SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-030
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 injury of a 31-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 injury of a 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On January 26, 2023, at 9:37 a.m., the Woodstock Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On January 25, 2023, at around 8:20 p.m., a civilian witness called police reporting he was following a vehicle [now determined to be an Audi driven by the Complainant] which had just collided with his vehicle and driven off. A WPS cruiser arrived at the Westmount Hotel located on Ingersoll Road. As the police cruiser entered the hotel parking, the Complainant left the hotel parking lot. Sometime later, a head-on collision occurred between the Complainant and a police cruiser. As a result of the collision, the Complainant was taken to hospital having suffered a fracture to his spine. The Complainant was eventually released from hospital back into the custody of the police.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 01/26/2023 at 1:22 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/26/2023 at 1:34 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
31-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on January 28, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 30 and January 31, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on February 1, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The scene was located on Ingersoll Road at the intersection with Park Row. Ingersoll Road was a north and southbound road with double-traffic lanes going in either direction. Park Row was an east and westbound road with single-traffic lanes going in either direction. Traffic heading north on Ingersoll Road was able to turn right onto Park Row. 
Figure 1 - Scene of collision
Physical Evidence
Involved Vehicles
A Grey Audi S4
The Audi had damage to the front and rear fenders on the driver’s side and severe, penetrating damage to the doors on the driver’s side.
A WPS Cruiser
The cruiser was a Ford Explorer SUV. The cruiser had severe front-end damage across the entire front of the vehicle.
Physical Evidence
Involved Vehicles
A Grey Audi S4 The Audi had damage to the front and rear fenders on the driver’s side and severe, penetrating damage to the doors on the driver’s side.
A WPS Cruiser
The cruiser was a Ford Explorer SUV. The cruiser had severe front-end damage across the entire front of the vehicle.
The SIU photographed both the Audi and the cruiser.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - The SO’s cruiser
At 8:24:36 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 59 km/h westbound on Ingersoll Avenue at Riddell Street.At 8:24:51 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 77 km/h westbound on Ingersoll Avenue at Light Street.
At 8:25:06 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 35 km/h southbound on Vansittart Avenue at Vansittart Park.
At 8:25:14 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 90 km/h southbound Vansittart Avenue south of Drew Street.
At 8:25:21 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 96 km/h southbound at 81 Vansittart Avenue.
At 8:25:31 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 48 km/h southbound at 15 Vansittart Avenue.
At 8:25:37 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 41 km/h southbound Vansittart Avenue at Opera House Lane.
At 8:26:02 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 48 km/h westbound at 298 Dundas Street.
At 8:26:12 p.m., the SO was travelling at 81 km/h westbound on Dundas Street and Waterloo Street.
At 8:26:38 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 55 km/h heading south on Ingersoll Road.
At 8:26:43 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 65 km/h heading south at 50 Ingersoll Road.
At 8:26:56 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 81 km/h heading south on Ingersoll Road and Main Street.
At 8:27:06 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 44 km/h heading south on Ingersoll Road approaching Park Row, where it collided with the Complainant’s Audi.
Crash Data Recorder (CDR) Data - The SO’s cruiser
About five seconds prior to the collision, the SO drove at a rate of speed of 43 km/h. About one-half-second later, the SO applied the brake pedal. The cruiser continued to slow. The SO maintained brake pedal application until the moment of impact. For about four seconds prior to the collision, the police cruiser slowed continually. At impact, the SO was travelling at a rate of speed of 16 km/h.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Great Lakes Auto - Video Footage
The recording was made on January 25, 2023. Starting at about 8:28:43 p.m., the ground, sidewalk and roads facing the intersection of Ingersoll Road and Park Row were captured covered in snow.
Starting at about 8:29:04 p.m., a marked WPS police cruiser with its emergency lights on drove south on Ingersoll Road.
Starting at about 8:29:08 p.m., a second marked WPS cruiser with emergency lights on drove south on Ingersoll Road. This cruiser followed the first cruiser.
Starting at about 8:29:12 p.m., an unmarked Ford F150 pick-up truck cruiser with emergency lights drove south on Ingersoll Road.
Starting at about 8:29:18 p.m., the Ford F150 cruiser crossed over into the northbound lanes of traffic on Ingersoll Road with its emergency lights on.
Starting at about 8:29:19 p.m., a dark-coloured car [now known to be an Audi driven by the Complainant] drove past one of the southbound police cruisers. The police cruiser appeared to be straddling the south and northbound lanes of traffic on Ingersoll Road. The Audi drove past the approaching cruiser using the sidewalk. Moments later, the Audi swerved to the left cutting across the front of the Ford F150 pick-up truck cruiser [now known to be driven by WO #2] continuing north on Ingersoll Road. At the time, WO #2 was southbound on Ingersoll Road approaching the intersection with Park Row.
Starting at about 8:29:21 p.m., once the Audi passed WO #2’s cruiser, it began to slide sideways. The Audi continued sliding sideways and collided with the front of a southbound cruiser [now known to be driven by the SO]. The driver’s side of the Audi collided with the cruiser head-on. As a result of the impact, the SO’s cruiser spun counterclockwise and stopped facing north on Ingersoll Road. The Audi slid in an easterly direction and struck the east curb on Ingersoll Road. It ended up facing north near the intersection with Park Row. WO #2 made a U-turn in his pick-up truck cruiser heading north on Ingersoll Road.
Starting at about 8:29:36 p.m., WO #2’s cruiser appeared to drive into the driver’s side of the Audi near the rear wheel area. Starting at about this point, the Audi was pinned against the curb and could move no further.
Starting at about 8:29:41 p.m., a police officer was at the driver’s door of the Audi.
Starting at about 8:29:45 p.m., a second police officer came to the driver’s door of the Audi. The SO exited his damaged cruiser going to the driver’s door of the Audi. A police officer on the passenger side of the Audi opened the passenger’s door.
Starting at about 8:30:06 p.m., a third police officer [believed to be WO #2] went to the passenger’s door of the Audi. He then walked to the front of the Audi.
Starting at about 8:30:41 p.m., there appeared to be a struggle on the passenger side of the Audi. Police officers, starting at about the driver’s door of the Audi, went around to the passenger side of the Audi. It appeared the Complainant was removed from the Audi and was placed face down on the snow-covered ground. It was hard to decipher how many police officers were dealing with the Complainant during the struggle.
Starting at about 8:35:41 p.m., the Complainant was helped up off the ground and walked to a cruiser where he was placed in the backseat.
Starting at about 8:36:53 p.m., paramedics arrived on scene followed by a second ambulance, and the Complainant was placed in it and transported to hospital.
WPS Communications Recordings
The recordings were made on January 25, 2023.On January 25, 2023, the dispatcher asked for police attendance at Simcoe Street and Brock Street, advising that they had received several 911 calls regarding a black Audi [now known to be driven by the Complainant] swerving all over the road and striking a snowplow. The dispatcher reported the Audi was heading north on Winniett Street. Later, the dispatcher reported over the police radio the Audi was heading south on Winniett Street going the wrong way down a one-way street.
A 911 caller, CW #3, a passenger in a pick-up truck snowplow, called police to advise she was in possession of a licence plate having fallen off the Audi.
A man’s voice came over the police radio advising that the Audi was not to be pursued.
A police officer indicated over the police radio having seen the Audi driving into the Westmount Motel.
The dispatcher advised they would distribute a “be on the lookout for” to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) with a description of the Audi.
The dispatcher asked the 911 operator to advise the snowplow to stop following the Audi.
CW #3 yelled, “He just struck a cruiser, he just struck a cruiser head-on.”
The dispatcher replied, “Confirming there has been a head-on, update please.”
The SO advised over the police radio, “He smashed my cruiser pretty good,” and that he was okay.
Another police officer requested an ambulance over the police radio. The dispatcher advised two ambulances were on the way.
The police dispatcher requested a medical update on the Audi driver, the Complainant, and was told it was just precautionary. The dispatcher was later advised that the Complainant was in and out of consciousness.
A police officer subsequently reported that the Complainant was in an ambulance being transported to Woodstock General Hospital (WGH).
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WPS between January 30 and March 31, 2023:- Arrest Report;
- WO #1 - Notes;
- WO #1 - Willsay;
- WO #3 - Notes;
- WO #2 - Notes;
- WO #2 - Willsay;
- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- CDR data;
- GPS data - the SO’s cruiser;
- Civilian interviews;
- Communications recordings;
- Identification photographs; and
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: - Photographs received from CW #2;
- Still images from video footage provided by CW #1;
- Video footage from 45 Park Row; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from WGH.
Incident Narrative
In the evening of January 25, 2023, the WPS received a 911 call about an Audi vehicle being operated recklessly in the west side of town. The caller – a passenger in a snowplow truck trailing the Audi – reported the vehicle striking another snowplow truck and driving the wrong way on a one-way road. Police officers were dispatched to the area.
The driver of the Audi was the Complainant. The Complainant, intoxicated at the time, was driving at speed and travelling on the opposite lanes of traffic. By the time police cruisers discovered his location, he had struck another vehicle and collided with other structures along the roadway.
The Complainant travelled south on Ingersoll Road from Dundas Street. In the area of the Westmount Motel, he entered the southernmost entrance to the motel parking lot and exited its northernmost entrance to travel north on Ingersoll Road. As he approached Park Row, the Complainant maneuvered onto the northbound lane to navigate around a police cruiser in the southbound lane, lost control of his Audi on the snow-covered road, and slid into a southbound cruiser being operated by the SO.
The collision propelled the Audi in an eastward direction towards the east curb of Ingersoll Road at Park Row, where it came to a rest. Officers approached the crash site and forcibly removed the Complainant from the vehicle, after which he was handcuffed and taken into custody.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured spine.
The driver of the Audi was the Complainant. The Complainant, intoxicated at the time, was driving at speed and travelling on the opposite lanes of traffic. By the time police cruisers discovered his location, he had struck another vehicle and collided with other structures along the roadway.
The Complainant travelled south on Ingersoll Road from Dundas Street. In the area of the Westmount Motel, he entered the southernmost entrance to the motel parking lot and exited its northernmost entrance to travel north on Ingersoll Road. As he approached Park Row, the Complainant maneuvered onto the northbound lane to navigate around a police cruiser in the southbound lane, lost control of his Audi on the snow-covered road, and slid into a southbound cruiser being operated by the SO.
The collision propelled the Audi in an eastward direction towards the east curb of Ingersoll Road at Park Row, where it came to a rest. Officers approached the crash site and forcibly removed the Complainant from the vehicle, after which he was handcuffed and taken into custody.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured spine.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm or death
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 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 WPS officers on January 25, 2023. As his injury seemed the likely result of a collision between the motor vehicle he was operating just before his arrest and a cruiser, the driver of the police vehicle – 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 injury.
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. [3]
The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he, together with other officers, travelled southbound on Ingersoll Road in pursuit of the Audi. Given the reports that had come in describing the dangerous operation of the vehicle, the officer was within his rights in intervening to do what he reasonably could to reduce the risk being created by the Complainant.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with the Audi. His travel to Ingersoll Road was uneventful – mostly at moderate speeds without any indication of having placed third-party motorists at risk. While on Ingersoll Road travelling south towards the scene of the collision, his speeds remained moderate and he had his emergency lights activated. The SO was in his lane of travel when the Complainant lost control of his vehicle and slid head-on with the cruiser’s front-end. It appears the officer attempted to turn left moments before impact, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the collision, but was left with no real opportunity to avoid the Audi.
On the aforementioned-record, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: May 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. [3]
The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty when he, together with other officers, travelled southbound on Ingersoll Road in pursuit of the Audi. Given the reports that had come in describing the dangerous operation of the vehicle, the officer was within his rights in intervening to do what he reasonably could to reduce the risk being created by the Complainant.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with the Audi. His travel to Ingersoll Road was uneventful – mostly at moderate speeds without any indication of having placed third-party motorists at risk. While on Ingersoll Road travelling south towards the scene of the collision, his speeds remained moderate and he had his emergency lights activated. The SO was in his lane of travel when the Complainant lost control of his vehicle and slid head-on with the cruiser’s front-end. It appears the officer attempted to turn left moments before impact, perhaps in an attempt to avoid the collision, but was left with no real opportunity to avoid the Audi.
On the aforementioned-record, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: May 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]
- 3) Though not the focus of the SIU investigation, there was some evidence the Complainant was repeatedly punched by officers while he remained seated in his Audi following the collision, not offering any resistance, and prior to his extraction from the vehicle. In my view, this rendition of events is insufficiently cogent to give rise to criminal charges given the source’s faulty memory of the incident and the countervailing accounts proffered by a couple of officers who, while acknowledging having struck the Complainant, said they did so to counteract the Complainant’s resistance and secure him in handcuffs. [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.