SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVD-343
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 death of a 26 year-old woman (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 death of a 26 year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On August 23, 2023, at 7:28 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information. On August 23, 2023, at 3:15 a.m., PRP officers located a vehicle parked on a roadway in the vicinity of Airport Road and Morning Star Drive in Mississauga. Police officers positioned their cruisers behind the parked vehicle and approached the driver, who was asleep. They had a conversation with the driver and received verbal identification. When the officers went back to their cruisers to verify information, the vehicle took off. At some point, the vehicle left the road and hit a mailbox before returning to the road. The police officers terminated their involvement. Approximately one hour later, the vehicle was located at 6600 Goreway Drive, Mississauga. Around the same time as the vehicle was located, a cyclist who had been struck by a vehicle was located, deceased, at Airport Road and Thamesgate Drive. Examination of the suspect vehicle indicated damage consistent with hitting the cyclist. PRP believed the cyclist might have been struck while their officers were involved with the suspect vehicle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/23/2023 at 8:17 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/23/2023 at 8:24 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
26-year-old female; deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Not interviewed (next of kin)CW #2 Not interviewed (declined)
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right The subject official was interviewed on September 5, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on August 25, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of the northbound lanes of Airport Road between its intersections with Morning Star Drive to the south and Thamesgate Drive to the north. There were three lanes in each direction of Airport Road with visible centre lines, and a raised concrete median separating the north and southbound lanes. The posted speed limit on Airport Road was 50 km/h.
There was a portion of a plastic wheel covering next to the east curb of Airport Road in the vicinity of Slough Street. A single tire mark with gouging was visible north of the plastic item. A portion of bicycle sprocket was located next to the tire mark. Continuing in a northerly direction, there was a tire scuff mark along the front of the east curb. Continuing in a north direction was a running shoe. There were portions of blue-coloured vehicle debris in the area, including a portion of an exterior mirror housing continuing in a northerly direction in the curb lane and on the east sidewalk. A portion of inner tire wheel well was located on the east sidewalk.
The debris continued in a general northeasterly direction towards a noise barrier wall and walkway leading from the sidewalk to a subdivision. A left running shoe was located on the grass boulevard along the debris path. An extensively damaged bicycle was located lying on its right side on the grass boulevard. The bicycle had heavy collision damage to the rear tire, rim and frame. The seat was missing from the bicycle. A bicycle seat and portions of plastic wheel covering were on the east side of the roadway next to the curb and north of the pedestrian walkway.
Figure 1 – Scene of bicycle collision
Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
Vehicle Examination – Mazda 4-door
The vehicle was located reversed into a parking spot in front of the entrance to a business located at 6600 Goreway Drive, Mississauga. The vehicle had extensive collision damage to the front right with the right front passenger headlight assembly missing. The right-side passenger mirror assembly was damaged and hanging with the assistance of the power cables. The hood was dented with scuff marks visible. There was heavy impact damage to the front passenger windshield with intrusion into the passenger compartment. There was minimal damage to the passenger rear of the vehicle. Both passenger side tires were missing, and the rims had evidence of having been driven on. There was a portion of rubber tire in the front parking area and to the left of the parked Mazda. 
Figure 2 – The damaged Mazda
Vehicle Examination – PRP Dodge Charger 4-door
The vehicle was a marked PRP vehicle displaying graphics as designed by PRP. There was no push bar on the front. The exterior of the vehicle was examined with no obvious fresh damage located. The emergency lighting as well as the siren and vehicle lighting and horn functioned as designed. Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO
At 3:07 a.m., the SO drove westbound on Derry Road East and turned right onto Airport Road. He drove northbound on Airport Road at a speed of about 50 km/h. From about 3:08:00 to 3:14:12 a.m., he remained stationary on Airport Road, south of Morning Star Drive.At 3:14:14 a.m., the SO was northbound on Airport Road. He was just south of the intersection and accelerated to 42 km/h. At 3:14:20 a.m., the SO was northbound on Airport Road, north of Morning Star Drive; his speed was 84 km/h. At 3:14:39 a.m., the SO was northbound on Airport Road about 120 metres north of Slough Street; his speed was 103 km/h.
At 3:14:55 a.m., the SO turned right onto Thamesgate Drive. He turned left onto Redstone Road and continued onto Benavon Road, travelling north. At 3:15:21 a.m., the SO stopped at Benavon and Netherwood Roads where he remained stationary for about one minute. The SO turned around and drove south on Benavon Road and Redstone Road, and then back onto Thamesgate Drive. His rate of speed in the residential area was between 35 to 43 km/h.
From 3:17 to 3:27 a.m., the SO was stationary on Airport Road on a railway overpass south of Production Road and Driver Road. He then drove northbound on Airport Road to Production Road, executed a U-turn, and drove back southbound on Airport Road, past Slough Street to Derry Road.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Police Communications Recordings
On August 23, 2023, starting at about 3:08 a.m., the SO reported a traffic stop at Airport Road and Morning Star Drive. Starting at about 3:13 a.m., WO #3 joined the SO at the traffic stop.
Starting at about 3:14 a.m., CW #2 fled northbound in his vehicle on Airport Road. The SO followed CW #2 as he drove erratically and turned onto Thamesgate Drive.
Starting at about 3:15 a.m., the SO was ordered by a sergeant to discontinue the pursuit. WO #3 reported CW #2 travelling east on Netherwood Road. CW #2 travelled over the sidewalk and collided with an electrical box. The sergeant ordered the SO and WO #3 to pull over.
Starting at about 3:20 a.m., the SO confirmed the vehicle was a blue Mazda.
Starting at about 3:27 a.m., a truck driver reported a suspicious vehicle with damaged windshield, absent tire, and trailing sparks travelling south near 6690 Goreway Drive. CW #2 was considered an impaired driver.
Starting at about 3:55 a.m., a search for CW #2 and his vehicle were initiated. The vehicle was located, and CW #2 was tracked on foot.
Starting at about 4:01 a.m., the track of CW #2 was lost.
Starting at about 4:31 a.m., a woman called police to report a struck cyclist on Airport Road and Thamesgate Drive, across from a Tim Hortons located at 7480 Airport Road. The cyclist was upside down on the grass with parts of a bicycle and a vehicle on Airport Road.
Starting at about 4:35 a.m., a bicycle and car parts were located at the scene of a motor vehicle collision near Slough Street and Airport Road.
Starting at about 4:42 a.m., a cyclist was confirmed to be an unresponsive woman.
Starting at about 5:06 a.m., the sergeant confirmed CW #2’s flight and the cyclist’s death were related.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO
On August 23, 2023, starting at about 3:09 a.m., the SO exited the driver side of his cruiser and approached a blue four-door Mazda that was stopped in the left northbound lane on Airport Road, south of the traffic light at Morning Star Drive. The SO had his emergency lights activated, and the traffic light was red. It was dark outside, the weather appeared dry and clear, and artificial light lit the area. As the SO approached the driver side of the Mazda, the traffic light turned green, and the vehicle did not proceed forward. The SO shone his flashlight in the driver side window. He knocked on the window and asked the driver to roll it down. The driver, CW #2, rolled down the window, and the SO asked what he was doing. CW #2 advised he was stopped at the light and the SO informed him the light had changed twice, and that he was asleep at the wheel. CW #2 denied being asleep. The SO asked him if everything was okay and where he was coming from. The officer asked CW #2 for his driver’s licence, and CW #2 stated he did not have it with him but that he was licensed. He provided a false name. The SO asked him to put the vehicle in park and turn it off. The SO asked CW #2 for his insurance and CW #2 asked why he was stopped. The SO continued to reiterate and explain the reason for the stop and his observations. CW #2 said he would have to look for his insurance and ownership; he took something out of the glove compartment.
Starting at about 3:13 a.m., the Mazda travelled northbound on Airport Road. The SO ran and entered the driver seat of his cruiser, located behind the Mazda. Once inside, his BWC camera angle was limited to the front steering wheel and dash. The SO put the vehicle in drive and drove forward with lights and siren activated. He advised over the radio that he was northbound on Airport Road. He was asked over the radio if he was in pursuit. The SO said, “No, just following.” His speed was not visible.
Starting at about 3:14 a.m., the SO advised over the radio that the vehicle was driving erratically and had made a right onto Thamesgate Drive. The SO turned right and confirmed he was following over the radio. He made a left and advised his speed was 45 km/h over the radio and that he had lost sight of the vehicle.
Starting at about 3:15 a.m., the SO was advised to pull over, and a male voice stated, “Do not pursue.” The SO stopped his cruiser and provided his mileage over the radio.
BWC Footage – WO #3
Starting at about 3:12 a.m., WO #3 was at the front passenger side of the Mazda with his flashlight shining inside the vehicle. The driver, CW #2, put down the passenger side window. The SO asked the driver for his insurance and the driver leaned across to open the glove compartment. He took out a book and flicked through the pages. A leafy substance and rolling papers were at the bottom of the glove compartment. Starting at about 3:13 a.m., WO #3 said, “Sir, is that rolling papers right there?” WO #3 asked the driver to step out of the car and the driver picked up the rolling paper and dropped it outside the passenger window. WO #3 asked him again to step out of the car, and the driver turned on the vehicle, put it in drive, and drove away.
Starting at about 3:14 a.m., WO #3 ran to the driver seat of the second cruiser behind the Mazda. Once inside, the BWC view was limited to the steering wheel and dash; WO #3’s speed was visible. WO #3 drove forward (northbound on Airport Road) and accelerated up to 142 km/h before slowing to make a right turn onto Thamesgate Road. WO #3 made several more turns and his speed returned above 100 km/h.
Starting at about 3:15 a.m., a male voice advised not to pursue over the radio. WO #3 reported that the vehicle was going south on Netherwood Drive.
Starting at about 3:16 a.m., WO #3 was advised over the radio to pull over. He stopped his cruiser, and provided his mileage and location as Airport Road and Driver Road. WO #3 provided a description of the driver and the direction of travel. He advised that one of the tires might have exploded on Airport Road and that the vehicle was travelling erratically.
BWC Footage – WO #2
Starting at about 3:11 a.m., WO #2 approached the blue Mazda. He stood at the driver side rear as the SO spoke to the driver through the open driver side window. Starting at about 3:13 a.m., the vehicle accelerated away as WO #2 ran to the third cruiser behind the Mazda and got in the driver seat. Once in the vehicle, his BWC view was limited to the steering wheel and dash, and his speed was not clear. WO #2 drove forward [north on Airport Road] and made a right turn on Thamesgate Road.
Starting at about 3:15 a.m., a male voice stated not to pursue over the radio. WO #2 stopped his cruiser to the left of another cruiser.
Video Footage - 2380 Drew Road
Footage from Camera 1 covered the intersection of Airport Road and Morning Star Drive. Camera 2 covered Airport Road, immediately north of that intersection. Both cameras were motion-activated, so the footage was not consecutive. The date-stamp was not accurate. Time-stamps were approximately 82 minutes prior to the actual events.Camera 1
CW #2’s vehicle was stationary in a northbound lane of Airport Road at the traffic lights of Morning Star Drive. A cruiser with emergency lights activated parked behind CW #2. The SO approached the driver side of the vehicle. CW #2’s vehicle departed at a high rate of speed through a red traffic light at the intersection.
The SO followed in his cruiser. He was followed immediately by another cruiser [WO #3], and then a third cruiser [WO #2 and WO #1]. All cruisers had their emergency lights activated.
Camera 2
CW #2 travelled at a high rate of speed north on Airport Road. The SO followed north on Airport Road at a speed comparable with CW #2 and turned off his overhead lights. Four seconds later, the other two cruisers followed at a similar speed with emergency lights activated.
Video Footage - 7470 Airport Road
On August 23, 2023, at 3:13:56 a.m., a cyclist was captured riding north on the east side of Airport Road, directly next to the sidewalk or on the sidewalk. It was dark outside with artificial lighting from streetlights.
At 3:15:14 a.m., a vehicle travelled north on Airport Road at a high rate of speed.
At 3:15:30 a.m., three police cruisers travelled northbound on Airport Road behind one another. The first and third cruisers had emergency lights activated.
Camera 2
Starting at about 3:15:16 a.m., a vehicle entered the camera view with sparks coming from the rear as it continued north on Airport Road at a high rate of speed. Something soared in the air from the vehicle and landed on the sidewalk. Further debris skidded north along the sidewalk, struck the sound barrier fence east of the sidewalk, and fell to the ground. It was not discernable from the video what landed on the sidewalk or struck the fence. The vehicle continued northbound out of camera view.
At 4:38 a.m., two people walked out of an exit in the fence on the east side of Airport Road and stood on the sidewalk.
At 4:41 a.m., two firetrucks, an ambulance, and police cruiser arrived and stopped on the east side of Airport Road.
At 4:48 a.m., a stretcher was put into the back of the ambulance.
Video Footage from a Residence
On August 23, 2023, at 3:07 a.m., one vehicle remained stopped in the left northbound lane on Airport Road, south of Morning Star Drive, as other vehicles travelled through the traffic light. Starting at about 3:08 a.m., a cruiser pulled up behind the stopped vehicle and engaged its emergency lights. The SO walked from the driver side of the cruiser to the driver side of the stopped vehicle.
At 3:10 a.m., a SUV [WO #3’s cruiser] stopped behind the SO's cruiser, and a third vehicle [cruiser containing WO #2 and WO #1] stopped behind WO #3. WO #3 walked to the passenger side of the stopped vehicle.
Starting at about 3:14:02 a.m., the stopped vehicle drove northbound at a high rate of speed. The SO’s cruiser followed northbound with emergency lights and siren activated, followed by WO #3, and WO #2 and WO #1, with their lights engaged.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP on August 24, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- GPS data;
- Incident Details Reports;
- Incident History Reports;
- Occurrence Report;
- Person Details Report – CW #2;
- Notes - WO #3;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1; and
- BWC Footage.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on August 28, 2023:- Video Footage - 7470 Airport Road, Mississauga;
- Video footage - 2980 Drew Road, Mississauga;
- Video footage from a residence; and
- Preliminary Autopsy Findings – Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the early morning hours of August 23, 2023, the SO was operating his cruiser northbound on Airport Road when he came across a blue Mazda vehicle and stopped behind it. The Mazda was stationary at the traffic control signals at Morning Star Drive even though the lights were green. When the vehicle failed to move forward after the lights cycled through green again, the officer exited and approached the driver door.
CW #2 was the driver of the Mazda. He had fallen asleep at the wheel. Woken by the SO knocking on his window, CW #2 placed the vehicle in park and rolled his window down. CW #2 denied that he had been sleeping and provided a false name when asked. He was unable to provide his driver’s licence or insurance papers. By this time, other officers had arrived to assist the SO, and stood around the vehicle. One of them thought he noticed marijuana in the glove compartment box when CW #2 opened it, and asked him about it. It was at this time that CW #2 placed his vehicle in drive and accelerated forward.
The SO re-entered his cruiser and chased after the Mazda north on Airport Road. Officers in two other cruisers followed behind the SO. The convoy of vehicles travelled north on Airport Road for about 800 metres before turning right at Thamesgate Drive and left on Redstone Road. It was about this time that command personnel monitoring the pursuit called it off. The SO stopped his cruiser and broadcast his mileage. The officer temporarily re-engaged with the Mazda when it travelled past him on Benavon Road and returned to Airport Road, travelling north, before he was again ordered to discontinue and did so.
The Mazda was located abandoned about an hour later in the area of 6600 Goreway Drive. It had sustained damage to the passenger side.
Some or all of that damage had been caused when CW #2 struck a cyclist – the Complainant – moments after he accelerated away from the police officers at Morning Star Drive. Pedestrians in the area had noticed the Complainant’s body on the east side of Airport Road at about 4:38 a.m. She was deceased.
