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 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 18, 2023, at approximately 1:42 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Just after 2:00 a.m., March 18, 2023, a pedestrian had approached foot patrol police officers [now known to be witness official (WO) #2 and WO #1] in the downtown core and reported a suspected theft of a vehicle in progress at the King Street parkade located at 202 King Street, Peterborough. As the police officers approached the parkade, they heard a vehicle with its engine revving. The police officers observed a vehicle with its flashing lights activated flee the parkade, heading westbound on King Street. The vehicle was later learned to have been operated by the Complainant. The police officers broadcast their observations, and the Subject Official (SO) observed and attempted to stop the vehicle at the intersection of King Street and Aylmer Street. The Complainant’s vehicle [now known to be a Ford Escape SUV] collided with the SO’s police vehicle, after which it fled southbound on Aylmer Street. A pursuit of approximately two to three kilometres was initiated by the SO. The Complainant travelled southbound on Aylmer Street towards Lansdowne Street West and ended up in Morrow Park. When the Complainant exited his vehicle on foot, the SO released a police service dog (PSD). The dog physically engaged the Complainant, who sustained a laceration of approximately nine centimetres to his upper left thigh and a gash approximately five centimetres in length to the rear of his left leg. The Complainant was taken to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) by Peterborough County-City Emergency Medical Services (EMS) where he was admitted pending surgery. The Complainant was released on an undertaking at 4:58 a.m. on charges of Flight from Police, Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Fail to Provide Breath Sample, Impaired Operation and Fail to Stop at the Scene of an Accident.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/18/2023 at 3:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/18/2023 at 3:58 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired in Morrow Park, Peterborough, south of the intersection of Aylmer Street and Lansdowne Street.

Forensic Evidence

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

On Saturday, March 18, 2023, the SO operated a 2021 Ford Explorer.

At 2:10:35 a.m., the SO’s cruiser was in the intersection of King Street at Aylmer Street, travelling southbound at 31 km/h southbound.

At 2:10:38 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 66 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street between King Street and Sherbrooke Street.

At 2:10:46 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 96 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street between Sherbrooke Street and Dalhousie Street.

At 2:10:52 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 114 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street at Wolfe Street.

At 2:11:00 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 123 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street at the intersection of Rink Street.

At 2:11:03 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 111 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street approaching Perry Street.

At 2:11:05 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 107 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street just south of Perry Street.

At 2:11:07 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 87 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street between Perry Street and Lake Street.

At 2:11:12 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 100 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street halfway between Lake Street and Westcott Street.

At 2:11:15 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 105 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street south of Westcott Street.

At 2:11:19 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 131 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street south of Romaine Street.

At 2:11:21 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 133 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street halfway between Romaine Street and Princess Street.

At 2:11:25 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 103 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street halfway between Princess Street and Prince Street.

At 2:11:27 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 85 km/h southbound on Aylmer Street halfway between Prince Street and Lansdowne Street.

At 2:11:29 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 52 km/h in the intersection of Aylmer Street and Lansdowne Street.

At 2:11:32 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled at 8 km/h on Lansdowne Street west of Aylmer.

At 2:11:33 a.m., the SO’s cruiser was stopped.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

SIU Route Video

On Friday, April 28, 2023, starting at about 12:30 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators video-recorded the reported pursuit route in connection with the incident under investigation. The route video began on King Street and travelled westbound to the intersection at Aylmer Street, where it turned south. The route continued 1.5 kilometres south to the T-intersection with Lansdowne Street. There were no posted speed signs on the entire route, which was a paved two-lane roadway with a yellow centre line. The route travelled through a mixed residential and commercial area. There were numerous houses, along with two churches, a YMCA, a park and various commercial, and some industrial, buildings along the route.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the early morning of March 18, 2023, officers on foot patrol in the area of King Street and George Street North were approached by a citizen reporting a disturbance in the King Street parkade nearby. The citizen indicated that a vehicle, possibly stolen, had collided with other vehicles in the parkade. One of the officers – WO #2 – observed the vehicle in question – a Ford Escape – exit the parkade and travel west on King Street.

The SO was travelling south on Aylmer Street approaching King Street when he heard WO #2’s radio broadcast of the Ford Escape and its direction of travel, and observed it approaching the intersection. The officer entered the intersection and stopped his vehicle in front of the Ford Escape. The Escape stopped momentarily before accelerating southward on Aylmer Street, striking the front of the SO’s vehicle in the process.

The Complainant was operating the Ford Escape and fled from the SO when confronted at the King and Aylmer Streets intersection. He accelerated southward at speeds well in excess of 100 km/h, disregarding at least one red traffic control light as he did so. As the Complainant approached the T-intersection at Lansdowne Street, he blew through a stop sign and crashed into a metal chain-link fence before entering into Morrow Park and coming to a stop. His vehicle disabled, the Complainant exited and continued his flight southward in the park on foot.

Following the collision with his vehicle, the SO had activated his emergency equipment and pursued the Complainant. The officer also reached speeds in excess of 100 km/h, topping out at about 133 km/h between Romaine and Princess Street, but was never able to narrow the distance any closer than a city block. The SO observed the Complainant’s crash and continued flight on foot at the foot of Aylmer Street. He stopped, exited his vehicle with his dog and chased the Complainant into the park. The officer shouted at the Complainant that he would release the dog if he did not stop and did so as the chase continued. The PSD quickly caught the Complainant from behind and bit into his upper left thigh, bringing him down to the ground. The dog maintained a hold of the Complainant until the SO arrived on scene and secured him in handcuffs, after which the officer released the dog.

The Complainant had sustained dog bites to the left thigh and right thighs. He was transported to hospital and treated for his injuries.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by PPS officers on March 18, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, 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 arrest and injuries.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the dog bites. The SO had reason to believe that he had been involved in a number of motor vehicle collisions at a parkade, and the officer was present in the vehicle struck by the Complainant as he accelerated southward on Aylmer Street trying to avoid police apprehension.

With respect to the use of the dog by the SO, I am satisfied that it constituted legally justified force. The Complainant had just led the officer on a high-speed pursuit during which he had disregarded traffic control signals. Having crashed his vehicle against a fence in the area of Morrow Park, he remained undeterred, exiting his vehicle and continuing his flight on foot. In the circumstances, I am unable to fault the SO for releasing his dog when the Complainant, despite being warned of the dog’s use, continued to run away. The Complainant’s escape was a real possibility but for the use of the dog, and there was some urgency in apprehending him given his reckless driving to that point. The dog did as it was trained to do – it caught up with the Complainant and bit and held him down pending the arrival of officers. There is some indication that the Complainant punched at the dog, which might account for the fact that three bites appear to have been inflicted. Be that as it may, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the multiple bites are necessarily evidence of excessive force.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law when he deployed his police dog to apprehend the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.


Date: July 10, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit