SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-403
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 22-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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [fn]1[/fn]
On October 2, 2023, at 3:34 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.At 10:15 a.m., that day, PRP Tactical and Rescue Unit (TRU) officers conducted a takedown of a stolen vehicle at Havenwood Drive and Williamsport Drive, Mississauga. The driver of a stolen Mercedes G wagon accelerated towards a PRP TRU officer’s vehicle and there was a collision. The driver, now known to be the Complainant, was taken to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle. There was a passenger in the stolen Mercedes G wagon who was not injured.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 10/02/2023 at 3:34 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/02/2023 at 4:21 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Reconstructionists assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
22-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on October 2, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 2, 2023, and December 4, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightThe subject official was interviewed on November 15, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on October 3, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Havenwood Drive and Williamsport Drive, Mississauga.Scene Diagram
Physical Evidence
SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene at 4:21 p.m., October 2, 2023.
Several involved vehicles were located on the southwest corner of the intersection on the grass shoulder, across the sidewalk and against a chain-link fence. This area was cordoned off with yellow police scene tape.
Vehicle one was a Mercedes Benz G550. Vehicles two, three and four were unmarked PRP TRU vehicles. Vehicle five was a Toyota and vehicle six was an unattended parked Volvo. The Toyota and Volvo were parked in a parking lot.
A review of the scene indicated that the stolen Mercedes G wagon came into head-on contact with the SO’s PRP TRU vehicle in the intersection. Two PRP TRU vehicles followed the stolen Mercedes G wagon into the southwest corner of the intersection over the curb and into a chain-link fence, where the Mercedes struck the parked Toyota once the fence gave way. The Toyota was then pushed into the Volvo parked next to it.
Figure 1 – Front driver’s side corner of the Mercedes in contact with the fence
Figure 2 – Passenger side of the Mercedes in contact with the fence
Forensic Evidence
Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data
On January 26, 2024, PRP provided the CEW download for WO #2.On October 2, 2023, at 10:10 a.m., [fn]2[/fn] WO #2 pulled the trigger on his CEW and discharged Bay 1 for 3.26 seconds in probe mode. WO #2 then used the CEW in drive stun mode for 4.93 seconds.
On October 2, 2023, at 10:12 a.m., the trigger of WO #3’s CEW was pulled for 3.5 seconds. Four seconds later, it was deployed for five seconds. Both of these discharges were probes firing.
Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – The SO’s Vehicle
The SO was stationary at three seconds prior to impact.The SO travelled at 6 km/h two seconds prior to impact.
The SO travelled at 12 km/h 1.6 seconds prior to impact.
The SO travelled at 23 km/h one second prior to impact.
The SO travelled at 31 km/h 0.6 seconds prior to impact.
The SO travelled at 36 km/h 0.2 seconds prior to impact.
The SO travelled at 36 km/h at the point of impact.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [fn]3[/fn]
Video Footage - Civilian #1
On October 5, 2023, the SIU obtained video footage from Civilian #1. Starting at about 10:09 a.m., the Mercedes G wagon approached the intersection from the west on Williamsport Drive. The SO’s vehicle entered the intersection from the north and collided with the Mercedes G wagon in the intersection. The impact of the collision caused the Mercedes G wagon’s left side wheels to become elevated off the roadway. Another PRP TRU vehicle then struck the stolen Mercedes G wagon on the driver’s side while it was on two passenger wheels, causing it to come down onto four wheels and crash into a chain-link fence. A third PRP TRU vehicle entered the intersection from the north and pinned the stolen vehicle from behind.
Additional PRP vehicles immediately stopped and surrounded the Mercedes G wagon. PRP TRU officers exited their respective vehicles and pointed their firearms at the occupants inside the Mercedes.
Starting at about 10:15 a.m., the first marked PRP cruiser arrived from the south and stopped in the intersection. It had its emergency roof lights on. A person, in handcuffs behind his back, was walked to this police vehicle.
At 10:18 a.m., a second marked PRP vehicle arrived at the intersection with its emergency lighting activated.
PRP Communications Recordings and Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
On October 2, 2023, at 9:43 a.m., PRP dispatch asked units to attend at a carjacking in the area of 175 Fletcher’s Creek Boulevard in Brampton. Several PRP units acknowledged. Information was provided indicating that a black Range Rover had attended the address with four men inside. One man had a black handgun and pointed it at a woman. He demanded the keys for her Mercedes G wagon. She gave the man her keys, and the suspects drove off onto Fletcher’s Creek Boulevard. The plate number of the stolen Mercedes G wagon was provided.At 10:14 a.m., a Criminal Investigation Branch officer broadcast that two men were in custody, and the original Range Rover had not been located. Patrol officers and a sergeant were requested to attend the scene at Havenwood Drive and Williamsport Drive.
Emergency Medical Services was requested at 10:20 a.m.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the PRP between October 3, 2023, and November 15, 2023:- Communications recordings;
- CAD Report;
- CEW data;
- Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy;
- CDR data for three PRP TRU vehicles;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3; and
- General Occurrence Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from Trillium Health Partners, CVH, received October 31, 2023; and
- Video footage from Civilian #1, received October 5, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police and civilian eyewitnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the morning of October 2, 2023, officers with the PRP TRU were mobilized to locate and arrest the perpetrators of a carjacking earlier that day. A woman had contacted police to report that a male had approached her in the parking lot of 175 Fletcher’s Creek Boulevard, Brampton, pointed a handgun at her and demanded her car key. She surrendered the key and the male took off with others in her Mercedes G wagon. With the help of the police, the caller was able to provide information regarding the vehicle’s location and direction of travel via an application on her phone.
The male was CW #1. He would come to occupy the front passenger seat in the Mercedes. The driver of the vehicle was the Complainant.
Unmarked police vehicles surreptitiously tracked the Mercedes as it travelled into Mississauga. The SO was operating a vehicle travelling south on Havenwood Drive when he spotted the Mercedes stopped facing east at the roadway’s intersection with Williamsport Drive. Behind the officer were two other TRU vehicles, one operated by WO #1, with WO #3 as his passenger, and the other driven by WO #2. The SO travelled into the intersection to block the Mercedes’ path of travel. His vehicle and the Mercedes collided as the latter travelled into the intersection. The impact lifted the Mercedes such that it was briefly riding on its passenger side wheels while turning right onto southbound Havenwood Drive. Moments later, WO #1 drove up alongside the Mercedes and struck its driver’s side, forcing it onto the sidewalk and into a chain-link fence that bordered the property on the southwest corner of the intersection. WO #2 followed and struck the rear of the Mercedes, further driving it into the fence.
The Complainant, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was thrown into the rear passenger compartment by the impacts, suffering a fractured right clavicle in the process. CW #1 remained in the front passenger seat and did not sustain any serious injuries.
Officers rushing to the vehicle following the impacts deployed flash-bangs into the Mercedes, discharged CEWs at the Complainant, and removed CW #1 and the Complainant at gunpoint, after which they were taken into custody.
The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with his injury.
In the morning of October 2, 2023, officers with the PRP TRU were mobilized to locate and arrest the perpetrators of a carjacking earlier that day. A woman had contacted police to report that a male had approached her in the parking lot of 175 Fletcher’s Creek Boulevard, Brampton, pointed a handgun at her and demanded her car key. She surrendered the key and the male took off with others in her Mercedes G wagon. With the help of the police, the caller was able to provide information regarding the vehicle’s location and direction of travel via an application on her phone.
The male was CW #1. He would come to occupy the front passenger seat in the Mercedes. The driver of the vehicle was the Complainant.
Unmarked police vehicles surreptitiously tracked the Mercedes as it travelled into Mississauga. The SO was operating a vehicle travelling south on Havenwood Drive when he spotted the Mercedes stopped facing east at the roadway’s intersection with Williamsport Drive. Behind the officer were two other TRU vehicles, one operated by WO #1, with WO #3 as his passenger, and the other driven by WO #2. The SO travelled into the intersection to block the Mercedes’ path of travel. His vehicle and the Mercedes collided as the latter travelled into the intersection. The impact lifted the Mercedes such that it was briefly riding on its passenger side wheels while turning right onto southbound Havenwood Drive. Moments later, WO #1 drove up alongside the Mercedes and struck its driver’s side, forcing it onto the sidewalk and into a chain-link fence that bordered the property on the southwest corner of the intersection. WO #2 followed and struck the rear of the Mercedes, further driving it into the fence.