Neither the SO, nor the other officers involved in the pursuit, had seen the Mazda’s collision with the Complainant given the lighting conditions and their distance.
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
In the early morning hours of August 23, 2023, the SO was operating his cruiser northbound on Airport Road when he came across a blue Mazda vehicle and stopped behind it. The Mazda was stationary at the traffic control signals at Morning Star Drive even though the lights were green. When the vehicle failed to move forward after the lights cycled through green again, the officer exited and approached the driver door.
CW #2 was the driver of the Mazda. He had fallen asleep at the wheel. Woken by the SO knocking on his window, CW #2 placed the vehicle in park and rolled his window down. CW #2 denied that he had been sleeping and provided a false name when asked. He was unable to provide his driver’s licence or insurance papers. By this time, other officers had arrived to assist the SO, and stood around the vehicle. One of them thought he noticed marijuana in the glove compartment box when CW #2 opened it, and asked him about it. It was at this time that CW #2 placed his vehicle in drive and accelerated forward.
The SO re-entered his cruiser and chased after the Mazda north on Airport Road. Officers in two other cruisers followed behind the SO. The convoy of vehicles travelled north on Airport Road for about 800 metres before turning right at Thamesgate Drive and left on Redstone Road. It was about this time that command personnel monitoring the pursuit called it off. The SO stopped his cruiser and broadcast his mileage. The officer temporarily re-engaged with the Mazda when it travelled past him on Benavon Road and returned to Airport Road, travelling north, before he was again ordered to discontinue and did so.
The Mazda was located abandoned about an hour later in the area of 6600 Goreway Drive. It had sustained damage to the passenger side.
Some or all of that damage had been caused when CW #2 struck a cyclist – the Complainant – moments after he accelerated away from the police officers at Morning Star Drive. Pedestrians in the area had noticed the Complainant’s body on the east side of Airport Road at about 4:38 a.m. She was deceased.
Neither the SO, nor the other officers involved in the pursuit, had seen the Mazda’s collision with the Complainant given the lighting conditions and their distance.
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (3) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing death
320.13 (3) 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 the death of another person.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant died after being struck by a motor vehicle in Mississauga on August 23, 2023. As the vehicle was being pursued by PRP officers at the time, 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 Complainant’s death.
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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 that took the Complainant’s life. In my view, there was not.
The SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties when he stopped to investigate CW #2 and then initiated a pursuit as the Mazda fled the scene. CW #2, stationary as he was in a live lane of traffic, was a danger on the roadway to himself and other motorists. Within moments of the stop, the officer would also have had cause to believe that CW #2 was impaired – he had been sleeping in the vehicle and appeared incoherent at times.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with the Mazda in the moments before it struck the Complainant. Indeed, it would appear that the officer had only just returned to his cruiser and started the chase when CW #2 struck the Complainant as she rode her bicycle a distance north of Slough Street –about 500 to 600 metres from Morning Star Drive. During this time, as the SO accelerated to speeds of about 100 km/h with his emergency lights on, there is no indication in the evidence of third-party traffic in the area having been imperiled by the manner in which the officer operated his cruiser. In fact, there was little traffic present given the time of day.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 21, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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 that took the Complainant’s life. In my view, there was not.
The SO was engaged in the lawful execution of his duties when he stopped to investigate CW #2 and then initiated a pursuit as the Mazda fled the scene. CW #2, stationary as he was in a live lane of traffic, was a danger on the roadway to himself and other motorists. Within moments of the stop, the officer would also have had cause to believe that CW #2 was impaired – he had been sleeping in the vehicle and appeared incoherent at times.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with the Mazda in the moments before it struck the Complainant. Indeed, it would appear that the officer had only just returned to his cruiser and started the chase when CW #2 struck the Complainant as she rode her bicycle a distance north of Slough Street –about 500 to 600 metres from Morning Star Drive. During this time, as the SO accelerated to speeds of about 100 km/h with his emergency lights on, there is no indication in the evidence of third-party traffic in the area having been imperiled by the manner in which the officer operated his cruiser. In fact, there was little traffic present given the time of day.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 21, 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) 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.