SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-057
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 15-year-old male (Complainant #1), a 30-year-old male (Complainant #2), and a 15-year-old female (Complainant #3).
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 15-year-old male (Complainant #1), a 30-year-old male (Complainant #2), and a 15-year-old female (Complainant #3).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On February 26, 2023, at about 11:26 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On February 26, 2023, at about 8:18 p.m., police officers were dispatched to a Circle K variety store, located at 1050 Kipps Lane, for a theft investigation. An unknown man had confronted a group, and some from the group had pulled a firearm and a knife. The group fled in a vehicle reportedly operated by Complainant #1. At 8:30 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) observed a vehicle similar to the one the group had fled in. The SO attempted to stop Complainant #1. Complainant #1 accelerated away at a fast rate of speed and was subsequently involved in two separate motor vehicle collisions. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported him to Victoria Hospital - London Health Science Centre (VH-LSHC) where he was diagnosed with a fractured ankle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 02/27/2023 at 12:30 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/27/2023 at 2:18 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):
Complainant #1 15-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #2 30-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #3 15-year-old female; interviewed
The Complainants were interviewed between February 27, 2023, and March 2, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 27, 2023, and March 1, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):
Complainant #1 15-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed Complainant #2 30-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #3 15-year-old female; interviewed
The Complainants were interviewed between February 27, 2023, and March 2, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 27, 2023, and March 1, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on March 3, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of road beginning in the area of the intersection of Victoria Street and Adelaide Street North, London, and travelling north on Adelaide Street North until the site of two collisions at the intersection of Adelaide Street North and Kipps Lane, London.
Figure 1 – Side view of the involved vehicles
Figure 2 – Collision scene at the intersection of Adelaide Street North and Kipps Lane
Scene Diagram
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – SO’s Cruiser
While north on Adelaide Street North pursuing the Jeep, in the area of Huron Street, the SO’s cruiser travelled at about 78 km/h. Three hundred metres further north, about halfway between Huron Street and Kipps Lane, at a point in time at which the collision had already occurred, the SO achieved his top speed of about 90 km/h.
The SO’s Police Vehicle
The SIU conducted an examination of the SO’s police vehicle for any signs of collision. None were noted.Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data
The CDR data retrieved from the Jeep indicated it was travelling at a top speed of about 143 km/h as it accelerated north on Adelaide Street North. Its speed at impact was approximately 108 km/h.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage from 1160 Adelaide Street North
The footage was captured by a camera located at 1160 Adelaide Street North. Starting at about 8:31:16 p.m., a northbound vehicle [now known to be a Jeep driven by Complainant #1] was captured passing a southbound police vehicle [now known to be driven by WO #2]. WO #2’s emergency lights were activated. WO #2 turned his police vehicle around, and travelled northbound.
Starting at about 8:31:35 p.m., another police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] travelled northbound past the camera. The SO’s emergency lights were activated.
Starting at about 8:32:09 p.m., another police vehicle [now known to be driven by WO #1] travelled northbound past the camera. WO #1’s emergency lights were activated.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between March 1, 2023, and June 9, 2023:- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- CDR data
- GPS data;
- WO #1 - Statement;
- Executive Summary;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Video footage;
- Procedure – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
- Procedure - Use of Force;
- Notes-the SO;
- Notes-WO #2; and
- Statement-WO #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Medical records from VH-LHSC.
Incident Narrative
The weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with each person involved in the collision that gave rise to the injuries under investigation and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the evening of February 26, 2023, the SO and other LPS officers were on the lookout for a Jeep that had fled the scene of a weapons-related incident. A 911 call had been received from the Circle K at 1050 Kipps Lane reporting that a group of persons had entered the store wearing ski-masks and firing a gun into the air. One of them also had a knife.
The SO spotted the vehicle in question as he travelled south on Adelaide Street North. It was westbound on Victoria Street in the area of the intersection. The officer travelled onto Victoria Street and maneuvered his cruiser beside the Jeep, which was stopped at a stop sign preparing to turn onto northbound Adelaide Street North. Intending to stop the Jeep in connection with the weapons-call, the SO activated his emergency lights and watched as the vehicle turned right and accelerated away. The officer gave chase.
Complainant #1 was operating the Jeep. With him in the vehicle were Complainant #3, CW #1 and CW #2. At the sight of the police at the Adelaide Street North and Victoria Street intersection, Complainant #1 fled northward at speed, topping out at about 140 km/h. He approached the roadway’s intersection with Kipps Lane, travelled through a red light and struck a westward vehicle – a Honda HR-V.
WO #2, travelling south on Adelaide Street North from Kipps Lane, had seen the Jeep pass him several hundred metres south of the intersection. Recognizing the vehicle as the one they were looking for, the officer had just executed a U-turn ahead of the SO when he observed the Jeep strike a vehicle at the Kipps Lane intersection.
A passenger in the Honda – Complainant #2, and Complainant #1 and Complainant #3 from the Jeep, suffered various fractures in the collision.
Officers arriving at the scene arrested the Jeep’s occupants.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm
320.13 (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 #2, Complainant #1 and Complainant #3 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in London on February 26, 2023. As one of the vehicles involved in the collision was being chased by LPS cruisers at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision.
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 exercise of his duties when he spotted the Jeep and attempted to stop it. He had reason to believe that its occupants had just been involved in an act of violence involving the discharge of a firearm.
With respect to the manner of the SO’s driving from the moment he observed the Jeep and tried to stop it until the collision, I am satisfied that the officer comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the SO was several hundred metres back of the Jeep when the collision occurred. Nor does it appear that the SO travelled at reckless speed or otherwise endangered the motorists around him. He had his emergency equipment activated and topped out at about 90 km/h.
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 his brief engagement with the Jeep prior to the collision, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 26, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties when he spotted the Jeep and attempted to stop it. He had reason to believe that its occupants had just been involved in an act of violence involving the discharge of a firearm.
With respect to the manner of the SO’s driving from the moment he observed the Jeep and tried to stop it until the collision, I am satisfied that the officer comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the SO was several hundred metres back of the Jeep when the collision occurred. Nor does it appear that the SO travelled at reckless speed or otherwise endangered the motorists around him. He had his emergency equipment activated and topped out at about 90 km/h.
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 his brief engagement with the Jeep prior to the collision, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 26, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.