side of the bicycle.


Figure 3 – The Complainant’s e-bike

No evidence of contact with a vehicle was observed.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and GPS data associated with the movement of the SO’s cruiser, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning hours of August 2, 2022, OPS officers, the SO among them, made their way to the South Keys Shopping Centre at 2210 Bank Street. They were responding to a call from a security service reporting the presence of two trespassers on bicycles attempting to steal material from a railway construction site behind the Walmart store. Arriving at the scene in his cruiser, the SO radioed that he had located the suspects – one of them had pulled a mask over his face and pedaled away from the area.

The Complainant was operating an e-bike in the vicinity of the retail complex at the time. At the sight of the SO’s cruiser approaching him, the Complainant cycled away from the scene. With the SO following in his cruiser, the Complainant travelled along Bank Street and other roads in the area, losing the officer on a couple of occasions. The Complainant fell from his bike at one point, at the intersection of Bank Street and Cahill Drive / Dazé Street. He was able to re-mount his e-bike and avoid apprehension before the SO, having exited his cruiser, could reach him.

The Complainant continued his flight as other officers arrived in the area to track him down. At about 2:25 a.m., as he cycled past the west side of a CIBC branch located on the grounds of the shopping centre, the Complainant struck a curb and was propelled off his bike, suffering injuries in the process.

The SO, who had been tracking the Complainant’s path of travel on Bank Street intending to cut him off, turned left into the shopping centre at Johnston Road and came across the Complainant’s body on the ground. The SO radioed that he had located the Complainant, and other officers arrived on scene to secure him in handcuffs.

The Complainant was taken from the scene in ambulance to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with fractured ribs and a broken collarbone.

Section 320.13 (2) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of an interaction with OPS officers preceding his arrest on August 2, 2022. 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. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, 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 observed 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 vehicle sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction and, if so, whether the impugned conduct caused or contributed to the collision involving the Complainant and his e-bike. In my view, there was not.

The SO was in the execution of his lawful duties as he arrived on scene, located the Complainant, and attempted to detain him for investigation. Given what he knew of the call that had been received by police, the Complainant’s presence in the location on a bicycle, and his subsequent donning of a mask and flight from the officer, I am satisfied there existed a constellation of circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in a theft.

I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety as he pursued him in his cruiser. The officer activated his emergency lights and made use of his siren, alerting third-parties in the area of his presence and leaving little doubt of his intention to stop the Complainant. Though the SO accelerated to over 100 km/h at one point travelling north on Bank Street, there would have been little if any traffic on the roadway at the time, nor is there evidence of other motorists or pedestrians having been imperiled by the officer’s speed.

There is a version of events proffered in the evidence that the officer used his cruiser to knock the Complainant off his e-bike, but I am unable to place any weight on the assertion for a number of reasons, including the fact that there is no damage on the officer’s cruiser consistent with such contact.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: November 30, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit