SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-050
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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries of a 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On February 19, 2023, at 10:08 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of an injury the Complainant.According to the DRPS, on February 19, 2023, at 9:40 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was driving into Bowmanville on Highway 2 when he observed a vehicle and the Complainant on a motorcycle; the vehicles were racing. The SO caught up to the vehicle and the Complainant. As the SO was about to conduct a traffic stop, the Complainant sped off at a high rate of speed. The SO aborted the traffic stop and continued down the road. Approximately one minute down the road, he came upon the Complainant, who had been involved in a single motor vehicle collision. The Complainant suffered a severed arm and was taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC).
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 02/19/2023 at 11:42 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/19/2023 at 11:55 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
41-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on April 6, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed The subject official was interviewed on March 29, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on March 6, 2023.
[Service employee witnesses have a duty to comply with the SIU pursuant to the SIU Act. Upon request by the SIU, service employee witnesses are required to submit to interviews with SIU investigators and answer all reasonable questions. The SIU is also entitled to a copy of their notes.]
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired over a stretch of Highway 2, starting in the area of Centrefield Drive and travelling east to the site of a motor vehicle collision just east of Highway 418, Bowmanville. 
Figure 1 - Scene of collision
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data from the SO’s Cruiser
On February 19, 9:10:19 p.m., the data indicated that the SO’s vehicle was stopped in the area of Highway 2 and Centrefield Drive. At 9:11:17 p.m., the vehicle was travelling at 100 km/h, after which it slowed to 68 km/h at about 9:11:28 p.m.
At about 9:11:39 p.m., 9:11:55 p.m., 9:12:17 p.m., 9:12:33 p.m. and 9:12:48 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 99 km/h, 75 km/h, 78 km/h, 75 km/h and 30 km/h, respectively.
At about 9:13:10 p.m., 9:13:20 p.m., 9:13:31 p.m., 9:13:42 p.m., 9:13:52 p.m. and 9:14: 36 p.m., the cruiser travelled at 87 km/h, 111 km/h, 121 km/h, 119 km/h, 109 km/h and 0 km/h, respectively.
From start to finish, the SO’s vehicle had travelled a distance of approximately four kilometres.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Communications Recordings
Starting at about 9:14:04 p.m., the SO advised dispatch, “Can you mark me off at M-V-C-P-I? Motorcycle had taken off from me. He’s ditched it. Need an ambulance, 418 and Highway 2.” Starting at about 9:14:29 p.m., the SO asked for a rush on paramedics.
Starting at about 9:15:52 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had a broken right arm and right leg.
Starting at about 9:16:11 p.m., the SO requested another rush on paramedics.
Starting at about 9:19:55 p.m., the SO advised that three tourniquets had been applied.
Starting at about 9:21:39 p.m., paramedics had arrived.
Starting at about 9:21:46 p.m., the fire department was on-scene.
Starting at about 9:34:40 p.m., it was noted that the Complainant was to be transported to SHSC.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
The BWCs of police officers responding to the site of the collision captured the Complainant laying on his back on the ground. He was wearing a blue and white motorcycle jacket, and a motorcycle helmet. Starting at about 9:15:21 p.m., the SO told the Complainant, “I put the lights on to stop you and you took off.” The Complainant asked for help. The SO said paramedics were on their way.
Starting at about 9:16:10 p.m., the SO asked for a rush on paramedics. He continued to talk to the Complainant, who identified himself by his first name. The SO told the Complainant, “I only lit you up, man. You took off on me.”
Starting at about 9:17:51 p.m., the SO said, “[The Complainant], you shouldn’t have taken off on me, bud.” The Complainant’s right arm was severely injured. His left leg was visibly fractured in multiple locations. His right leg had a bone protruding through his pants.
At 9:21:11 p.m., Emergency Medical Services arrived on-scene. The SO told paramedics, “He took off on me when I tried to do a traffic stop and he hit the rail.”
Footage from Traffic Cameras
SIU investigators obtained footage from cameras installed on Highway 2. One of the cameras was installed on Highway 2 and Prestonvale Road, and the other camera was installed on Highway 2 and Courtice Road.Starting at about 9:10:58 p.m., a motorcycle was captured in the eastbound lanes of Highway 2. It changed from the right lane to the left lane as it approached the intersection red traffic light and stopped.
Starting at about 9:11:05 p.m., a white SUV pulled up in the right lane beside the motorcycle and stopped.
Starting at about 9:11:19 p.m., the traffic light changed to green, and both vehicles continued eastbound on Highway 2. The motorcycle sped off while the white SUV advanced at what appeared to be a customary pace.
Starting at about 9:11:25 p.m., a police vehicle entered the intersection eastbound on Highway 2 in the right lane and continued out of the frame. It appeared to be travelling at customary speeds as it kept pace with the vehicle in the left lane.
Starting at about 9:12:55 p.m., a motorcycle entered the intersection of Courtice Road and Highway 2 eastbound and continued out of the frame to the left.
