Director's Report Details

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.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

The Team

The Scene

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

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

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or provide a copy of his notes.

Shortly after midnight, March 11, 2023, the Complainant was operating a Honda CRV with his wife and son in the vehicle. They were stopped at the stop sign before the road intending to turn left. The Complainant started his turn and had cleared the northbound lanes of Main Street North when his vehicle was struck by a police cruiser.

The cruiser was operated by the SO. The officer was en route to the scene of a ‘suspicious vehicle’ call travelling northbound on Main Street North at speed. Another cruiser, also responding to the same call, was behind the SO’s vehicle.

Following the impact, the Honda came to rest facing west in the southbound lanes of Main Street North. The SO’s cruiser jumped the east side curb and came to rest a distance north of the collision site.

The officers in the other cruiser pulled over and rendered assistance to the SO, who had temporarily been knocked unconscious, and the Honda’s occupants. Paramedics and fire department personnel arrived in short order to assist with those efforts.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with fractures to his sternum and vertebrae. His wife and son were fortunate to have escaped serious injury.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

Section 128(13), Highway Traffic Act – Police Vehicles and Speeding

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision with a PRP cruiser on March 11, 2023. The driver of the cruiser – the SO - was named the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. 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 exercise of his duties as he travelled north to the scene of a ‘suspicious vehicle’ call for service. There had been a report of two men in masks that were checking out parked vehicles and attempting to open them. They had since departed the scene in a white pick-up truck travelling north on Braidwood Lake Road.

With respect to the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, I am satisfied that he comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. At more than twice the 50 km/h speed limit at points as he approached the scene of the collision, it must be said that the SO’s vehicle constituted a danger on the roadway. This was particularly true given the wet road conditions at the time, which would have made driving at that speed a tricky proposition. On the other hand, an officer engaged in the discharge of their duty is exempt from the speed limit while operating a police cruiser by virtue of section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act. This does not give officers carte blanche to speed as they wish – public safety remains their foremost duty – but it does recognize that officers may have to assume risks that the ordinary travelling public cannot depending on the nature of their travel. The risks inherent in the SO’s speed were also mitigated by the officer’s use of his emergency lights and siren, which would have provided other motorists additional notice of the cruiser’s presence, and the lower traffic volumes present on the roadway at the time of day. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO departed markedly from a reasonable standard of care in the manner in which he operated the cruiser.

In the final analysis, it remains unclear why it was that the Complainant did not see the emergency lights and adjust his driving accordingly. Positioned where he was, the Complainant was under a legal duty to yield to the police vehicle. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges. The file is closed.


Date: July 7, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit