Director's Report Details

• 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. 

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• 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.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 07/02/2023 at 6:41 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/02/2023 at 8:25 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

21-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 3, 2023.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 2, 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 July 28, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
WO #4 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 12, 2023, and August 25, 2023.

Investigative Delay

There was a substantial delay related to identifying, confirming, and obtaining cooperation from the Oneida Police Service, which included Officer #1 and Officer #2. At no time did any police officer or employee of the Oneida Police Service acknowledge or respond to requests sent to them by the SIU.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

On July 5, 2023, the SIU received the GPS data for the SO’s OPP cruiser [Chevrolet Tahoe SUV].

The data captured the SO’s cruiser as it was driven in the area of Fairgrounds Road on July 2, 2023, at about 10:21 a.m. The data also revealed his cruiser as it travelled throughout the ONTFN and CTCN Territories.

At about 11:00 a.m., the SO was mobile near Jubilee Road and Chippewa Road.

At about 11:14 a.m., the SO’s cruiser was stopped at the intersection, remaining so for several hours afterwards.

Requests were made for GPS/AVL for Officer #1’s cruiser and other documentation; however, the Oneida Police Service failed to respond to any SIU correspondence.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Police Radio Transmissions

On July 6 and 7, 2023, the SIU received copies of the radio transmissions from the OPP relating to a report of a pick-up truck that had gone into the ditch on Fairgrounds Road on July 2, 2023. Of note, the OPP and Oneida Police Service share a common radio channel.

On July 2, 2023, starting at about 10:10 a.m., Officer #1 and the SO were informed that a member of the community had reported a pick-up truck [now known to be a Chevrolet Silverado] crashed into a ditch on Fairgrounds Road. Upon the officers’ arrival, the pick-up truck was gone, though it was subsequently seen in the distance as it travelled erratically and at a high rate of speed. Both officers loosely patrolled the area for the pick-up truck, but it was not located.

Officer #1 later reported observing the pick-up truck on Oneida Road heading towards Hazel Road and travelled at a high rate of speed. He was asked by the communications officer if his roof lights and siren were activated, and he stated, “No.” The SO then reported that he was situated on Jubilee Road. The communications sergeant [WO #4] confirmed that there was no attempt to stop the pick-up truck.

Officer #1 advised that the pick-up truck had turned onto Jubilee Road from Muncey Road, and the SO stated that he would deploy a spike belt. As the pick-up truck was at Jubilee Road and Mount Elgin Drive, Officer #1 reported that he had lost sight of the vehicle. A short time later, the SO reported that the pick-up truck had crashed into a ditch and then a tree at his location - Jubilee Road and Chippewa Road. The driver - the Complainant - had attempted to evade the spike belt that the officer had deployed. The Complainant exited the vehicle and fled into a forested area.

There was fresh blood found on an airbag within the pick-up truck.

The scene was contained, and the officers waited for the arrival of an OPP Canine Unit
[WO #1] and ERT officer [WO #2].

At 1:02 p.m., a dog track began. At 1:20 p.m., WO #2 reported that the Complainant had been located in a bush and arrested.

EMS was called because the Complainant had facial injuries from the accident. He was later taken to the LHSVH.

 

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On July 10, 2023, the SIU obtained a copy WO #3’s BWC footage. The footage was of limited value to the SIU. It did not capture the events in question.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 2 and 30, 2023:

• OPP General Occurrence/Supplementary Report;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Communications recordings;
• GPS data for the SO’s OPP cruiser;
• List of involved Oneida Police Service officers;
• List of involved OPP officers involved;
• Scenes of Crime Officer photographs and video recordings;
• BWC footage;
• In-car camera footage;
• Photographs taken by WO #1 during her interaction with the Complainant;
• Notebook entries – WO #1;
• Notebook entries – WO #2;
• Notebook entries – WO #3;
• OPP policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits/Tire Deflation Devices;
• OPP policy – K9 / Emergency Response Teams;
• OPP policy – Use of Force; and
• OPP policy – General Policing on Indigenous Lands.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 12, 2023, and August 14, 2023:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the LHSVH; and
• Ambulance Call Report – Oneida Nation Emergency Medical Services.

Less than an hour later, Officer #1 radioed that he had located the pick-up truck and was following it as it travelled south on Hazel Road, west on Muncey Road, and finally south on Jubilee Road.

 
The SO heard Officer #1’s radio broadcasts. As he was in the area of Jubilee Road and Chippewa Road, south of the pursuit, the SO decided he would deploy a spike belt across the southern lane at the intersection.

The Complainant was operating the pick-up truck – a stolen Chevrolet Silverado. Travelling south on Jubilee Road towards Chippewa Road at speeds in excess of 150 km/h, the Complainant noticed the spike belt in front of him and steered to the left to avoid it, losing control of the vehicle in the process. It entered the east side ditch south of Chippewa Road and struck a tree head-on. The Complainant exited the vehicle and fled into a forested area.

The SO and Officer #1 convened in the area of the intersection and waited for the arrival of an ERT officer and a canine unit to assist in the search of the Complainant.

Shortly after 1:00 p.m., WO #1 and her dog commenced their search. ERT officer, WO #2, accompanied WO #1. Within minutes, the Complainant was located and bitten by the dog in the left leg. WO #1 removed the dog and the Complainant was arrested without further incident.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with swelling to his face and a fractured nose.

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of  

          (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or                                (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied the SO was in the lawful discharge of his duties when he attempted to stop the pick-up truck with the use of a spike belt. By that time, he and Officer #1, who was in pursuit of the truck south on Jubilee Road, had cause to believe that the Complainant had driven dangerously given his speeds, his reported disregard for at least one stop sign, and the fact that he had crashed the vehicle in a ditch on Fairgrounds Road.

 
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety when he deployed the spike belt. Though the use of the tool carries the risk of a loss of control by the effected vehicle, not doing something to stop the pick-up truck was also associated with a danger on the roadways given what the officer knew of the Complainant’s driving habits in the hour before. Nor does it appear that the environmental factors were prohibitive at the time. There is no indication, for example, of poor weather or traffic on the roadway that was imperilled. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the use of the spike belt amounted to a calculated and reasonable risk. Had it worked, the Complainant’s tires would have been punctured resulting in a controlled deceleration and eventual stop. As it turned out, the Complainant veered to avoid the spike belt, resulting in his loss of control and the collision that broke his nose.

In the result, as I am not satisfied on the aforementioned-record that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when he deployed the spike belt, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: October 30, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit