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 injury of a 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On August 1, 2023, at 6:17 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, at approximately 2:49 p.m., an OPP officer [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] was operating a marked police vehicle westbound on Heritage Line, Straffordville. The SO attempted to pull a vehicle over but the driver [now known to be the Complainant] refused to stop and accelerated away. The SO disengaged and pulled over to report to the Communications Centre his location and mileage. While he was stopped, another motorist pulled up and informed him that there was a bad collision up the road. The SO responded and determined the involved vehicle was the one he had attempted to stop. The Complainant had been ejected. He was flown to London Health Sciences Centre by air ambulance.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/01/2023 at 8:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/01/2023 at 9:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning on Plank Road at a point south of Sandytown Road, Straffordville, and continuing north to the intersection of Sandytown Road and Heritage Line, Straffordville.

On August 1, 2023, at 9:50 p.m., SIU arrived at the scene. Heritage Line traveled in an east-west direction through the town of Straffordville. The speed limit was 50 km/h. As a westbound vehicle left the town, the surrounding area became rural with cornfields on both sides of the road and the speed limit increased to 80 km/h. Just beyond the first 80 km/h sign, the road bent to the right in a long curve. The road was asphalt and in good repair. It was marked with a solid double-yellow line in the middle and white fog lines on the road edge. Beyond the road edge was a wide shoulder followed by a deep ditch and the cornfields.

Figure 1 - The Complainant's Mitsubishi Lancer resting in a ditch next to a cornfield

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

In the afternoon of August 1, 2023, the SO was operating a marked cruiser and travelling south on Plank Road. With him in the passenger seat was CW #2, a mental health professional and member of the OPP’s Mobile Crisis Response Team. In the distance, the SO and CW #2 noticed a vehicle - a Mitsubishi Lancer – travelling north towards them. It changed lanes quickly and almost collided head-on with a southbound vehicle. The SO executed a U-turn after the Mitsubishi passed him, turned on his emergency lights and siren, and pursued the vehicle.

The Mitsubishi was being operated by the Complainant. He continued to accelerate northward, making a slight left onto Sandytown Road before disregarding a stop sign at Heritage Line where he turned to travel west. The Complainant continued at speed, entered a curve in the road and lost control of the Mitsubishi. The vehicle flipped several times before coming to rest facing north in the northside ditch.

The SO had chased the Mitsubishi until shortly before Heritage Line. Having observed the Complainant blow the stop sign, the officer pulled over at the east side of the road and came to a stop. He was about 60 to 70 metres south of Heritage Line. Several minutes passed and he was approached by a citizen alerting him to a collision on Heritage Line.

Arriving at the site of the collision, approximately 700 metres from Sandytown Road, the SO recognized that it involved the Mitsubishi he had pursued.

The Complainant had been ejected from the vehicle. He was airlifted to hospital with unspecified injuries.

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

Section 128(13), Highway Traffic Act – Police Vehicles and Speeding

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Straffordville on August 1, 2023. As his vehicle had briefly been pursued by an OPP officer prior to the collision, 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.

The SO was engaged in the execution of his duties when he embarked on a pursuit of the Complainant’s Mitsubishi. The evidence establishes that the officer had cause to believe that the Complainant was driving dangerously contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout the pursuit. Though the SO reached very high speeds for a period of about 30 seconds, there is no indication of any close-calls with other traffic on the roadway. Moreover, as an officer operating a police cruiser, the SO was exempt from the speed limit under section 123(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act. While the provision does not provide carte blanche to speed at will, it does recognize the necessity for officers to exceed the speed limit at times where the balance of public safety considerations are not prohibitive. In the case at hand, I am satisfied the SO did not exceed that remit having regard to the nature of the offence for which he was pursuing the Mitsubishi, the favourable road and weather conditions, the relatively short time in which speed was an issue, and the use of the cruiser’s emergency equipment. Lastly, it bears noting that the SO, reasonably, in my view, discontinued the pursuit as soon as it became clear that the Complainant was not going to stop. Regrettably, though given ample opportunity to alter his course of driving, the Complainant continued in reckless fashion and crashed his vehicle.

For the foregoing reasons, the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Mitsubishi. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: November 29, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit