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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On September 30, 2022, at about 1:42 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of the following.

On September 30, 2022, at about 7:49 a.m., DRPS officers responded to an address near Salem Road and Gillett Drive, Ajax. There were calls to the police about suspicious activity by a man and woman reportedly spray painting a vehicle. The man was the Complainant. The woman was unknown. Upon the arrival of Witness Official (WO) #1, the Complainant fled in a Chevrolet Tahoe SUV. WO #1 tried to pursue the SUV but discontinued.

DRPS officers were dispatched to the area to look for the Tahoe and many reports were received about it being driven erratically. At one point, the Complainant drove into a marked DRPS cruiser rendering the cruiser inoperable. The Tahoe was later determined to be stolen. DRPS officers lost sight of the Complainant but eventually came across his stolen Tahoe, which had struck a tree in front of a residence on Delaney Drive.

The Complainant was extracted from the Tahoe and taken to Ajax Pickering Hospital where he was diagnosed with liver trauma consistent with a motor vehicle collision (MVC). The Complainant had to be sedated due to aggressive behaviour with medical staff, which included him removing two of his own teeth. He was then transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) for further treatment.

At the time of intake, all scenes had been processed by DRPS’s Collision Reconstruction and Identification Services as injuries were not confirmed until much later.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 09/30/2022 at 2:29 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/01/2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The collision took place in front of a residence on Delaney Drive, Ajax.

Forensic Evidence

SIU Forensic Identification Review of the Tahoe and SO’s DRPS Cruiser

On October 3, 2022, at 11:45 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator examined the Tahoe and noted the SUV had extensive damage to the front right side. The driver’s front and front passenger airbags had deployed. The front bumper was off, the rear tailgate was off, and the right rear door was off.

On October 3, 2022, at 2:25 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator examined the SO’s DRPS cruiser and noted it had extensive damage to the front right corner. All emergency equipment on the DRPS cruiser was functional.


Figure 1 – Damage to the Tahoe


Figure 2 – Damage to the DRPS cruiser

Expert Evidence

Technical Collision Investigation

A SIU reconstructionist reviewed the reports prepared by the DRPS reconstructionist, summaries of witness interviews, video evidence from security cameras and police body-worn cameras (BWCs), and scene photographs, and arrived at the following findings.

No air bag deployment or event was recognized by the Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) module when the Complainant collided into the SO’s DRPS cruiser. The reconstructionist opined that was likely due to the cruiser’s crash bar absorbing the energy of the impact.

The Tahoe’s air bags had been deployed. The reconstructionist believed that they deployed at impact with the tree it struck on Delaney Drive. The Complainant’s seat belt was found to be locked and in the retracted position when examined, indicating the Complainant was not wearing his seat belt during the collision with the tree.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Route Video

On October 3, 2022, at about 4:37 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator completed a video capturing the route from the impact with the SO’s DRPS cruiser to the single-vehicle MVC with the tree on Delaney Drive.

The route was a residential street approximately 10 metres wide. There were cars parked on both sides of the street. The road was level and there were two curves in the road from the collision with the police vehicle to the collision with the tree - a distance of approximately one kilometre. The road was marked at several locations as a 40 km/h zone.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of September 30, 2022, the Complainant and an associate were in the possession of stolen vehicles in the area of Salem Road and Gillett Drive, Ajax. A woman passing through the area observed what she believed to be suspicious activity by the couple – they were spray painting one of the vehicles – a Mercedes Sprinter van. Discussing the matter with her husband, they decided to call the police.

WO #1 was dispatched to investigate the matter. Arriving at the house shortly after 8:00 a.m., the officer called out to the pair asking what they were doing. The female immediately entered the van, driving away, followed by the second vehicle – a Chevrolet Tahoe. WO #1 pursued for a brief period before disengaging.

The Tahoe, with a trailer behind it, was being operated by the Complainant. He would proceed to operate the Tahoe at speed and recklessly through the neighbouring roadways, causing at least one motorist to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision. Multiple 911 calls were made by civilians to complain about the Tahoe.

Police officers in the area attempted to locate and stop the Tahoe based on reports of its sighting by other officers and civilians. Among these officers, operating a marked police cruiser, was the SO. The officer had observed the Tahoe, at one point, run a stop sign at Delaney and Sayor Drives. He decided to travel westward on Delaney Drive anticipating the Tahoe’s return to the area.

The officer’s intuition proved accurate. At the same time as the SO was approaching Sayor Drive from the east, the Complainant turned right from Sayor Drive onto Delaney Drive, again disregarding the stop sign, accelerating eastward. The SO attempted to block the Tahoe’s path of travel by bending slightly into the eastbound lane before turning right and coming to a stop, his cruiser angled towards the north sidewalk. As he did so, the Tahoe maneuvered into the westbound lane and accelerated past the cruiser’s passenger side, striking the front passenger side of the vehicle.

The Tahoe sustained heaving damage in the collision, including the loss of its front driver’s side tire, but continued at speed east on Delaney Drive. About a kilometre later, the Complainant lost control of the Tahoe and collided with a tree outside a residence on Delaney Drive.

Arriving on scene about 15 seconds later was WO #2. She had heard the SO’s broadcast of a collision involving his vehicle and drove to Delaney Drive. Hearing the SO say on the radio that he was fine, the officer continued past his cruiser and eventually came upon the wreckage involving the Tahoe.

The Complainant was arrested and transported from the scene to hospital in ambulance. He was diagnosed with multiple liver lacerations.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

The Complainant was seriously injured when the vehicle he was operating collided with a tree in Ajax on September 30, 2022. As he was fleeing from police officers at the time, the SIU initiated an investigation into the incident. The SO was identified as the subject official. 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, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In my view, there was not.

The SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duty when he decided to attempt to stop the Tahoe on Delaney Drive. By that time, police had received multiple reports of the Complainant’s reckless driving. He was a clear danger on the roadway, and police were entitled to respond to the area to do what they reasonably could to stop the Tahoe and take the Complainant into custody.

Having made the decision, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The maneuver he specifically chose – a roadblock - clearly carried risks. It was attempted on a residential street in use by motorists and pedestrians at the time. On the other hand, it bears repeating that there was some urgency to stopping the Tahoe – it had been reported driving dangerously since it fled the scene near Salem Road and Gillett Drive. Given the few seconds in which the officer had to think about it, I am not persuaded the calculus was prohibitive of the course he adopted. In bringing his cruiser to a stop, it should also be noted that the SO left sufficient room for the Tahoe to pass him if he was bent on circumventing the block. In fact, by the time of the collision between the vehicles, the cruiser appeared to be in its proper lane of travel for the most part. Regrettably, perhaps because it might have initially appeared to the Complainant that the cruiser was positioning to block the eastbound lane, he moved into the westbound lane and struck the cruiser. Be that as it may, if that is in fact what occurred, the collision is as much the result of the Complainant’s desperate decision-making at the time as anything the officer did.

With respect to the Complainant’s collision with the tree, the facts speak for themselves. He was at that point operating a vehicle without a front tire, lost control and crashed. The nearest police cruiser – WO #2’s vehicle – was about 15 seconds west of his location at the time. On this record, it is evident that the police did nothing to cause or contribute to the collision that could attract criminal sanction.

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


Date: January 27, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit