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 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 30, 2023, at 8:41 p.m., the OPP contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 5:02 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was off-duty and operating an unmarked OPP cruiser eastbound on Highway 401 in Oxford County. A vehicle dove past the SO at a high rate of speed, estimated to have been about 180 km/h. The SO activated the emergency lighting of his cruiser and attempted to follow the speeding vehicle. After a brief period, he aborted the pursuit, pulled over to the shoulder, and contacted the Provincial Communication Centre (PCC), advising that he had disengaged from a vehicle that had failed to stop. A short time later, the speeding vehicle was observed leaving Highway 401 at Exit 218 near Ingersoll, rolling multiple times and ending up in a ditch. The driver was extricated by the fire department and taken to the London Health Sciences Centre Victoria Hospital with what was believed to be multiple fractures and a possible brain bleed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/30/2023 at 10:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/30/2023 at 10:14 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired over a stretch of highway beginning on Highway 401 between Putnam Road and Culloden Line, and travelling east to Highway 401 and the Plank Line exit.

A SIU forensic investigator attended the scene on March 30, 2023, at 9:30 p.m., examining and photographing it. The OPP cruiser driven by the SO revealed no collision damage consistent with contact with another vehicle.

The SIU forensic investigator noted that the Highway 401 eastbound off-ramp at Highway 19 (Exit 218) was a paved single-laned roadway with fog lines visible on both sides. The posted warning speed for the ramp was 50 km/h. The first curve proceeded right, which was followed by a curve to the left towards a traffic circle at Highway 19. Prior to the first curve, tire marks were noted that extended straight and then onto the left shoulder consisting of gravel. These tire marks continued past the shoulder into a field area where several gouges were found. These gouges continued to an ascending embankment that led to a flat area at the top. Halfway up the embankment, the gouging became wider and vehicle debris was scattered. On the top of the embankment was increased debris consisting of broken auto parts and interior personal effects. At the end of the gouged area and debris field was a Mercedes Benz on its roof with extensive damage.

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

In the afternoon of March 30, 2023, the Complainant was operating a Mercedes-Benz vehicle eastbound on Highway 401. He was doing so recklessly and at speed, weaving in and out of traffic, passing motorists on the shoulders of the highway, and travelling upwards of 160 km/h on the estimate of some witnesses.

The SO was also travelling eastbound on Highway 401 at the time. While operating an unmarked Charger at about 120 km/h, the officer was passed in the centre lane by the Complainant’s Mercedes-Benz. Deciding he would stop the vehicle for speeding, the SO activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and accelerated to about 180 km/h attempting to catch up to the Mercedes-Benz. As the Complainant continued to increase the distance between their vehicles, the officer pulled over onto the south shoulder of the highway and came to a stop east of Culloden Line.

The Complainant continued apace. As he approached Plank Line, he veered onto the off-ramp and lost control of the vehicle. The Mercedes-Benz left the roadway, entered onto a grassy median and flipped several times before coming to a rest on its roof.

First responders arrived on scene and extricated the Complainant from the wreckage. He was taken to hospital with a fractured back and, possibly, other injuries.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

The Complainant was seriously injured in a single motor vehicle collision in Ingersoll on March 30, 2023. As the vehicle he was driving had briefly been engaged by an OPP cruiser moments earlier, 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.

There is no evidence of any want of care on the part of the SO. Having observed the Mercedes-Benz pass him at dangerously high speeds, the officer was within his rights in trying to stop the vehicle to issue an offence notice. He too accelerated to about 180 km/h to try and narrow the gap with the Mercedes-Benz but only for a short period. Realizing that the Mercedes-Benz was still pulling away, the SO, wisely, decided to disengage in the interests of public safety, slowing and bringing his cruiser to a stop by the side of the highway. The officer was three kilometres away from the eventual site of the collision, which he came upon minutes later after receiving permission from the OPP communications centre to continue eastward.

On the aforementioned-record, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s safety, throughout his brief engagement with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: July 11, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit