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 death of a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 16, 2022, at 11:34 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 16, 2022, at 9:42 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was conducting radar enforcement in the area of Highway 416 in Ottawa. He observed a blue Chevrolet Cobalt travelling at a high rate of speed (164 km/h). The SO initiated a pursuit of the vehicle after the driver failed to stop when directed. The officer communicated his actions and made a request for additional units to assist in the pursuit. A short time later, the SO was directed to terminate the pursuit, and he pulled his police vehicle off to the side of the roadway and provided an updated mileage reading. The SO subsequently obtained permission to continue patrolling the area to locate the vehicle he was pursuing. The SO came upon the vehicle at approximately 9:46 p.m. It had collided with a pole. The Complainant was located in the vehicle and pronounced deceased on scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/17/2022 at 12:02 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/17/2022 at 2:05 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The scene presented itself at the intersection of Dilworth Road and Fourth Line Road, Kemptville.

On August 17, 2022, at 2:05 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene, and commenced photography.

The intersection was a four-way highway with two-way paved asphalt surfaces on both roadways. The traffic control consisted of stop signs for east/west traffic. The speed limit in the area was an unposted 80 km/h. Both roadways were relatively level, with a very slight crest in the middle of Fourth Line Road at the intersection.

The Dilworth Road paved surface transitioned to gravel 36 metres west of the intersection mid-point. There was an S-bend sign with a 50 km/h caution sign for westbound traffic just west of the intersection.

Approximately 75 metres west of the intersection, a single motor vehicle (two-door grey Chevrolet Cobalt) was located just west of a sheared-off hydro pole on the south side of the road where it curved right.

The Complainant was deceased and still trapped in the driver’s portion of the Chevrolet Cobalt. He was covered in a yellow emergency blanket.

From tire marks on the gravel roadway, it appeared that the vehicle was travelling westbound at a high rate of speed on Dilworth Road from the direction of Highway 416 and crossed the intersection of Fourth Line Road, lost directional control and hit the hydro pole with the driver’s side front of the vehicle. The hydro pole was sheared-off and the strain on the high voltage lines caused a second pole further west to be pulled down as well.

A marked Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) SUV (Ford Explorer) was located approximately 25 metres west of the impact area facing east, and near the second downed hydro pole. The police vehicle was examined for any contact marks; there were none.


Figure 1 – Incident scene


Figure 2 – Incident scene



Figure 3 –Image of the Complainant’s vehicle

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

The GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser revealed that the SO attained very high rates of speed while travelling northbound on Highway 416. The officer was upwards of 200 km/h between 9:43:18 p.m. and 9:44:08 p.m. The officer travelled at 150 km/h or higher between 9:42:40 p.m. and 9:44:09 p.m.

Once the SO exited from Highway 416 onto Dilworth Street, he attained a maximum speed of 162 km/h.

Expert Evidence

Collision Reconstruction

The Chevrolet Cobalt failed to stop at the intersection of Dilworth Road and Fourth Line Road. It lost control where Dilworth Road transitioned from asphalt to gravel west of the intersection. The Chevrolet Cobalt lost traction and rotated clockwise as it travelled towards the south ditch. The Chevrolet Cobalt struck a wooden hydro pole on the south side of the roadway.

The Chevrolet Cobalt’s Airbag Control Module was downloaded for analysis. It established that the Chevrolet Cobalt was travelling at 164 km/h five seconds before it collided with the hydro pole. The analysis further showed the brakes were applied one second pre-collision. At that moment, the speed of the Chevrolet Cobalt was 131 km/h.

It was determined by the reconstructionist that the Chevrolet was travelling too fast to negotiate the curve in the roadway. It lost control as it transitioned onto the gravel portion of the roadway.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Police Communications Recordings

At 9:42 p.m., the SO advised the OPP dispatcher, “Is there any Ottawa traffic units on the 416, I am trying to get caught up to this stunt driver here.” The SO did not have a description of the vehicle. He told dispatch, “I will have to see if I can catch up to him here.”

The dispatcher told the SO there were no units available to his immediate north, and the closest unit was as far as Highway 417.

The SO told the dispatcher that he had a “fail to stop” and, “I’m going to pull over here, he’s taken an exit at Dilworth, I think he’s gone down a dead end. Can you ask the comm sergeant if I can proceed”?

The SO then stated, “Yea, I’ve just come across it. It’s an MVC [motor vehicle collision] at Dilworth and Fourth; he’s hit a hydro pole here.”

The SO requested an ambulance, and other police officers to attend. The SO also requested the attendance of Hydro and the Fire Department.

The SO told the dispatcher, “Could you expedite ambulance, he’s trapped, breathing, and bleeding, but he’s not responding.”

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage from the SO’s cruiser that captured much of the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of the day in question, the SO was operating radar equipment enforcing the speeding laws on Highway 416 in Kemptville. He was stationary in his cruiser between the north and southbound lanes of the roadway when a vehicle – a Chevrolet Cobalt – drove north past him at over 150 km/h. The SO decided to conduct a traffic stop for ‘stunt driving’ and maneuvered his cruiser onto the northbound lanes, thereafter accelerating to over 200 km/h attempting to catch up to the Chevrolet.

The SO was never close to the Chevrolet but did appear to spot him ahead as the vehicle neared the off-ramp to Dilworth Road, some five-and-a-half kilometres from where he had entered the highway. The officer maneuvered onto the off-ramp as the Chevrolet was approaching Dilworth Road and about to execute a left-hand turn to travel west. The vehicles were separated by about a hundred metres at this point.

The driver of the Chevrolet was the Complainant. The Complainant travelled west on Dilworth Road, overtaking a westbound vehicle in the eastbound lane, entered the intersection of Fourth Line Road without stopping at the stop sign, and lost control of the Chevrolet, crashing into a hydro pole on the south side of the road as it began to curve to the right.

The SO accelerated to upwards of 160 km/h as he exited the off-ramp and travelled west after the Chevrolet. He was well back of the Complainant - approximately 300 metres - when the collision occurred. Coming upon the collision, the officer radioed for ambulance, the fire department, and other officers.

The Complainant had continued apace on Dilworth Road. Based on the data derived from the Chevrolet’s airbag control module, his vehicle was travelling at 164 km/h five seconds before the collision. It was travelling 131 km/h one second pre-impact.

 

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt force injuries.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death

Section 128(13), Highway Traffic Act – Police Vehicles and Speeding

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

Section 172, Highway Traffic Act – Racing, Stunts, etc., Prohibited

The Complainant died in a motor vehicle collision on August 16, 2022. As the vehicle he had been operating was being pursued in the moments prior to the collision by an OPP officer, the SIU was notified. The officer – 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 death.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was within his rights when he decided to stop the Chevrolet and initiate a pursuit to do so. The Complainant had gone past the officer travelling over 150 km/h northbound on Highway 416, well in excess of the speed limit. At that speed, the SO would have had grounds to believe that the Complainant was ‘stunt driving’ contrary to section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act, and possibly even ‘driving dangerously’ in violation of section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code. He clearly was a danger on the roadway.

Driving at speeds well over 200 km/h on Highway 416, the SO was himself a danger on the roadway. He did so over an uninterrupted stretch of about 50 seconds. Adding to the danger was the failure on the part of the officer to activate his emergency lights and siren for much if not all of this period. That equipment is meant to provide other users of the roadway notice of an officer’s vehicle, giving them time to safely react to the situation. Nor did the SO go over the radio with the speeds he was doing. Had he done so, it would have allowed a senior officer to monitor the situation and gauge from a dispassionate position the merits of continuing at that speed.

On the other side of the ledger, there is no evidence to suggest that other motorists, whether on Highway 416 or Dilworth Road, had to take evasive action to avoid the SO’s cruiser. In fact, as soon as the SO came upon a line of traffic ahead of him, he activated his emergency lights. That action appears to have alerted the motorists to his presence, who reacted by keeping to the right and slowing down as the officer overtook them in the passing lane. One must also bear in mind that officers are exempt from the speeding laws while operating police vehicles in the course of their duty by virtue of section 128(13) of the Highway Traffic Act. The section, though it does not provide carte blanche to officers to speed as they wish, does provide them a level of immunity in recognition of their law enforcement role. In this case, one would have expected the SO to travel in excess of the speed limit to some extent if he was going to make any ground on the Complainant after he sped past the officer. Lastly, aside from perhaps setting the stage for the Complainant’s continued speeds, there is no evidence that the SO’s conduct – his velocity, in particular – played any real role in the collision that occurred. The officer was about 300 metres away from the Complainant when he crashed into the hydro pole. Indeed, it is arguable whether the Complainant was ever even aware of the SO’s presence behind him.

As for the environmental conditions at the time, these were largely neutral as public safety considerations. Traffic was minimal, the roads were dry, and the weather was clear.

When the aforementioned-considerations are weighed in the balance, I am satisfied that the SO’s conduct, if dangerous at times given his speeds, fell short of transgressing the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: December 12, 2022

Electronically approved by