SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-002
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 16-year-old youth (“Complainant #1”), a 17-year-old youth (“Complainant #2”), a 19-year-old woman (“Complainant #3”) and a 15-year-old youth (“Complainant #4”).
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 16-year-old youth (“Complainant #1”), a 17-year-old youth (“Complainant #2”), a 19-year-old woman (“Complainant #3”) and a 15-year-old youth (“Complainant #4”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On January 1, 2023, at 9:29 p.m., the Barrie Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.According to the BPS, earlier that evening, at 8:29 p.m., BPS officers – the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 - were on routine patrol in a marked police vehicle travelling on Yonge Street at Madelaine Drive. In that area, Yonge Street had two northbound and two southbound lanes of travel, and the speed limit was 50 km/h. At that time, a 2005 silver Infiniti G35 sped past the marked police vehicle at a high rate of speed. The SO activated the police vehicle’s emergency lights and siren, and initiated a suspect apprehension pursuit; however, he disengaged approximately 200 metres north [at Yonge Street and Big Bay Point Road] as the Infiniti sped through a red traffic signal. The SO believed he would not be able to catch the vehicle, de-activated the vehicle’s emergency equipment, informed the dispatcher, and continued northbound on Yonge Street. When he arrived at the intersection of Cox Mill Road [approximately 200 metres], the Infiniti was located. It had struck a cement pole. The Barrie Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene and four occupants of the Infiniti were extricated. The occupants were transported to the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH), where their injuries were determined to be serious but not life-threatening. The BPS had closed the intersection and were containing the scene while awaiting the arrival of SIU. The driver of the Infiniti was placed under arrest for impaired driving.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 01/01/2023 at 9:29 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/01/2023 at 10:59 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):
Complainant #1 16-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedComplainant #2 17-year-old male interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #3 19-year-old female interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #4 15-year-old female interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainants were interviewed between January 2 and January 4, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 3, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on March 21, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #1 and WO #2 were interviewed on January 2, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired over a stretch of roadway on Yonge Street, Barrie, beginning in the area of the Westwood Avenue intersection, and ending at the site of a motor vehicle collision north of the Big Bay Point Road intersection.On January 1, 2023, at 10:59 p.m., the SIU arrived on scene.
In the area of the collision, Yonge Street was a four-lane roadway, with a centre left turn lane, oriented in a predominately north-south direction. The roadway, which was visibly marked, was paved, dry and in good condition. There was street lighting present in the area. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h.
Big Bay Point Road had four lanes of travel with a left turn lane at the traffic-controlled intersection. The roadway, which was visibly marked, was paved, dry, level and in good condition. There was street lighting present in the area.
A total station device was used to map the collision scene. Overall photographs of the scene were also taken.
Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
Complainant #1 ’s Vehicle
North of the intersection, along the east side boulevard grass area of the roadway and slightly north of the entrance to 601 Yonge Street, was a silver 2005 Infiniti G5 oriented north. There was extensive damage to the vehicle and the roof had been removed by responding emergency personnel. Both front air bags had been deployed. There was a cement pole that was lying next to the vehicle. An area south of the vehicle on the east boulevard was a damaged pole base. There were tire marks on the roadway and the direction of the debris field suggested the vehicle had struck the pole completely severing it from its base, thereafter travelling further north to its final resting place.
The SO’s Police Vehicle
This police vehicle, a blue Ford Explorer, was equipped with emergency roof lighting and a front bumper mounted push bar. An examination of the police vehicle revealed no visible signs of any notable damage. Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Police Vehicle
On January 18, 2023, the SIU received GPS data in connection with the SO’s cruiser. At 8:25:51 p.m. of January 1, 2023, the SO’s cruiser was northward on Yonge Street at about 47 km/h, in the area of 837 Yonge Street, Barrie.
At 8:25:58 p.m., the SO’s cruiser was northward on Yonge Street at about 63 km/h, in the area of Yonge Street and St. Paul’s Crescent, Barrie.
At 8:27:00 p.m., the SO’s cruiser was northward on Yonge Street at about 10 km/h, in the area of Yonge Street and Esther Drive, Barrie.
Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data
On January 1, 2023, the SIU was notified by BPS Traffic Services that the CDR data from Complainant #1’s vehicle was not accessible. Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Communications Recordings
On March 23, 2023, the SIU received a time-stamped copy of the relevant communications recordings from the BPS. At 8:28:17 p.m., the SO reported a silver sedan travelling on Yonge Street at over 160 km/h. He was pursuing but subsequently discontinued when he lost sight of the vehicle.
At 8:28:32 p.m., the SO reported the silver sedan was involved in a collision at Yonge Street and Cox Mill Road. EMS and the fire department were dispatched to the scene.
At 8:29:17 p.m., the SO confirmed there was a single motor vehicle collision.
At 8:33:19 p.m., additional EMS units were requested to attend the scene.
At 8:33:23 p.m., the fire department arrived on scene.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On January 5, 2023, the SIU received a copy of the footage from the BWCs of the SO and WO #1, and WO #2, as well as officers who arrived on scene after the collision to perform various scene management and collision investigation tasks. The video recordings were date and time-stamped, and in colour. The following is a summary of the combined footage obtained in this case. On January 1, 2023, starting at about 8:28 p.m., two uniformed police officers – the SO and WO #1 - exited their police vehicle and approached the scene of a single motor vehicle collision involving a silver Infiniti [now known to be operated by Complainant #1]. WO #1 approached a male [now known to be Complainant #2], who had exited the vehicle on his own from the passenger side and was lying on the sidewalk. The SO approached the driver’s side door, roused the driver [now known to be Complainant #1] to consciousness, and checked on his well-being. One of the rear passengers - Complainant #3 - was screaming about leg pain. WO #1 requested that EMS and fire services attend the scene. She also relieved a male [now known to be CW #2], who was at the passenger side door aiding the trapped occupants.
Starting at about 8:32 p.m., WO #2 arrived at the driver’s door and asked Complainant #1 how much he had to drink. In response, Complainant #1 replied, “Not much.”
Starting at about 8:34 p.m., the SO informed Complainant #1 he was under arrest for impaired driving.
Starting at about 8:36 p.m., the SO told WO #2 that he had activated his emergency lights and siren to pursue Complainant #1’s vehicle after it passed him at about 200 km/h northbound on Yonge Street from about Madelaine Drive to the Petro Canada. The SO subsequently de-activated his emergency lights when he lost sight of Complainant #1’s vehicle.
Starting at about 8:41 p.m., Complainant #2 told the SO that Complainant #1 was speeding and had increased his speed after he passed their police vehicle. Complainant #1’s vehicle then became airborne before striking a light post. WO #2 relieved the SO and WO #1 from the scene and directed them back to the station.
Starting at about 8:51 p.m., an officer advised WO #2 that Complainant #1 had an obvious femur fracture, as per the paramedics, and possibly one of the rear female occupants likely had a similar injury.
WO #2 made plans to protect the scene for the SIU.
At 9:38 p.m., the video ended.
Video Footage from an Address on Yonge Street
On January 6, 2023, the SIU received a copy of video footage from a dwelling on Yonge Street, Barrie, via the BPS. The video was not date or time-stamped. The camera that took the footage was a Google Nest device located on the front of the dwelling and facing Yonge Street. The footage captured a vehicle [now known to be operated by Complainant #1] travelling northbound on Yonge Street at a high rate of speed. Nine seconds later, a marked police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] proceeded northbound on Yonge Street with emergency lights activated. The lanes in which the two vehicles travelled could not be determined from the video.
Video Footage from Mission Thrift Store - 504 Big Bay Point Road, Barrie
On January 4, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of the surveillance video from Mission Thrift store located at 504 Big Bay Point Road, Barrie. The video was date and time stamped.On January 1, 2023, at 8:19:58 p.m., the video began. The parking lot pavement in front of the store appeared wet.
At 8:22:19 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be a silver Infiniti operated by Complainant #1] proceeded northbound on Yonge Street through the intersection at a high rate of speed. Four seconds later, the brake lights on Complainant #1’s vehicle were activated when his vehicle went airborne near the Bank of Montreal (BMO) located near 494 Big Bay Point Road.
At 8:22:38 p.m., a marked police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] with emergency lights activated proceeded northbound on Yonge Street towards the intersection at a slower speed than Complainant #1’s vehicle. The police vehicle slowed as it approached the intersection and came to a stop before proceeding through the intersection. While in the middle of the intersection, the emergency lights on the SO’s police vehicle were de-activated.
At 8:23:07 p.m., the SO stopped his police vehicle next to the BMO and re-activated his emergency lights.
At 8:34:57 p.m., the video ended.
Video Footage from A&W Restaurant - 649 Yonge Street, Barrie
On January 4, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of the surveillance video from A&W Restaurant located at 649 Yonge Street, Barrie. The video was date and time stamped.On January 1, 2023, at 8:19:30 p.m., the video began.
At 8:27:30 p.m., a marked police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] proceeded northbound on Yonge Street with emergency lights activated.
At 8:36:44 p.m., the video ended.
Video Footage from Petro Canada - 628 Yonge Street, Barrie
On January 4, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of the surveillance video from Petro Canada located at 628 Yonge Street, Barrie. The video was date and time stamped.On January 1, 2023, at 8:20:23 p.m., the video began.
At 8:25:37 p.m., a vehicle [now known to be operated by Complainant #1] was captured travelling northbound on Yonge Street at a high rate of speed.
At 8:25:53 p.m., a marked police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO], with its emergency lights activated, travelled northbound on Yonge Street at a slower rate of speed than Complainant #1’s vehicle.
Between 8:25:20 p.m. to 8:27:20 p.m., eight civilian vehicles travelled northbound on Yonge Street.
At 8:35:16 p.m., the video ended.
Video Footage from GO Bus 2600
On January 11, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of the surveillance video from a GO bus that was in the area at the time of the incident. The video was date and time-stamped.On January 1, 2023, at 8:00 p.m. the video began.
At 8:26:36 p.m., the bus, which was proceeding southbound on Yonge Street, slowed to stop at a red light on Esther Drive. At 8:26:53 p.m., the traffic light turned green for northbound and southbound traffic on Yonge Street.
At 8:27:03 p.m., a northbound vehicle [believed to be the silver Infiniti operated by Complainant #1], which was travelling quickly, entered the intersection on a green light. There was no police vehicle in the immediate area and one other northbound vehicle that entered the intersection shortly thereafter.
At 8:27:43 p.m., the bus turned into the Barrie South GO station.
At 8:29:59 p.m., the video ended.
Cellphone Footage taken by CW #2
On January 9, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy of three cellphone videos taken by CW #2 on January 1, 2023. The three videos were not date or time-stamped, and did not contain any relevant information to advance the investigation. Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between January 1 and March 22, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- Arrest Report;
- GPS data - the SO’s Cruiser;
- Event Details Report;
- Procedure - Body Worn Camera;
- Procedure – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
- 3D scans of scene;
- Fail to Stop Report;
- Notes-SO;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Training Record-SO;
- Video footage from a dwelling on Yonge Street;
- Audio Statement of civilian #1;
- Audio Statement of CW #2; and
- Audio Statement of civilian #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: : - Medical Records from RVH (Complainant #3);
- Medical Records from RVH (Complainant #1);
- Medical Records from RVH (Complainant #2);
- Medical Records from RVH (Complainant #4);
- Ambulance Call Report and Incident Report from County of Simcoe Paramedic Service;
- Video footage from Mission Thrift Store (504 Big Bay Point Road);
- Video footage from Petro Canada (628 Yonge Street);
- Video footage from A&W Restaurant (649 Yonge Street);
- Video footage from Barrie South GO Station (833 Yonge Street); and
- Cellphone video footage of scene taken by CW #2.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of January 1, 2023, the SO was operating a marked police cruiser on routine patrol travelling north on Yonge Street. His passenger was WO #1. In the area of Westwood Avenue, the officers’ cruiser was passed in the curb lane by a speeding Infiniti. Deciding he would stop the vehicle for a Highway Traffic Act infraction, the SO activated his emergency lights and accelerated after the Infiniti.
The Infiniti was being operated by Complainant #1. Once past the cruiser, Complainant #1 picked up speed and weaved in and out of traffic, refusing to stop for the police. He lost control of the Infiniti in the area of Big Bay Point Road, left the roadway, and struck a concrete utility pole on the grass boulevard by the east side of Yonge Street, north of the intersection. The impact severed the pole. Continuing further north a short distance, the vehicle came to rest on the grass boulevard.
The SO lost sight of the Infiniti in the area north of the Madelaine Drive intersection, after which he slowed his cruiser and de-activated his emergency equipment. Continuing north, he and WO #1 came upon the collision site and stopped to render assistance.
Each of the four occupants of the Infiniti was taken to hospital where they were treated for various fractures.
In the evening of January 1, 2023, the SO was operating a marked police cruiser on routine patrol travelling north on Yonge Street. His passenger was WO #1. In the area of Westwood Avenue, the officers’ cruiser was passed in the curb lane by a speeding Infiniti. Deciding he would stop the vehicle for a Highway Traffic Act infraction, the SO activated his emergency lights and accelerated after the Infiniti.
The Infiniti was being operated by Complainant #1. Once past the cruiser, Complainant #1 picked up speed and weaved in and out of traffic, refusing to stop for the police. He lost control of the Infiniti in the area of Big Bay Point Road, left the roadway, and struck a concrete utility pole on the grass boulevard by the east side of Yonge Street, north of the intersection. The impact severed the pole. Continuing further north a short distance, the vehicle came to rest on the grass boulevard.
The SO lost sight of the Infiniti in the area north of the Madelaine Drive intersection, after which he slowed his cruiser and de-activated his emergency equipment. Continuing north, he and WO #1 came upon the collision site and stopped to render assistance.
Each of the four occupants of the Infiniti was taken to hospital where they were treated for various fractures.
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
Complainant #1, Complainant #4, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Barrie on January 1, 2023. As a police cruiser had moments before attempted to stop the vehicle in which they were occupants, 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.
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 engaged in the lawful execution of his duties when he decided to engage the Infiniti. The vehicle had passed his cruiser at speeds upwards of 100 km/h, well in excess of the speed limit, and the officer was entitled to stop the driver for a speeding infraction.
I am further satisfied that the SO, in the course of his brief engagement with the Infiniti, comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The evidence indicates that the officer accelerated after the Infiniti over a matter of seconds and a short distance before turning off his emergency equipment and slowing. Rightly, in my view, he had assessed that he was not going to contribute to a danger on the roadway by attempting to keep touch with a vehicle that was continuing to accelerate and had disappeared from sight. Regrettably, the driver of the Infiniti continued at speed, topping out in the neighbourhood of 200 km/h, even though he had been left with sufficient opportunity to adopt a safer course. After discontinuing active pursuit, the SO continued safely towards the Yonge Street and Big Bay Point Road intersection where he assisted the injured parties while waiting for the arrival of paramedics and the fire department.
On the aforementioned-record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the course of the events that culminated in the motor vehicle collision. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: May 1, 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 engaged in the lawful execution of his duties when he decided to engage the Infiniti. The vehicle had passed his cruiser at speeds upwards of 100 km/h, well in excess of the speed limit, and the officer was entitled to stop the driver for a speeding infraction.
I am further satisfied that the SO, in the course of his brief engagement with the Infiniti, comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The evidence indicates that the officer accelerated after the Infiniti over a matter of seconds and a short distance before turning off his emergency equipment and slowing. Rightly, in my view, he had assessed that he was not going to contribute to a danger on the roadway by attempting to keep touch with a vehicle that was continuing to accelerate and had disappeared from sight. Regrettably, the driver of the Infiniti continued at speed, topping out in the neighbourhood of 200 km/h, even though he had been left with sufficient opportunity to adopt a safer course. After discontinuing active pursuit, the SO continued safely towards the Yonge Street and Big Bay Point Road intersection where he assisted the injured parties while waiting for the arrival of paramedics and the fire department.
On the aforementioned-record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the course of the events that culminated in the motor vehicle collision. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: May 1, 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.