SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-327
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 21-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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On December 27, 2022, at about 1:30 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the HRPS, in the evening of December 26, 2022, a HRPS dog-handler was travelling southbound on Trafalgar Road, Milton, when he located a stolen car [now known to be a Range Rover]. The Subject Official (SO) learned that the Range Rover had been stolen on December 8, 2022, in a car-jacking incident. At approximately 8:28 p.m., a tandem rolling block (TRB) traffic stop was attempted by police officers; however, the driver of the Ranger Rover, the Complainant, managed to maneuver the Range Rover onto the gravel shoulder of the roadway and flee at a high rate of speed, making no attempt to stop for the officers. The police officers stopped their vehicles for approximately 15 seconds and then proceeded to locate the Range Rover, which appeared to have crashed and rolled into a ditch on Lower Base Line east of Trafalgar Road, Milton. The Complainant had obvious injuries and was transported by Peel Regional Paramedic Services to Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga. He was diagnosed with a minor brain bleed, fractures in his neck, and a fractured nose. The Complainant was awaiting transfer to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre for further treatment. The involved officers were not equipped with body-worn cameras but did have in-car camera systems (ICCS) in their police vehicles.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 12/27/2022 at 2:07 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/27/2022 at 4:15 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
21-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on January 3, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on December 30, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired over a stretch of roadway beginning east of Regional Road 25 on Britannia Road, continuing onto southbound Trafalgar Road, and then eastbound on Lower Base Line for a distance. The collision scene was in front of, and between, two residential properties on Lower Base Line. The area between the two residences was a large, paved parking lot. The parking lot and the roadway were separated by a berm.
In the parking lot was a Range Rover. The Range Rover faced Lower Base Line, in a southerly direction. It was damaged on all sides, including the roof.
Figure 1 – The Range Rover
On the roadway were tire marks, south of the scene and beginning near the driveway of a residence on Lower Base Line, on the south side of the roadway. The tire marks suggested an eastbound vehicle had driven off the roadway, and partially into the ditch. The tire marks continued in the ditch and then travelled back onto the roadway, crossing over and entering the ditch in front of a residence on Lower Base Line. The tire marks ended at a large gouge in the soil, on the side of the berm, and continued onto the front lawn, striking the driveway curb. Scrape marks were present from the curb on the pavement towards the final point of rest of the Range Rover.
The scene was mapped and photographed.
Figure 2 – Tire marks at the scene on Lower Base Line
Scene Diagram
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video of Pursuit Route
On January 5, 2023, starting at 3:30 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators video-recorded the pursuit route in both daylight and dark conditions. The route began at Regional Road 25 (Bronte Road) and Britannia Road and travelled east on Britannia Road. Britannia Road was a two-laned paved roadway with extensive construction - there were multiple construction pylons on both sides of the roadway. The area along this part of the route was predominately rural with residential housing on both sides and a posted speed of 60 km/h.
The route continued along Britannia to Trafalgar Road, where a right turn was completed to travel southbound on Trafalgar Road. Trafalgar Road was a four-laned paved roadway with no construction except close to the intersection at Britannia. The area along this part of the route was predominately rural with residential housing on both sides. The posted speed along the roadway was 80 km/h.
The route continued along Trafalgar Road where a left turn was completed to travel eastbound along Lower Base Line. Lower Base Line was a two-laned paved roadway with no construction areas present. The area along this part of the route was predominantly rural with sporadic residential housing on both sides. The posted speed limit along the roadway was 60 km/h. This route concluded at a small parking lot between two residences on Lower Base Line on the north side of the roadway.
The total distance travelled on this route was 10.7 kilometres.
ICCS Footage
The SIU obtained ICCS video recordings from the four designated witness officials’ police vehicles. The SO’s police vehicle was not equipped with an ICCS.WO #2
On December 26, 2022, starting at about 8:26 p.m., WO #2 travelled in her cruiser southbound on Trafalgar Road. It was dark and there were no vehicles in front of her.
At 8:26:50 p.m., WO #2 was passed by a fully marked HRPS SUV [known to be WO #1]. The red taillights of vehicles could be seen in the distance.
At 8:27:19 p.m., WO #1 drove in front of WO #2 and passed four southbound civilian vehicles. WO #1 then drove back into the passing lane and pulled up behind a dark SUV [now known to be a Range Rover], which was southbound in the passing lane. WO #1 travelled onto the paved median between the northbound and southbound lanes, and activated his cruiser’s emergency lighting. At about the same time, another dark HRPS SUV [now known to be the SO], southbound in the curb lane beside the Range Rover, activated its interior emergency lights and pulled in front of the Range Rover.
At about 8:27:43 p.m., the Range Rover moved to the right off the southbound lanes onto the southbound gravel shoulder and continued southbound, beyond and in front of the SO. An unmarked Dodge Charger [now known to be WO #3] passed WO #2 southbound in the median between northbound and southbound traffic.
At 8:28:00 p.m., the Range Rover travelled southbound across the northbound lanes of traffic, passing civilian vehicles. The Range Rover turned left onto the northbound ramp from westbound traffic on Lower Base Line. The traffic light for southbound traffic on Trafalgar was red.
WO #1, with emergency lights activated, turned left through a red light onto Lower Base Line, followed by WO #3. The SO activated his emergency lights and followed WO #3 through the intersection and east on Lower Base Line. WO #2 then turned left to proceed eastbound on Lower Base Line, after which she stopped behind WO #3 just east of Trafalgar Road, who was facing eastbound on the south gravel shoulder. The SO continued eastbound on Lower Base Line without his emergency lights activated, passing the stopped police vehicles.
At 8:28:30 p.m., WO #1 continued eastbound followed by WO #2 and WO #3. WO #2 turned left into the second driveway and faced the front of the Range Rover, which was positioned on a lot facing southward towards the roadway. The Range Rover was extensively damaged to both front fenders and the engine block smoked. A body was seen to exit the front passenger door of the Range Rover with his arms up. A police officer [now known to be WO #1] stood at a distance with his gun pointed at the person [now known to be the Complainant]. WO #2 stood beside WO #1 with her gun pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant crouched to the ground, and was grabbed by WO #1 and WO #2 and dragged away from the Range Rover.
WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind his back and two other police officers [now known to be WO #3 and the SO] showed up. The SO had his police service dog.
WO #1
At 8:26 p.m., WO #1 was travelling southbound on Trafalgar Road with his emergency lights not activated. WO #1 passed a HRPS fully marked Dodge Charger [known to be WO #2].
At 8:27:37 p.m., WO #1 travelled behind two dark-coloured SUVs. The west curb lane SUV [the SO] travelled in front of the centre SUV [now known to be a Range Rover]. The internal emergency lights in the SO’s police vehicle were activated. WO #1 drove to the driver’s side of the Range Rover and activated his emergency lights. The Range Rover drove to the right, onto the gravel shoulder, almost colliding with the SO’s police vehicle as it passed. WO #1 pulled in front of the SO and the Range Rover pulled in front of WO #1, almost side-swiping him.
The Range Rover travelled southbound in the northbound lanes of Trafalgar Road and made a left-hand turn through the red light at Trafalgar Road to proceed eastbound on Lower Base Line.
At 8:28:08 p.m., WO #1 slowed for the red light at Trafalgar Road and Lower Base Line, and then turned left around a civilian vehicle in the left turn lane. WO #1 continued for a short distance and then slowed and stopped facing eastbound off the south curb lane of Lower Base Line.
At 8:28:17 p.m., the SO continued eastbound on Lower Base Line with no emergency lights activated. WO #1 de-activated his emergency lights. The Range Rover could no longer be seen in the distance.
At 8:28:23 p.m., WO #1 proceeded eastbound with no emergency lights activated.
At 8:28:51 p.m., WO #1 turned left into a driveway. The Range Rover was visible, stopped facing southbound towards Lower Base Line with houses in the background. The Range Rover had its emergency flashers activated and it was extensively damaged to the front driver’s fender and the right rear driver’s side.
At 8:29:03 p.m., the front passenger door of the Range Rover opened, and a man emerged with his hands in the air.
At 8:29:19 p.m., a police officer [known to be WO #2] entered the screen from the right side. Another police officer [now known to be WO #1] approached from the left side. Both had their guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant. WO #2 and WO #1 pulled the Complainant away from the Range Rover, and WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant.
At 8:29:38 p.m., two more police officers arrived [WO #3 and the SO, the latter with his police service dog].
WO #3
On December 26, 2022, WO #3 operated a Dodge Charger, with no apparent markings.
At 8:26:29 p.m., a fully marked police vehicle [known to be WO #2’s police vehicle] was seen to turn right onto southbound Trafalgar Road from Britannia Road. A fully marked SUV was seen to be following WO #2 southbound on Trafalgar Road [known to be WO #1]. WO #1 pulled into the west curb lane in front of WO #2 and passed four civilian vehicles.
At 8:27:42 p.m., emergency lights could be seen ahead, and the glare obstructed the view of vehicles; however, a dark SUV [now known to be a Range Rover] was seen to travel southbound onto the west gravel shoulder.
At 8:28 p.m., the Range Rover turned left onto Lower Base Line from the northbound lanes of Trafalgar Road.
WO #3 stopped behind WO #2 on Lower Base Line and de-activated his emergency lights. A SUV [known to be the SO] continued eastbound on Lower base Line with no lights activated. WO #1 followed and eventually turned into a driveway.
WO #3 continued as there were cars stopped at the south shoulder of Lower Base Line. WO #3 then made a U-turn and stopped in front of a residence on Lower Base Line.