The Complainant, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was thrown into the rear passenger compartment by the impacts, suffering a fractured right clavicle in the process. CW #1 remained in the front passenger seat and did not sustain any serious injuries.
Officers rushing to the vehicle following the impacts deployed flash-bangs into the Mercedes, discharged CEWs at the Complainant, and removed CW #1 and the Complainant at gunpoint, after which they were taken into custody.
The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with his injury.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Mississauga on October 2, 2023. As his vehicle had been struck by PRP cruisers, 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 injury.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
The 911 call made by the owner of the Mercedes would have given the SO and his colleagues reason to believe that the occupants of the Mercedes had just stolen the vehicle while brandishing a gun. In the circumstances, the officers were engaged in the execution of their lawful duties when they sought to apprehend CW #1 and the Complainant at the intersection of Williamsport Drive and Havenwood Drive.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the officers in aid of the arrests, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was unlawful. There is conflict in the evidence as to whether the SO intentionally rammed his vehicle into the Mercedes, or his vehicle was stationary in front of the Mercedes when it was rammed by the Complainant. Assuming the former – the potentially more incriminating of the accounts – it would not appear the tactic was so clearly out of bounds as to amount to excessive force. Knowing what he did of the apparent gunplay [fn]4[/fn] by the occupants of the Mercedes, it was critical in the interests of public safety that CW #1 and the Complainant were arrested as soon as possible. And here was an opportunity, an intersection with a small to moderate amount of traffic, to do so with the use of their vehicles. I accept that the use of a vehicle to intentionally contact another vehicle is inherently dangerous, but there were a number of mitigating factors at play. First, TRU officers were specially trained in the tactic. And, second, the impact occurred at relatively slow speed. All in all, I am unable to reasonably conclude on this record that driving the vehicle into the Mercedes, if that is what the SO did, amounted to a disproportionate response to the exigencies of the situation. Similarly, for essentially the same reasons, I am not reasonably satisfied that WO #1 or WO #2 acted with excess when they also struck the Mercedes. [fn]5[/fn]
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 30, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
The 911 call made by the owner of the Mercedes would have given the SO and his colleagues reason to believe that the occupants of the Mercedes had just stolen the vehicle while brandishing a gun. In the circumstances, the officers were engaged in the execution of their lawful duties when they sought to apprehend CW #1 and the Complainant at the intersection of Williamsport Drive and Havenwood Drive.
With respect to the force brought to bear by the officers in aid of the arrests, the evidence falls short of any reasonable suggestion it was unlawful. There is conflict in the evidence as to whether the SO intentionally rammed his vehicle into the Mercedes, or his vehicle was stationary in front of the Mercedes when it was rammed by the Complainant. Assuming the former – the potentially more incriminating of the accounts – it would not appear the tactic was so clearly out of bounds as to amount to excessive force. Knowing what he did of the apparent gunplay [fn]4[/fn] by the occupants of the Mercedes, it was critical in the interests of public safety that CW #1 and the Complainant were arrested as soon as possible. And here was an opportunity, an intersection with a small to moderate amount of traffic, to do so with the use of their vehicles. I accept that the use of a vehicle to intentionally contact another vehicle is inherently dangerous, but there were a number of mitigating factors at play. First, TRU officers were specially trained in the tactic. And, second, the impact occurred at relatively slow speed. All in all, I am unable to reasonably conclude on this record that driving the vehicle into the Mercedes, if that is what the SO did, amounted to a disproportionate response to the exigencies of the situation. Similarly, for essentially the same reasons, I am not reasonably satisfied that WO #1 or WO #2 acted with excess when they also struck the Mercedes. [fn]5[/fn]
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 30, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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.