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 serious injuries sustained by a 33-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On May 27, 2023, at 6:24 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

DRPS officers were investigating a small blue sedan that was being driven by the Complainant thought to be related to a stolen trailer investigation from earlier that day in the City of Oshawa. When officers attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver fled and a Suspect Apprehension Pursuit was initiated. The vehicle travelled north on Harmony Road and turned west onto Columbus Road East, pursued by the Subject Official (SO). The SO positioned her cruiser in front of the sedan and a tandem stop was attempted. In response, the Complainant attempted to pass the SO in a lane that was designated for opposing traffic. In so doing, the two vehicles made contact and she drove off the road into a culvert and collided with a tree. The Complainant was extricated from the vehicle and handcuffed. She had sustained several fractured bones.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a stretch of Columbus Road East, from Harmony Road North westward for a distance of about half-a-kilometre.

On May 28, 2023, at 1:35 a.m., SIU forensic investigators attended Columbus Road East, between Harmony Road North and Wilson Road North, Oshawa. Columbus Road East travelled in an east/west direction and was a two-lane paved roadway. In the area of the interaction, the roadway was straight and level. The area was rural with bushes and ditches on both sides. Approximately 0.5 kilometres west of Harmony Road, on the south shoulder, was an area where tire marks had left the pavement and travelled in a westerly direction into a ditch. In the ditch, a collision occurred that involved a tree, wire fence, and a blue, 2015 Nissan Micra. The vehicle was orientated south/southwest in the ditch that was two metres below the roadway surface. There was considerable front end damage and the vehicle was partially submerged in water.




Figure 1 - The Nissan Micra where it came to rest in a ditch, partially submerged in water, with considerable front end damage.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of May 27, 2023, DRPS officers were investigating the theft of a truck and trailer in the area of Wilson Road North and Howden Road East when they came upon a blue Nissan Micra in the area. WO #4 had heard reports that three persons had fled from the stolen vehicles on foot, and he suspected that the Nissan – stopped north of Columbus Road East on the east side of Wilson Road North – was there to pick up the fleeing suspects. The lone occupant of the Nissan noticed the police vehicle behind her and accelerated away. WO #4 broadcast what was happening and pursued the Nissan. The time was about 1720 hours.

The Complainant was the driver of the Nissan. Over the course of the next twenty minutes or so, she led multiple police vehicles on a high-speed chase westbound and eastbound on Highway 407 and Oshawa streets in the course of which she exceeded the speed limit, disregarded traffic signals, evaded police blockades, and travelled in the opposite lanes of traffic.

At 6:40 p.m., aware of the pursuit involving the Complainant, the SO was northbound stopped at a red light on Harmony Road North when she observed the Nissan speed past her. The officer accelerated to catch up to the Nissan, activating her emergency lights and siren. Behind her were two unmarked DRPS tactical vehicles, also pursuing the Nissan.

The Complainant continued at speed north on Harmony Road North until Columbus Road East, where she turned to travel west. A short distance down the road, she was overtaken by a marked police SUV, which had accelerated past her in the eastbound lane before returning to the westbound lane in front of her vehicle. The Complainant attempted to pass the cruiser in the eastbound lane. She entered the opposing lane, pulled up side-by-side with the cruiser, and attempted to overtake when the vehicles collided and she was bumped off the road.

The SO had intentionally struck the passenger side of the Nissan with the driver side of her cruiser. She watched as the Nissan left the roadway into a ditch on the south side of the road and slowed her cruiser, coming to a stop a short distance away.

The Complainant had travelled into a culvert and come to rest after striking a tree. The collision resulted in fractures to her right knee, spine, and right-sided ribs.

Tactical officers from the vehicles behind the SO were the first to arrive at the Nissan. They smashed out the driver’s door window and forcibly removed the Complainant from the Nissan. [5] The Complainant was escorted out of the ditch and handcuffed.

Section 320.13 (1), Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

Section 9, Ontario Regulation 267/10, Police Services Act – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits

9 (2) A police officer may intentionally cause a police motor vehicle to come into physical contact with a fleeing motor vehicle for the purposes of stopping it only if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that to do so is necessary to immediately protect against loss of life or serious bodily harm.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Oshawa on May 27, 2023. As the vehicle she was operating was being pursued by DRPS officers at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident by the service 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 pursuit and 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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of her duties when she took up the pursuit of the Nissan. By that time, the officer was aware via radio transmissions, including from a service helicopter monitoring the pursuit, of the Complainant’s reckless and potentially criminal driving behaviour over a protracted period of time.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her brief engagement with the Nissan. The only real question surrounds the attempted rolling stop of the Nissan and the officer’s decision to bump the vehicle off the road. Both, no doubt, were filled with risk. The Complainant had been driving with careless disregard for traffic around her for some time and it was to be expected that she would try to break free of a rolling stop, with the SO positioned ahead of her and the tactical vehicles located behind. That said, given the Complainant’s hazardous driving in the preceding twenty minutes, even as cruisers pulled away to create distance, there was a real risk of a continuing danger on the roadway if she was not stopped sooner rather than later. As for the use of the officer’s cruiser to strike the Nissan, the regulation governing pursuits in Ontario – O. Reg. 266/10 – prohibits the tactic unless it is necessary to immediately protect against death or serious injury. At the time the SO decided to bump the Nissan, there was a vehicle approaching in the eastbound lane that was pulling over to the shoulder. The officer considered slowing down to allow the Nissan to return to the westbound lane, but judged that there was not enough time to safely allow for that to happen and decided against doing so. Instead, she opted to strike the Nissan with the hope of forcing it off the road ahead of the oncoming vehicle. The SO’s decision finds support in the fact that only tens of metres separated the Nissan from the oncoming vehicle at the time, and the evidence of its occupants, each of whom believed they were at risk of a head-on collision with the Nissan just before it entered the ditch. As it turns out, the tactic worked. On the basis of these considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when she acted as she did.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries are the result of the collision that occurred when she was forced off the road by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe they are attributable to any unlawful conduct by the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: September 22, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit