SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-275
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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.
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 section 14 (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.
- 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 injuries of a 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On October 24, 2022, at 9:29 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.At approximately 4:54 a.m., police officers were dispatched to a ‘‘Break and Enter’’ call for service. Police officers arrived at the location and a red Dodge Caravan [now known to be a Chrysler Pacifica] sped away. A van matching the description of the ‘‘Break and Enter’’ suspect vehicle was later observed to travel at an excessive speed. Two tire deflation devices (TDD) were deployed. Police officers were subsequently dispatched to a motor vehicle collision involving a red Pacifica and another vehicle [now known to be a Lexus] at the intersection of Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East. Located inside the Pacifica was a female passenger – Civilian Witness (CW) #1; an unidentified driver had fled on foot. CW #1 was transported to London Health Sciences-Victoria Campus (LHS-VC) for precautionary observation. The driver of the Lexus, the Complainant, was also transported to LHS-VC, where he was diagnosed with fractured ribs. The police officers who had deployed the spike belts were Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 10/24/2022 at 10:09 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/24/2022 at 12:27 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
48-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on October 24, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Not interviewed; declined
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 24 and 26, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on October 29, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
On October 24, 2022, at 1:15 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators attended Commissioners Road East and Pond Mills Road. The scene had been properly secured and guarded. Commissioners Road travelled in an east/west direction. It was a four-laned roadway with turn lanes at the intersection. The road surface and pavement markings were in good condition.
Pond Mills Road travelled in a north/south direction and intersected Commissioners Road East. Pond Mills Road was a two-laned roadway with turn lanes at the intersection. The road surface and pavement markings were in good condition.
The intersection of the two roadways was controlled by traffic lighting that appeared functional upon arrival at the scene.
Street lighting was present.
In the northwest quadrant of the intersection were distinct gouges and tire markings on the roadway that indicated the area of impact. From this area, there was a series of tire markings and a large debris field that extended in a southwest direction towards the southwest corner of the intersection, where the following vehicles were found.
A Chrysler Pacifica was orientated in a southeast direction at the southwest corner of the intersection. There was heavy front-end collision damage to the vehicle and both passenger side tires were deflated. Examination of the rear passenger tire revealed that the vehicle had possibly traversed a TDD deployment. There were two Ontario driver’s licences and a Petro Canada card on the roadway near the vehicle.
Figure 1 – The Chrysler Pacifica
A Lexus RX350 was orientated in a north by northeast direction on the median boulevard at the southwest corner of the intersection. There was heavy collision damage to the front, rear and passenger side of the vehicle.
Figure 2 – The Lexus RX350
The scene was photographed, and a Total Station device was used to take measurements.
At 3:45 p.m., the scene and vehicles were released to the LPS collision reconstruction unit.
At LPS Headquarters, SIU forensic investigators were presented with two TDDs, which showed signs of deployment. The TDDs were photographed and returned to the LPS.
Figure 3 – Signs of deployment on the TDD
Route Video
On October 24, 2022, at 4:50 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators commenced a route video. The route was three kilometres and began at Hamilton Road and Pegler Street. The route continued southeast on Hamilton Road to Egerton Street, where it turned right and travelled basically south on Egerton Street to Pond Mills Road. The route then turned left onto Pond Mills and continued east and then south to the collision scene at Commissioners Road. The duration of the video for the route travelled was approximately seven minutes. No posted speed signs were observed along the route; therefore, the speed limit as designated by the Highway Traffic Act would have been 50 km/h.Scene Diagram
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Video Footage
The following are summaries of the video footage obtained by the SIU in connection with the incident under investigation.Video Footage from a Business on Thompson Road
On October 24, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage from a business on Thompson Road in London.
At 3:53:34 a.m., a vehicle [now known to be a Pacifica] travelled in the southbound lane of traffic on Pond Mills Road.
At 3:53:37 a.m., a marked police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] followed behind the Pacifica. The SO did not have her emergency lights activated.
Video from a Residence in the Area of Pond Mills Road and Deveron Crescent
On October 28, 2022, the SIU obtained video from a residence in the area of Pond Mills Road and Deveron Crescent.
At 4:57:17 a.m., a van [now known to be a Chrysler Pacifica] travelled southbound on Pond Mills Road at a high rate of speed.
At 4:57:38 a.m., a marked LPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] travelled southbound on Pond Mills Road at a normal rate of speed. The SO did not have her emergency lights activated.
Video Footage from a Business in the Area of Pond Mills Road and Burlington Gate
On October 25, 2022, the SIU obtained a video from a business in the area of Pond Mills Road and Burlington Gate.
At 4:54:25 a.m., a vehicle [now known to be a Chrysler Pacifica] travelled southbound through the intersection on Pond Mills Road at a high rate of speed.
At 4:54:57 a.m., a marked LPS police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] travelled southbound through the intersection. The SO’s police vehicle did not have emergency warning systems activated.
Video Footage - City of London
On October 26, 2022, the SIU obtained two videos from the Traffic and Engineering section of the City of London. The camera was situated at the southwest corner of Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East. It afforded a view of the north side of the intersection and about 200 metres north of the intersection.
At 4:51:21 a.m., headlights appeared southbound on Pond Mills Road towards Commissioners Road East. The vehicle [now known to be a Chrysler Pacifica] approached the intersection at a high rate of speed, and it did not slow down.
At 4:51:30 a.m., a Lexus travelled westbound, on Commissioners Road in the middle lane of traffic, at the crosswalk for Commissioners Road East.
At 4:51:31 a.m., the front-end of the Pacifica crossed the Pond Mills Road crosswalk, and collided with the Lexus in the intersection. The front of the Pacifica collided with the rear passenger door of the Lexus, which spun clockwise and out of the view of the camera. The Pacifica continued through the intersection, out of view of the camera.
At 4:51:47 a.m., a second set of headlights appeared southbound on Pond Mills Road towards Commissioners Road East.
At 4:52:13 a.m., or 42 seconds after the collision, a LPS marked sedan [now known to be driven by the SO] arrived at the intersection. The police vehicle stopped at the stop line for Pond Mills Road and proceeded slowly into the intersection. The SO activated her emergency lighting and drove forward out of view of the camera.
In a second video from the same camera, at 5:00 a.m., a police officer was captured moving a bumper and further debris onto the traffic island, situated at the northeast corner of the intersection, to allow westbound traffic to proceed through the intersection.
Video Footage from a Business in the Area of Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East
On October 24, 2022, the SIU obtained video from a business in the area of Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East.
At 4:54 a.m., red brake lights were captured spinning around at the intersection. A red van came to rest on the southwest corner of the intersection. A man [now known to be CW #3] ran from a gas pump towards the collision site.
At 4:55 a.m., CW #1 ran towards the front door of the 7-Eleven. A marked police vehicle drove into the camera view at the intersection with its emergency lights activated.
At 4:56 a.m., CW #1 was apprehended in front of the 7-Eleven.
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data for the SO’s LPS Police Vehicle
The SO operated a fully marked LPS white Dodge Charger. The following is a summary of the information derived from a review of the GPS data from the SO’s cruiser.At 4:52 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on Egerton Street, from Hamilton Road, London, at a speed of 16.11 km/h.
At 4:53 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on Egerton Street at Homan Street at 71.3 km/h.
At 4:53 a.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Pond Mills Road, from Egerton Street, at 37.2 km/h.
At 4:54 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on Pond Mills Road, north of Ailsa Place, at 54.8 km/h.
At 4:54 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on Pond Mills Road, north of Commissioners Road East, at 80 km/h.
At 4:55 a.m., the SO approached Commissioners Road East, southbound on Pond Mills Road, at 12 km/h.
Communications Recordings
On October 28, 2022, the SIU obtained the LPS radio communications in connection with the incident under investigation. The following is a summary of the pertinent communications.At 4:45 a.m., LPS police officers were in the area of Pond Mills Road on a call, which was unrelated to the incident under investigation.
At 4:53 a.m., the SO advised she was behind a stolen Caravan [now known to be a Pacifica] at Pond Mills Road near Thompson Street. She provided the licence plate number. The Pacifica was on Egerton Street and approaching Pond Mills Road. The SO reported that the Pacifica had passed the police officers on the unrelated call. A police officer [now known to be WO #1] reported a TDD had been successfully deployed.
At 4:54 a.m., the SO reported the Pacifica was southbound on Pond Mills Road and she could no longer see it.
At 4:56 a.m., the SO reported a motor vehicle collision at Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East. The SO stated that a woman had run to a 7-Eleven store, and that the London Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were required.
At 4:58 a.m., the SO reported that a witness had seen a man run from the Pacifica towards Pond Mills Road and Deveron Crescent.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between October 25, 2022, and November 9, 2022:- Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
- Computer-assisted dispatch record;
- GPS data – SO’s vehicle;
- Communications recordings;
- Photograph;
- Records management system records;
- Suspect Apprehension Pursuit - Training Records;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-the SO;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Witness Statement-WO #3;
- Witness Statement-WO #1;
- Witness Statement-the SO;
- Witness Statement-WO #2; and
- Witness Statement-WO #4.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Video footage - City of London;
- Video footage from a business in the area of Pond Mills Road and Burlington Gate;
- Video footage from a business in the area of Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East;
- Video footage from a business on Thompson Road;
- Video from a residence in the area of Pond Mills Road and Deveron Crescent;
- CW #1 - EMS Ambulance Call Report (ACR);
- The Complainant - EMS ACR; and
- Medical records-the Complainant-LHS-VC.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included an interview with the Complainant, video footage that captured the incident in parts, and GPS data related to the speeds and directionality of the SO’s cruiser. As was her legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of a written statement and her notes.
Shortly before 5:00 a.m. on October 24, 2022, the Complainant, operating a Lexus SUV, was travelling west on Commissioners Road East through a green light when his vehicle was broadsided by a van moving south through a red light on Pond Mills Road. The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractured ribs and a punctured lung.
The van was reportedly being operated by a male – CW #4. With him in the front passenger seat was a female – CW #1. CW #4 fled from the site of the wreckage but was eventually arrested. CW #1 was also taken into custody and sent to hospital for examination. She was fortunate to have avoided serious injury.
