SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-330


This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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.

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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On December 30, 2022, at 12:53 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the WRPS, on December 19, 2022, at 1:35 a.m., WRPS officers responded to 741 King Street West in Kitchener for a theft in progress. When Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived on scene, he saw the Complainant fleeing and a foot chase ensued. The Subject Official (SO) arrived on scene in his cruiser and used his cruiser to block the path of the fleeing Complainant. In the process, the cruiser slid on some ice striking the Complainant with the front driver’s quarter panel. The Complainant was arrested and transported to the Grand River Hospital (GRH) where he was diagnosed with no fractures or internal injuries and released back into the custody of police. The Complainant was released by police on an Undertaking. On December 23, 2022, the Complainant complained to his mother of chest pain and returned to the GRH for treatment. He was turned away. The Complainant then went to Cambridge Memorial Hospital where he was treated and diagnosed with five fractured ribs, a collapsed lung and internal bleeding. He was subsequently admitted to hospital and underwent surgery. The Complainant was released from hospital on December 27, 2022. On December 19, 2022, the SO’s cruiser was taken out of service and had undergone examination by WRPS Identification Services and Traffic Services.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 12/30/2022 at 2:50 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/02/2021 at 2:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old male; declined to be interviewed

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 4, 2023.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 11 and March 17, 2023.


The Scene

The scene was the front exterior of the Tim Hortons situated at 737 King Street West in Kitchener. The restaurant was located on the north side of King Street West just west of the intersection with Alexander Street and King Street West. The south side exit of Tim Hortons faced King Street West. Tim Hortons had one entrance into its parking lot which was off King Street West. The exit for the Tim Hortons drive-through flowed out onto King Street West just west of the parking lot entrance. Since the incident was not reported until a week after it occurred, SIU Forensic Investigators did not attend the scene and therefore no scene examination was conducted, and no diagram was produced.

Figure 1 - Scene photo taken by WRPS

The SO’s WRPS police cruiser

On December 30, 2022, at 1:47 p.m., the SIU attended the underground parking garage of WRPS North Division and located the SO’s cruiser. This was a fully marked Ford Explorer. The cruiser was equipped with roof lights and a front bumper-mounted push bar.

The SIU examined the cruiser and did not note any signs of obvious damage. Noted on the front left fender above the wheel area of the cruiser were several small scuff or rub marks running parallel to the ground.

The SIU photographed the entire exterior of the police cruiser as it was presented. Photos were also taken of the marks located on the front left fender.

Figure 2 - The SO's cruiser.

Figure 3 - Marks on the front left fender of the SO's cruiser.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - The SO’s Cruiser

At 1:34:29 a.m., the data indicated the cruiser was heading south at 96 Weber Street South travelling at 79 km/h in a 50 km/h speed zone.

At 1:34:34 a.m., the cruiser was headed south at 108 Weber Street South travelling at 72 km/h.

At 1:34:39 a.m., the cruiser continued south at 122 Weber Street South travelling at 63 km/h.

At 1:34:47 a.m., the cruiser headed south at 142 Weber Street South travelling at 76 km/h.

At 1:34:51 a.m., the SO was heading south at 148 Weber Street south travelling at 64 km/h in a 50 km/h speed zone.

At 1:36:52 a.m., the cruiser made a right turn onto Shanley Street.

At 1:38:53 a.m., the cruiser made another right turn from Andrew Street onto King Street West coming to a stop at the Tim Hortons on the north side of King Street West.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Caliber Communication’s Video Footage

The recording was made on December 19, 2022.

At time-stamp 12:34 a.m., two men with bicycles [one determined to be the Complainant] approached the fence of the construction site at 741 King Street West.

At 12:59 a.m., the Complainant and the unknown man entered the construction site climbing over the fence enclosure on the northwest side.

At 1:03 a.m., Caliber Communications placed a phone call to WRPS to advise of an active theft.

At 1:23 a.m., the Complainant and the other man were caught on video carrying spools of metal cable up to the fence and throwing the spools over. The Complainant and the other man continued to carry items off the property, including tools and a propane tank.

At 1:34 a.m., Caliber Communications placed a second phone call to WRPS to advise the men were leaving the area. The Complainant and the other person left the site heading towards King Street West. Both individuals rode their bicycles and carried the items taken from the construction site.

At 1:39 a.m., emergency lights from a police cruiser were seen coming from the direction of King Street West and reflecting off the nearby buildings.

Video Footage - Tim Hortons

On January 3, 2023, SIU investigators attended the Tim Hortons at 730 King Street West, and learned of a camera located at the drive-through window of the restaurant. Staff was asked to check the footage for December 19, 2022, at 1:35 a.m., for any police activity. They checked the footage and advised that at 1:55 a.m., on December 19, 2022, a police cruiser drove through the lot and left. There was no other police activity noted for that day and time frame.

WRPS Communications Recordings

The recordings were made on December 19, 2022.

At about 1:03:37 a.m., WRPS received a phone call from a live video monitoring company, Caliber Communications, to their non-emergency line. Caliber Communications reported a break and enter in progress at 741 King Street West, providing descriptions of two individuals [one now determined to be the Complainant]. The Complainant and an unknown person were stealing wood boards, spools of wire, a bag of tools, and a propane tank. The Complainant had left the property with a bicycle and the stolen property, and headed to King Street West.

At 1:31:43 a.m., WO #1, the SO and Officer #1 were dispatched.

At 1:37:39 a.m., WO #1 reported an arrest.

At 1:38:05 a.m., WO #1 used the police radio and requested paramedics attend at the Tim Hortons parking lot.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WRPS between January 5 and March 13, 2023:
  • GPS data - SO’s cruiser;
  • Notes of WO #1;
  • Notes of WO #2;
  • Notes of WO #3;
  • Notes of WO #4;
  • Officer Report of Officer #2;
  • Computer-assisted dispatch Report;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Cruiser Memo - SO;
  • Cruiser Damage Form - SO;
  • Identification photographs; and
  • Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
  • Medical records of the Complainant; and
  • Video footage from Bright Condos.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with a police eyewitness and GPS data regarding the speed and directionality of the SO’s cruiser, 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 early morning of December 19, 2022, the WRPS was notified by a security monitoring company of a theft in progress. The company had detected two individuals via their live cameras entering onto a construction site at 741 King Street West, Kitchener, and removing wire and other items. Officers were dispatched to the scene.
WO #1 was the first to arrive. He spotted one of the individuals – the Complainant – walking away from the construction site with his bike. He called out to the Complainant, but the Complainant refused to stop and crossed from the south to north side of King Street West. WO #1 followed him on foot and observed as the Complainant, once on the north side lanes of the road, climbed onto his bike and began to ride eastward in the westbound lanes.

At about this time, the SO was also responding to the area. He travelled south on Andrew Street, made a right turn onto King Street West, and saw the Complainant cycling towards him. Within moments, the Complainant’s bike and the driver’s side front of the SO’s cruiser collided. The SO’s cruiser went on to mount the north curb and come to a skidding stop beside the front entrance of a Tim Hortons restaurant. The Complainant and his bike had been pulled under the cruiser.

WO #1 approached the SO’s cruiser and freed the Complainant out from underneath the vehicle.

The Complainant was taken to hospital from the scene, and later discharged without a serious injury diagnosis. The Complainant attended a different hospital on December 23, 2022, and was diagnosed with multiple left-sided rib fractures and a hemothorax.

Relevant Legislation

Section 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of 
a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or 
b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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 and around the time of his arrest by WRPS officers on December 19, 2022. One of the officers – 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 arrest and injuries.

In the absence of statements from the SO and the Complainant, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what happened in the moments preceding the collision. Did the SO intentionally strike the Complainant and his bike? Did the Complainant, while travelling the wrong way in the westbound lanes of King Street West, fail to circumvent the SO’s westward cruiser and strike the vehicle? The latter seems as likely as the former, with the slippery road conditions playing a role to one extent or another in both scenarios. That being the case, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in connection with the collision that injured the Complainant.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Regarding the former, 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. The latter offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was in the execution of his duty as he responded to the scene of a reported theft in progress in order to assist in the apprehension of the suspects.

With respect to the SO’s driving as he turned onto King Street West and headed towards the point of impact with the Complainant, I am unable to reasonably conclude that he failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety. On the weight of the evidence, it appears that the SO was travelling at low speeds at this time – in the neighbourhood of about 10 km/h, according to WO #1. If the SO was unable to avoid a collision with an oncoming Complainant because of the slippery road conditions, I am not satisfied his failure was the result of criminal negligence or dangerous driving. He had only just turned onto King Street West and travelled no more than about 30 metres before the collision occurred, affording the officer little, if any, time in which he might have considered his options and adopted a different one.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in his collision with the SO’s cruiser, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the SO’s conduct deviated markedly from a reasonable standard of care, much less that it did so in a marked and substantial way. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 28, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 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]


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.