SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-211
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 injury of a 20-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 injury of a 20-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On June 4, 2023, at 12:33 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to OPS, on June 3, 2023, at 10:37 p.m., the Complainant was riding a skateboard on Baseline Road at Clyde Avenue when he was struck by a police vehicle. The Complainant impacted the right passenger door column of the police vehicle without any damage to the vehicle. Emergency Medical Services attended and transported the Complainant to the Ottawa Hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 06/05/2023 at 1:04 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/05/2023 at 1:22 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
20-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on June 6, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightThe subject official was interviewed on July 11, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
The witness official was interviewed on June 12, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
Baseline Road ran east/west and was divided by a centre median, while Clyde Avenue ran north/south and was also divided by a centre median. Baseline Road had a right yield lane allowing traffic to turn from an easterly direction southbound onto Clyde Avenue. The intersection was on a level grade, controlled by traffic signals and illuminated by artificial lighting. The Google Maps image below depicts Baseline Road running east/west (left to right) and Clyde Avenue running north/south (top to bottom).
Figure 1 – Google Maps aerial view of the intersection of Baseline Road and Clyde Avenue
OPS released the scene prior to SIU notification; however, the service indicated once they became aware that the Complainant had suffered a serious injury, they had the SO return with the involved police vehicle and place it back where he believed it was at the time of the collision. With no scene continuity, SIU forensic investigators did not attend.
Physical Evidence
The SO’s Vehicle
The SO was driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time of the incident. Damage was visible to the front hood. 
Figure 2 – Damage to the front hood of the SO’s police vehicle
Forensic Evidence
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) / Global Positioning System (GPS) Data
The AVL/GPS data download provided by OPS were of limited value to the investigation as they only recorded times on the minute and not a preferred and more accurate breakdown of minutes and seconds. At 10:36 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was travelling 20.4 km/h.
Between 10:37 p.m. and 10:54 p.m., the police vehicle was stopped.
Based on the data, it could not be determined what the police vehicle’s speed was immediately prior to or at the time of impact. All that could be discerned was that sometime between 10:36 p.m., and 10:37 p.m., it was travelling 20.4 km/h.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Video Footage – City of Ottawa
At 10:36:16 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was captured travelling eastbound on Baseline Road in the curb lane at a speed consistent with other vehicular traffic. The SO signaled a right turn, and his brake lights illuminated and the vehicle appeared to slow prior to entering the yield lane. Traffic was light, the roads were dry and the weather clear.
The brake lights remained illuminated as the vehicle entered into the right turn.
The camera placement was such that it did not capture the collision.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between June 8 and 19, 2023:- Computer-aided dispatch summary;
- Forensic Report;
- AVL/GPS data;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Photograph of vehicle damage;
- Scene photos;
- Communications recordings;
- General Occurrence Report; and
- Vehicle damage estimate.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources: - The Ottawa Hospital medical records for the Complainant, received on June 12, 2023; and
- City of Ottawa video footage, received on June 13, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of June 3, 2023, the SO was on-duty operating an unmarked police vehicle travelling east on Baseline Road. Approaching Clyde Avenue, the officer maneuvered into the right-turn lane intending to travel south.
At the same time, the Complainant was riding his skateboard north on the west sidewalk of Clyde Avenue, approaching Baseline Road. He entered onto the pedestrian lane through the right-turn lane and collided with the front passenger side of the SO’s vehicle. The collision sent him tumbling several metres, and resulted in a fractured left wrist. The time was 10:36 p.m.
The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene where his injury was diagnosed and treated.
In the evening of June 3, 2023, the SO was on-duty operating an unmarked police vehicle travelling east on Baseline Road. Approaching Clyde Avenue, the officer maneuvered into the right-turn lane intending to travel south.
At the same time, the Complainant was riding his skateboard north on the west sidewalk of Clyde Avenue, approaching Baseline Road. He entered onto the pedestrian lane through the right-turn lane and collided with the front passenger side of the SO’s vehicle. The collision sent him tumbling several metres, and resulted in a fractured left wrist. The time was 10:36 p.m.
The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene where his injury was diagnosed and treated.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (2) 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 collision with a police vehicle in Ottawa on June 3, 2023. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, the driver of the 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.
There is little, if anything, in the evidence to suggest that the SO failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety as he approached the collision scene. The officer, travelling at the speed of traffic on Baseline Road, signaled an intention to turn right onto Clyde Avenue, slowed, and entered into the right turn lane. Traffic was light at the time, the roads were dry and the weather clear. He continued to slow and may have even stopped as he approached the pedestrian right-of-way through the right lane onto Clyde Avenue when his vehicle collided with the Complainant. Why it was the SO did not see the Complainant prior to the collision is not entirely clear. The fact that it was dark, there was a sightline obstruction of sorts at the collision site, and the Complainant was riding a skateboard on a sidewalk, at speed and against city by-laws, perhaps played a role. Be that as it may, I am satisfied on this record that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the manner in which he operated his vehicle.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO conducted himself unlawfully in relation to his collision with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 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.
There is little, if anything, in the evidence to suggest that the SO failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety as he approached the collision scene. The officer, travelling at the speed of traffic on Baseline Road, signaled an intention to turn right onto Clyde Avenue, slowed, and entered into the right turn lane. Traffic was light at the time, the roads were dry and the weather clear. He continued to slow and may have even stopped as he approached the pedestrian right-of-way through the right lane onto Clyde Avenue when his vehicle collided with the Complainant. Why it was the SO did not see the Complainant prior to the collision is not entirely clear. The fact that it was dark, there was a sightline obstruction of sorts at the collision site, and the Complainant was riding a skateboard on a sidewalk, at speed and against city by-laws, perhaps played a role. Be that as it may, I am satisfied on this record that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the manner in which he operated his vehicle.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO conducted himself unlawfully in relation to his collision with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) 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.