GPS Data - the SO
On December 26, 2022, the SO operated a SUV with subdued markings and no light bar. The SO’s police vehicle was not equipped with an ICCS. At 8:19 p.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Britannia Road, east of Bronte Road (Regional Road 25), at a speed of 69 km/h. The SO travelled past Thompson Road, Fourth Line, Fifth Line, and Sixth Line.
At 8:25 p.m., the SO travelled southbound on Trafalgar Road, from Britannia Road, at a speed of 53 km/h.
At 8:26 p.m., the SO travelled southbound on Trafalgar Road, in the area of 5150 Trafalgar Road, at a speed of 90 km/h.
At 8:27 p.m., the SO travelled southbound on Trafalgar Road, in the area of 5224 Trafalgar Road, at a speed of 116 km/h.
At 8:28 p.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Lower Base Line from Trafalgar Road at a speed of 29 km/h. The SO continued to travel eastbound at a speed of 106 km/h.
At 8:29 p.m., the SO stopped at an address on Lower Base Line.
Communications Recordings
On December 26, 2022, at 8:19 p.m., the SO advised the dispatcher that he was behind a stolen car on Regional Road 25 (Bronte Road) and Britannia Road, Milton. A Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) check confirmed the Range Rover was stolen. The Range Rover did not have its lights on. WO #2 advised that she was stopped westbound on Britannia Avenue at James Snow Parkway. The SO advised he was eastbound on Britannia Avenue following the Range Rover.
At 8:21 p.m., the SO approached Fourth Line. At 8:22 p.m., he approached the red light at James Snow Parkway and, at 8:23 p.m., the SO advised he was approaching Sixth Line.
WO #1 advised that there were a couple of police units at Derry Road and Sixth Line. The SO advised that speeds varied from 60 km/h to 75 km/h.
At 8:25 p.m., the SO advised he was approaching the red light at Trafalgar Road.
At 8:26:50 p.m., WO #1 advised they would attempt a TRB.
At 8:27:23 p.m., WO #2 advised she would take the rear of the Range Rover. The SO was to take the right front, and WO #1 would take the left front of the Range Rover.
At 8:28:05 p.m., WO #1 advised that the Range Rover had evaded the TRB and was travelling eastbound on Lower Base Line at a high rate of speed.
At 8:28:42 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the police units had stopped the pursuit.
At 8:29:24 p.m., the Range Rover was located on private property on Lower Base Line.
At 8:39:17 p.m., the SO cleared the Range Rover of other possible occupants. WO #1 requested an ambulance to the scene as the Complainant had a laceration to his forehead. The Range Rover was said to have no other occupants.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HRPS between December 28, 2022, and January 2, 2023:- Computer-assisted Dispatch Call Summary;
- Communications recordings;
- CPIC Response Report - Vehicle information;
- Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
- Policy - Arrest and Release of a Persons;
- Event Chronology;
- GPS data from the involved cruisers;
- Notes – Officer #1;
- Drone footage;
- Occurrence Report;
- ICCS footage from the involved cruisers;
- Photographs;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Mechanical Fitness Report – the SO’s vehicle;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #1; and
- Stolen Auto Report
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Peel Paramedic Service Ambulance Call Report.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of December 26, 2022, the SO was operating a police cruiser eastbound on Britannia Road when he came across a Range Rover also travelling east. The officer confirmed that the vehicle had been reported stolen and began to follow it. Other officers hearing the SO’s radio broadcasts of the stolen vehicle and its location converged on the area.
Among those officers was WO #2. Also on Britannia Road, and aware of the Range Rover headed in her direction, the officer brought her cruiser to a stop east of James Snow Parkway. It was her intention to deploy a spike belt, but when she checked her trunk, it turned out she was not equipped with the device. WO #2 watched as the Range Rover and the SO’s cruiser passed her, and proceeded to follow them.
The Complainant turned right to travel south on Trafalgar Road. Several hundred metres north of Lower Base Line, his vehicle was surrounded by police vehicles. The Complainant was able to maneuver around the cruisers, after which he turned left against a red light to travel east on Lower Base Line. While travelling at speed on Lower Base Line, the Complainant travelled onto the south shoulder of the roadway. He lost control of the Range Rover, travelled across the road, struck a berm on the north side of Lower Base Line and crashed his vehicle.
While southbound on Trafalgar Road, WO #2 and the SO were joined by WO #1 and WO #3. The four officers had attempted a rolling block of the Range Rover, which proved unsuccessful when the passenger side of the subject vehicle was left unattended. WO #1 was the lead officer in pursuit of the Range Rover as it headed towards the intersection with Lower Base Line. He was followed by WO #3, the SO, and WO #2. Immediately after clearing the intersection, WO #1 came to a stop on the south shoulder of Lower Base Line. WO #3 and WO #2 did the same. The SO did not; rather, with his emergency equipment de-activated, he continued eastward.
Following a period of several seconds, WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2 resumed their travel eastbound on Lower Base Line and came to the site of the wrecked Range Rover, about 720 metres east of Trafalgar Road. The Complainant was arrested at gunpoint. The SO had missed the collision scene, and had to double-back on Lower Base Line.
The Complainant was transported to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with spinal fractures, a broken nose, and a brain bleed.
In the evening of December 26, 2022, the SO was operating a police cruiser eastbound on Britannia Road when he came across a Range Rover also travelling east. The officer confirmed that the vehicle had been reported stolen and began to follow it. Other officers hearing the SO’s radio broadcasts of the stolen vehicle and its location converged on the area.
Among those officers was WO #2. Also on Britannia Road, and aware of the Range Rover headed in her direction, the officer brought her cruiser to a stop east of James Snow Parkway. It was her intention to deploy a spike belt, but when she checked her trunk, it turned out she was not equipped with the device. WO #2 watched as the Range Rover and the SO’s cruiser passed her, and proceeded to follow them.
The Complainant turned right to travel south on Trafalgar Road. Several hundred metres north of Lower Base Line, his vehicle was surrounded by police vehicles. The Complainant was able to maneuver around the cruisers, after which he turned left against a red light to travel east on Lower Base Line. While travelling at speed on Lower Base Line, the Complainant travelled onto the south shoulder of the roadway. He lost control of the Range Rover, travelled across the road, struck a berm on the north side of Lower Base Line and crashed his vehicle.
While southbound on Trafalgar Road, WO #2 and the SO were joined by WO #1 and WO #3. The four officers had attempted a rolling block of the Range Rover, which proved unsuccessful when the passenger side of the subject vehicle was left unattended. WO #1 was the lead officer in pursuit of the Range Rover as it headed towards the intersection with Lower Base Line. He was followed by WO #3, the SO, and WO #2. Immediately after clearing the intersection, WO #1 came to a stop on the south shoulder of Lower Base Line. WO #3 and WO #2 did the same. The SO did not; rather, with his emergency equipment de-activated, he continued eastward.
Following a period of several seconds, WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2 resumed their travel eastbound on Lower Base Line and came to the site of the wrecked Range Rover, about 720 metres east of Trafalgar Road. The Complainant was arrested at gunpoint. The SO had missed the collision scene, and had to double-back on Lower Base Line.
The Complainant was transported to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with spinal fractures, a broken nose, and a brain bleed.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13, 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 Milton on December 26, 2022. As the vehicle he was operating had been pursued moments before by HRPS officers, the SIU initiated an investigation. 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 his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he decided to follow the Range Rover with a view to stopping it and apprehending its driver. The officer had information that the vehicle was stolen.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the Range Rover. In particular, the decision to attempt a rolling block seemed a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Until that point, the officers had managed to conceal their presence from the Complainant while all but surrounding his vehicle. Had the maneuver worked, it might well have resulted in an effective blockade of the Range Rover, bringing it to a stop without risking a high-speed pursuit. Regrettably, given the dynamics at play, the passenger side of the Range Rover had been left clear, an opportunity the Complainant exploited in breaking free. At any rate, there is no evidence that the SO’s role in the maneuver was substandard. His part was to take up a position in front of the Range Rover, which he appeared to have done without complications. I should also note that the SO came to quick stop at Trafalgar Road and Base Line Road intersection, before he safely turned left against a red light. Though he did not stop with the other three officers right after the intersection, and continued at speeds above the speed limit eastbound on Base Line Road, he was well back of the Range Rover at the time of the collision and there is no evidence of his driving conduct having materially imperiled other users of the roadway.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 26, 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 his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he decided to follow the Range Rover with a view to stopping it and apprehending its driver. The officer had information that the vehicle was stolen.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the Range Rover. In particular, the decision to attempt a rolling block seemed a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Until that point, the officers had managed to conceal their presence from the Complainant while all but surrounding his vehicle. Had the maneuver worked, it might well have resulted in an effective blockade of the Range Rover, bringing it to a stop without risking a high-speed pursuit. Regrettably, given the dynamics at play, the passenger side of the Range Rover had been left clear, an opportunity the Complainant exploited in breaking free. At any rate, there is no evidence that the SO’s role in the maneuver was substandard. His part was to take up a position in front of the Range Rover, which he appeared to have done without complications. I should also note that the SO came to quick stop at Trafalgar Road and Base Line Road intersection, before he safely turned left against a red light. Though he did not stop with the other three officers right after the intersection, and continued at speeds above the speed limit eastbound on Base Line Road, he was well back of the Range Rover at the time of the collision and there is no evidence of his driving conduct having materially imperiled other users of the roadway.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 26, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
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.