The SO was operating the cruiser behind CW #4. She had first spotted the van on Hamilton Road, a couple of blocks west of Egerton Street, and followed it to check its licence plate against police records. The officer continued to follow the van south on Egerton Street and learned, in the area of the Homan Street intersection, that it had been reported stolen. As the van turned to travel east on Pond Mills Road, the SO, aware of the presence of other police officers nearby on Pond Mills Road in connection with a ‘break and enter’ investigation, radioed that the vehicle she was following was headed in their direction.
Two of the officers at the “break and enter” call for service heard the SO’s broadcast and deployed their spike belts as the van headed in their direction. The van, moving south in the northbound lane of Pond Mills Road, travelled over the belts damaging one or both of the passenger side tires.
The SO circumvented the TDDs and continued south on Pond Mills Road, losing sight of the van as it maneuvered around a bend in the road. She next came across the vehicle at the crash site.
CW #4 had continued at speed after traversing the spike belts towards Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East, where he struck the Complainant’s SUV. Both vehicles came to rest in the southwest quadrant of the intersection.
Shortly before 5:00 a.m. on October 24, 2022, the Complainant, operating a Lexus SUV, was travelling west on Commissioners Road East through a green light when his vehicle was broadsided by a van moving south through a red light on Pond Mills Road. The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractured ribs and a punctured lung.
The van was reportedly being operated by a male – CW #4. With him in the front passenger seat was a female – CW #1. CW #4 fled from the site of the wreckage but was eventually arrested. CW #1 was also taken into custody and sent to hospital for examination. She was fortunate to have avoided serious injury.
The SO was operating the cruiser behind CW #4. She had first spotted the van on Hamilton Road, a couple of blocks west of Egerton Street, and followed it to check its licence plate against police records. The officer continued to follow the van south on Egerton Street and learned, in the area of the Homan Street intersection, that it had been reported stolen. As the van turned to travel east on Pond Mills Road, the SO, aware of the presence of other police officers nearby on Pond Mills Road in connection with a ‘break and enter’ investigation, radioed that the vehicle she was following was headed in their direction.
Two of the officers at the “break and enter” call for service heard the SO’s broadcast and deployed their spike belts as the van headed in their direction. The van, moving south in the northbound lane of Pond Mills Road, travelled over the belts damaging one or both of the passenger side tires.
The SO circumvented the TDDs and continued south on Pond Mills Road, losing sight of the van as it maneuvered around a bend in the road. She next came across the vehicle at the crash site.
CW #4 had continued at speed after traversing the spike belts towards Pond Mills Road and Commissioners Road East, where he struck the Complainant’s SUV. Both vehicles came to rest in the southwest quadrant of the intersection.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.
(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 was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in London on October 24, 2022. As his vehicle was struck by another vehicle that was being followed by a LPS cruiser at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The driver of the police vehicle – 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 collision and 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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of her duties when she came across the van being operated by CW #4 and decided to stop it. The officer had run a check on the licence plate and came to understand that the van was reported stolen.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her engagement with the van. She did not activate her emergency lights or siren at any point, and probably should have in order to signal the driver of the van to pull over. That said, it is apparent that the driver – CW #4 – was not about to stop. Moreover, the SO’s speed was not such that her failure to turn on her emergency equipment placed the public at unwarranted risk. Over the course of the engagement, the entire length of which was governed by a 50 km/h speed limit, the officer’s top speed does not appear to have been much more than 80 km/h. And this, it is important to note, at a time of day where traffic would have been light. Nor does the evidence suggest that the SO unduly pushed or fueled CW #4 as he accelerated and then decided to enter an intersection on a red light. On the contrary, it appears the officer was at all times a fair distance back of the van, and about 40 seconds behind when it struck the Complainant’s vehicle. [2]
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 the course of a relatively brief engagement with the van CW #4 was driving, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 21, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of her duties when she came across the van being operated by CW #4 and decided to stop it. The officer had run a check on the licence plate and came to understand that the van was reported stolen.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her engagement with the van. She did not activate her emergency lights or siren at any point, and probably should have in order to signal the driver of the van to pull over. That said, it is apparent that the driver – CW #4 – was not about to stop. Moreover, the SO’s speed was not such that her failure to turn on her emergency equipment placed the public at unwarranted risk. Over the course of the engagement, the entire length of which was governed by a 50 km/h speed limit, the officer’s top speed does not appear to have been much more than 80 km/h. And this, it is important to note, at a time of day where traffic would have been light. Nor does the evidence suggest that the SO unduly pushed or fueled CW #4 as he accelerated and then decided to enter an intersection on a red light. On the contrary, it appears the officer was at all times a fair distance back of the van, and about 40 seconds behind when it struck the Complainant’s vehicle. [2]
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 the course of a relatively brief engagement with the van CW #4 was driving, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: February 21, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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]
- 2) The decision to deploy the spike belts does not appear to have contributed to the collision. Though the belts seem to have caused damage to one or more of the van’s tires, there is no suggestion that CW #4 could not have stopped the vehicle from entering the intersection had he been so inclined. [Back to text]
Note:
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.