SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-PVI-120
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 30-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 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On April 21, 2023, at 10:14 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.Earlier that day, an off-duty OPP officer, the Subject Official (SO), was driving a police vehicle northbound on County Road 24 at Side Road 10 when a collision occurred. A vehicle had crossed the centre line and struck the SO. The driver of the vehicle - the Complainant - had been taken to Headwaters Health Care Centre (HHCC) without confirmation of any injury. The scene was secured.
At 12:06 p.m., the OPP called the SIU again to report there was a fracture to the Complainant’s leg. At that time, the scene had been marked by the OPP but not measured.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 04/21/2023 at 1:53 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/21/2023 at 3:40 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
30-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on April 24, 2023.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed The civilian witness was interviewed on April 25, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right The subject official was interviewed on May 25, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between April 25, 2023, and May 10, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway on County Road 24 in the area of its intersection with Side Road 10.SIU investigators arrived at the scene on April 21, 2023, at 3:40 p.m. The scene presented in the area of County Road 24 and Side Road 10, East Garafraxa. County Road 24 was a paved asphalt road with one lane for northbound traffic and one lane for southbound traffic. There were gravel and earth shoulders on both sides of the road. At the time of examination, environmental conditions were approximately 13° C to 16° C with wet roads from intermittent rain. Photos and 3D scans were taken to capture the collision scene and vehicle damage.
There were two vehicles at the collision site. A silver Volkswagen Jetta faced south, and a marked OPP Ford Explorer faced northeast. Both vehicles had sustained severe damage to their front left corners and left sides. The front left wheel of each vehicle had been torn free and laid on the road along with significant vehicle debris.
Figure 1 - Volkswagen Jetta with severe damage to the front left corner and side
Figure 2 - Marked OPP Ford Explorer with severe damage to the left front end and side
At 6:40 p.m., the scene was released to OPP reconstructionists.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser
The OPP vehicle, driven by the SO, was equipped with a GPS receiver. The SIU secured a copy of the GPS data for April 21, 2023, from 5:30 a.m. to 7:50 a.m. The data provided information about the time, location, and rate of speed of the police vehicle. At 5:30 a.m., the police vehicle was stationary on a residential street in Port Dover. The SO drove from Port Dover and travelled westbound on Highway 6 to Highway 24, and then northbound to Highway 403. The officer then travelled eastbound through Brantford and Hamilton, and eastbound onto Highway 407 where he exited at Trafalgar Road in Oakville and turned northbound.
At about 7:15 a.m., he turned off Trafalgar Road and drove eastbound on Side Road 17. He stopped at a business for about ten minutes, then drove back to Trafalgar Road and continued northbound to about 850 metres north of Side Road 10 where the collision occurred at 7:43 a.m., about two hours and 15 minutes after the SO left Port Dover.
Between the community of Hillsburgh and Side Road 10, the SO’s speed increased to between 120 and 135 km/h in a posted 80 km/h limit zone. [2] As he drove the 850 metres north of Side Road 10, the SO’s speed remained a constant 127 km/h. At 7:43 a.m., the police vehicle abruptly stopped.
Technical Collision Investigation
A SIU reconstructionist was not dispatched to the scene at the time of intake and never attended the scene throughout the course of the investigation. However, a SIU reconstructionist reviewed GPS data, the collision scene field notes of Officer 2, and crash data retrieval (CDR) data from the SO’s vehicle. The SIU reconstructionist also reviewed SIU and OPP photographs of the scene. It was determined the area of impact was in the northbound lane. There were no CDR data retrieved from the Volkswagen because the year, make and model of the vehicle was not supported by the Bosch CDR system.
The CDR data from the police vehicle indicated that the SO travelled at 126 km/h at the time of the collision. He did not apply the brakes and there was no steering input for five seconds before the collision. He had his seatbelt on.
The rate of speed captured by the CDR data was consistent with the rate of speed captured by the GPS data.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]
Police Communications
On April 27, 2023, the SIU received a copy of police radio transmissions from the OPP.On April 21, 2023, at 7:44:05 a.m., a unit [now known to be the SO] broadcast a radio transmission indicating he had been involved in a collision. A vehicle had entered his lane as he travelled home from Haldimand County. He was uninjured and able to extract himself from his police vehicle.
At 7:44:45 a.m., an OPP dispatcher advised all units of a head-on collision involving a police officer on County Road 24 north of Side Road 10.
At 7:45:44 a.m., fire services were requested to attend the scene of a head-on collision on County Road 24, south of Highway 109. The collision involved a police vehicle and a civilian vehicle. The driver of the civilian vehicle - the Complainant - was injured.
At 7:47:48 a.m., a woman from the Haldimand Detachment called the communications centre and asked about the SO’s condition. The woman advised the SO had worked nights and was returning home. The woman asked if he was still on-duty when going home.
At 7:54:53 a.m., the OPP Provincial Communications Centre contacted paramedic services and advised of a collision on County Road 24 south of Side Road 15 in East Garafraxa.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP Dufferin Detachment and Wellington Detachment between April 25, 2023, and July 20, 2023:- Email - The SO’s Haldimand log-on;
- Photo Brief;
- ecord of computer-aided dispatch;
- Technical Collision Field Notes;
- Vehicle Examination Field Notes - 2011 Volkswagen;
- Vehicle Examination Field Notes - 2017 Ford;
- GPS data – SO vehicle;
- Notes – Officer 1;
- Notes – Collision reconstructionist 1;
- Notes – Traffic sergeant;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – Collision reconstructionist 2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #5;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – Officer 2;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- CDR data;
- Communication recordings; and
- Collision Reconstruction Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 25, 2023, and June 05, 2023:- The Complainant’s medical records from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from HHCC.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the morning of April 21, 2023, the SO was off-duty operating a marked police vehicle and driving home. He was travelling north on County Road 24 and had passed Side Road 10 when his cruiser - a Ford Explorer - was struck by a southbound vehicle. The time was about 7:44 a.m.
The southbound vehicle – a Volkswagen Jetta – was being operated by the Complainant. The Complainant strayed into the northbound lane in the SO’s path of travel.
The front driver’s sides of the vehicles collided. The impact sent the Explorer into the ditch on the east side of County Road 24, where it came to a stop. The Jetta continued south a distance and eventually came to rest on the west side shoulder and ditch.
Witnesses who had seen the collision arrived on scene and rendered assistance. Other first responders were also shortly at the site of the collision.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with multiple serious injuries, including various fractures and internal bleeding.
In the morning of April 21, 2023, the SO was off-duty operating a marked police vehicle and driving home. He was travelling north on County Road 24 and had passed Side Road 10 when his cruiser - a Ford Explorer - was struck by a southbound vehicle. The time was about 7:44 a.m.
The southbound vehicle – a Volkswagen Jetta – was being operated by the Complainant. The Complainant strayed into the northbound lane in the SO’s path of travel.
The front driver’s sides of the vehicles collided. The impact sent the Explorer into the ditch on the east side of County Road 24, where it came to a stop. The Jetta continued south a distance and eventually came to rest on the west side shoulder and ditch.
Witnesses who had seen the collision arrived on scene and rendered assistance. Other first responders were also shortly at the site of the collision.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with multiple serious injuries, including various fractures and internal bleeding.
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
The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on April 21, 2023. As his vehicle had collided with a marked police vehicle, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The driver of the police vehicle – 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 only real concern with the SO’s driving was his speed, which was sustained at times within a range of 120 to 135 km/h on County Road 24 as he approached the site of the collision, well over the 80 km/h limit. Indeed, in the five seconds before impact, the evidence indicates the officer was travelling at about 126 km/h. There would appear to have been no reason for these speeds – the SO was off-duty and heading home. At that velocity, the officer had significantly curtailed his ability to react to events on the road, such as a vehicle drifting into his lane.
Notwithstanding the SO’s speeds, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s conduct amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care. There is no indication that the officer drove dangerously in any other respect or that his speed had directly imperiled other traffic on the roadway. Nor were the surrounding conditions such as to aggravate the risks inherent in the SO’s speed – the roads were dry, the weather was clear and traffic was light. Lastly, there was evidence that the typical speeds on the relevant stretch of roadway could be upwards of 100 km/h. While that does not in itself excuse the officer’s driving, it is a mitigating factor in the reasonableness analysis.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the events that culminated in the collision with the Complainant’s vehicle, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: August 18, 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 only real concern with the SO’s driving was his speed, which was sustained at times within a range of 120 to 135 km/h on County Road 24 as he approached the site of the collision, well over the 80 km/h limit. Indeed, in the five seconds before impact, the evidence indicates the officer was travelling at about 126 km/h. There would appear to have been no reason for these speeds – the SO was off-duty and heading home. At that velocity, the officer had significantly curtailed his ability to react to events on the road, such as a vehicle drifting into his lane.
Notwithstanding the SO’s speeds, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s conduct amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care. There is no indication that the officer drove dangerously in any other respect or that his speed had directly imperiled other traffic on the roadway. Nor were the surrounding conditions such as to aggravate the risks inherent in the SO’s speed – the roads were dry, the weather was clear and traffic was light. Lastly, there was evidence that the typical speeds on the relevant stretch of roadway could be upwards of 100 km/h. While that does not in itself excuse the officer’s driving, it is a mitigating factor in the reasonableness analysis.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the events that culminated in the collision with the Complainant’s vehicle, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: August 18, 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) From Google Maps, the distance between Hillsburgh and Side Road 10 is approximately 11 kilometres. [Back to text]
- 3) 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.