At 9:12:56 p.m., a police vehicle entered the intersection eastbound.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the DRPS between February 23, 2023, and March 20, 2023:- Detailed Call Summary;
- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Involved Officers List;
- GPS data for the SO’s cruiser;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Notes –WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – SO;
- Police Witness Report – WO #1;
- Police Witness Report – WO #2;
- Versadex Report – SO;
- Video footage from highway;
- Policy – Use of Force;
- Policy – Arrest;
- Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; and
- Policy – Police Vehicle Operations and Safe Arrival.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of February 19, 2023, the SO was stationary in his cruiser parked south of Highway 2, and west of Centrefield Drive, when he observed a speeding motorcycle eastbound on the highway travelling at about 100 km/h. The speed limit was 50 km/h. The officer entered onto Highway 2 and caught up to the motorcycle at a red light. When the light turned green, the motorcyclist accelerated away, reaching speeds over 100 km/h. The SO again caught up to the motorcyclist at the next red light at Sandringham Road. When a records check of the motorcycle licence revealed that the driver – the Complainant – was without a valid licence, the SO decided to stop the vehicle for the licence and speeding infractions.
The Complainant accelerated eastward on Highway 2 when the light turned green. He did so at customary speeds, but only for a moment. As soon as the SO activated his emergency lights to pull him over, the Complainant sped off at upwards of 100 km/h. He continued a speed upwards of two kilometres until he lost control of the motorcycle in the area of Highway 418 and crashed.
As the Complainant accelerated away at Sandringham Road, the SO shut off his emergency lights and slowed, eventually losing sight of the motorcycle in the distance. Passing Courtice Road and seeing what appeared to be the motorcycle in the distance, the officer picked up his speed and travelled to the site of the collision.
The SO called for paramedics and spoke with the Complainant, laying on the ground in pain with obvious and serious injuries.
The Complainant was transported to hospital with a severed arm and multiple fractures. One of his legs would also be amputated.
In the evening of February 19, 2023, the SO was stationary in his cruiser parked south of Highway 2, and west of Centrefield Drive, when he observed a speeding motorcycle eastbound on the highway travelling at about 100 km/h. The speed limit was 50 km/h. The officer entered onto Highway 2 and caught up to the motorcycle at a red light. When the light turned green, the motorcyclist accelerated away, reaching speeds over 100 km/h. The SO again caught up to the motorcyclist at the next red light at Sandringham Road. When a records check of the motorcycle licence revealed that the driver – the Complainant – was without a valid licence, the SO decided to stop the vehicle for the licence and speeding infractions.
The Complainant accelerated eastward on Highway 2 when the light turned green. He did so at customary speeds, but only for a moment. As soon as the SO activated his emergency lights to pull him over, the Complainant sped off at upwards of 100 km/h. He continued a speed upwards of two kilometres until he lost control of the motorcycle in the area of Highway 418 and crashed.
As the Complainant accelerated away at Sandringham Road, the SO shut off his emergency lights and slowed, eventually losing sight of the motorcycle in the distance. Passing Courtice Road and seeing what appeared to be the motorcycle in the distance, the officer picked up his speed and travelled to the site of the collision.
The SO called for paramedics and spoke with the Complainant, laying on the ground in pain with obvious and serious injuries.
The Complainant was transported to hospital with a severed arm and multiple fractures. One of his legs would also be amputated.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death
(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 motorcycle crash in Bowmanville on February 19, 2023. As a DRPS police officer had moments before attempted to stop him for a traffic violation, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The officer – 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 Complainant’s 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 within his rights in seeking to stop the Complainant for speeding and operating a motorcycle without a licence.
With respect to the officer’s driving from the point of his initial intervention to the time of the collision, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. Appreciating the Complainant’s particular vulnerability on a motorcycle and the fact that it did not appear he was going to stop, the officer acted prudently in refusing to pursue the vehicle as it sped away from him. Thereafter, the SO continued eastward on Highway 2 in the direction of the Complainant to see where he was going, but was well back of the motorcycle as it approached the Highway 418 intersection and then crashed. It is true that the SO’s speeds were also north of 100 km/h as he neared the collision site, but it would appear this occurred near the tail end of the Complainant’s flight from the cruiser, or even after he had crashed. There is also no indication of the officer’s speed having manifestly placed other motorists in harm’s way.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the events culminating in the Complainant’s collision, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 19, 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 within his rights in seeking to stop the Complainant for speeding and operating a motorcycle without a licence.
With respect to the officer’s driving from the point of his initial intervention to the time of the collision, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. Appreciating the Complainant’s particular vulnerability on a motorcycle and the fact that it did not appear he was going to stop, the officer acted prudently in refusing to pursue the vehicle as it sped away from him. Thereafter, the SO continued eastward on Highway 2 in the direction of the Complainant to see where he was going, but was well back of the motorcycle as it approached the Highway 418 intersection and then crashed. It is true that the SO’s speeds were also north of 100 km/h as he neared the collision site, but it would appear this occurred near the tail end of the Complainant’s flight from the cruiser, or even after he had crashed. There is also no indication of the officer’s speed having manifestly placed other motorists in harm’s way.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the events culminating in the Complainant’s collision, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 19, 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.