SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-PVI-406
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 ActPursuant 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 71-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIU On October 4, 2023, at 11:20 a.m., the OPP contacted the SIU with the following information.
At about 9:00 a.m. that day, an OPP officer (now known to be the Subject Official (SO)) was operating a marked OPP Tahoe on Cedar Street in the town of Simcoe. A known stolen vehicle was spotted heading into a residential area. When the vehicle, a silver BMW, stopped at a stop sign, the SO maneuvered his OPP Tahoe in front of the vehicle to conduct a traffic stop. The driver of the BMW rammed the OPP Tahoe and then reversed into the vehicle behind it before fleeing the scene. It travelled about 150 metres up Queen Street North and was involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with a civilian vehicle. The driver of the civilian vehicle (now known to be the Complainant) suffered a fractured femur, and the two occupants of the BMW were initially believed to have sustained ankle injuries.  The Complainant was taken to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 10/04/2023 at 11:20 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/04/2023 at 1:38 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”):71-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on October 4, 2023.
Civilian WitnessesCW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 4 and 7, 2023.
Subject OfficialSO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on November 10, 2023.
Witness OfficialsWO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #4 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed on October 7, 2023.
The Scene The events in question transpired on and around the northern end of King Lane, by Cedar Street, Simcoe., and on and around the intersection of Cedar Street and Queen Street North, Simcoe.
Physical Evidence SIU forensic identification services were requested to attend at 11:30 a.m., on October 4, 2023, arriving at 2:00 p.m. There were two scenes to examine. On October 4, 2023, SIU forensic investigators attended the scene at Cedar Street and King Lane, which contained a fully marked 2021 OPP Chevrolet Tahoe and a red 2003 Pontiac Vibe. There was damage to the right front corner of the Pontiac Vibe, and damage to the OPP Tahoe to the right rear and right front, including the right front push bar.
Figure 1 - Pontic Vibe with damage visible to its right front corner
Figure 2 – Damage to the front right corner and push bar of the OPP Tahoe
Figure 3 – Damage to the rear right corner of the OPP Tahoe
The scene at the intersection of Queen Street North and Cedar Street contained a silver four-door BMW, with the driver’s door open and extensive front end damage. There was a clear plastic storage bag on the roadway and under the front passenger door.  There was also red paint transfer visible on the driver’s side rear corner. The scene also contained a Chevrolet Impala, also with extensive front end damage.
Figure 4 - Chevrolet Impala and BMW at the scene; both with extensive front end damage
Figure 5 - Red paint transfer on the driver’s side rear corner of the BMW
Both scenes were photographed, and a scene drawing was completed.
GPS Data – SO’s and WO #1’s CruisersAt 8:36 a.m., on October 4, 2023. WO #1 left the OPP Norfolk Detachment. He drove to a residential area southwest of Cedar Street and Queen Street North. At 8:38 a.m., the SO left the OPP Norfolk Detachment and drove to the same area.
At 8:40 a.m., WO #1 was briefly stationary on King Lane after having driven southbound. He then turned around and drove northbound.
At 8:41 a.m., WO #1 drove northbound on King Lane. The officer then turned left and drove westbound on Tyrell Street and continued west of Howard Street. Both WO #1 and the SO drove at unremarkable rates of speed in the residential area. The SO turned left from Howard Street onto Tyrell Street and drove eastbound to King Lane. He then turned left and drove north on King Lane from Tyrell Street to Cedar Street - a distance of about 100 metres. His maximum recorded speed was 39 km/h. At about the same time, WO #1 turned around on Tyrell Street and drove eastbound towards King Lane.
At 8:42 a.m., the SO was at the intersection of King Lane and Cedar Street. He was stopped for at least ten seconds. There was some low speed and change of direction at the intersection. WO #1 drove eastbound on Tyrell Street. He accelerated to a maximum recorded speed of 60 km/h before turning left onto King Lane and travelling northbound, attaining a maximum recorded speed of 61 km/h to Cedar Street. The officer continued about 100 metres eastbound on Cedar Street accelerating to a maximum recorded speed of 58 km/h. WO #1 stopped on Cedar Street at Queen Street North for at least 30 seconds. He then turned right and drove south on Queen Street North.
Figure 6 – Screenshot from Google Maps with markings indicating the locations of the SO and WO #1’s vehicles. The red arrows indicate where the SO’s vehicle was in motion and the red circle shows where the vehicle became stationary. The blue arrows indicate where WO #1’s vehicle was in motion and the blue circle indicates where the vehicle became stationary. The yellow circle indicates where WO #1’s vehicle was stationary for at least 30 seconds before moving again.
OPP Reconstructionist ReportA SIU reconstructionist did not attend the scene, but conducted an analysis based on a review of the notes of the OPP reconstructionists – WO #3 and WO #4 - as well as the in-car camera system (ICCS) footage and crash data retrieval (CDR) information.
The CDR system in the Pontiac Vibe registered an impact to the front of the vehicle, but the impact was insufficient to deploy the airbags.
No collision impact was recorded by the SO’s Tahoe.
As per the ICCS from the SO’s Tahoe, both impacts were of a nature and severity that would not necessarily result in an airbag deployment.
As per WO #1’s ICCS footage, WO #1 turned onto eastbound Cedar Street from King Lane two or three seconds after CW #2’s BMW fled. CW #2 accelerated and drove eastbound towards the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Cedar Street and Queen Street North. The traffic light was red for Cedar Street. CW #2 turned right onto southbound Queen Street North at a high rate of speed and without stopping. WO #1 stopped on Cedar Street when he reached the intersection.
The collision between CW #2’s BMW and the Complainant’s Impala occurred about 150 metres east and south of the first collision. About ten seconds had elapsed between CW #2’s flight from the MVC to the second MVC.
When the second collision occurred, the SO was stopped on Cedar Street just east of King Lane, and WO #1 was driving eastbound on Cedar Street west of Queen Street North. CW #2 had turned right onto Queen Street North and lost control of the BMW during the turn. The BMW started to rotate clockwise before swinging around in a counter-clockwise direction. The BMW crossed over the centre line into the northbound lane and its front collided violently with the front of the Chevrolet Impala, which was driven by the Complainant properly within his lane and at an unremarkable rate of speed.
The physical evidence from the technical collision investigation was consistent with the Complainant having sustained his injury as a result of the collision when his vehicle was struck by the BMW which had just fled after being involved in a MVC with the SO’s OPP Tahoe.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
ICCS Footage - WO #1Starting at about 8:42 a.m., October 4, 2023, WO #1 was captured driving on Tyrell Road at King Lane. He turned left on King Lane and emergency lights could be seen. The SO’s OPP Tahoe was stopped facing east in front of a silver BMW, which was facing north on King Lane. Behind the BMW was a red Pontiac Vibe. The BMW turned right on Cedar Street heading eastbound. The SO drove forward in that direction and pulled over. There were several vehicles eastbound on Cedar Street, west of King Lane, stopped due to the activity. WO #1 drove around the Pontiac Vibe and onto Cedar Street and past the SO’s OPP Tahoe. The BMW was travelling extremely fast on Cedar Street towards Queen Street North. WO #1 followed but stopped on Cedar Street before the traffic light at Queen Street North. The SO could be heard saying that a male and his girlfriend, CW #2, were in the BMW. Forty-three seconds after WO #1 pulled over and then resumed his travel, he arrived at the scene of a collision between the BMW and a Chevrolet Impala. The passenger front door to the BMW was open. CW #2 was out of the BMW and limped around back of the BMW to the front passenger door. CW #3 was seated in the front passenger seat. CW #2 placed herself against the BMW with her hands behind her back, and WO #1 placed her in handcuffs behind her back.
Both vehicles had extensive front end damage.
The SO broadcast that there were grounds to arrest the driver for dangerous driving and flight from police.
ICCS Footage - SOStarting at 8:41 a.m., October 4, 2023, the SO was captured driving on residential streets. He turned left on King Lane and followed a red Pontiac Vibe. Ahead of the Vibe was a silver BMW, which stopped at a stop sign. The SO passed the vehicles and pulled in front of the BMW. The sound of a collision was discernible - a grinding sound against his OPP Tahoe. The SO backed up and a further grinding sound was heard. The SO backed up again and was rammed by the BMW. He announced he was being rammed by the BMW on the police radio.
Starting at about 8:42 a.m., the BMW made a right turn onto Cedar Street and took off at a high rate of speed. The SO followed for a few metres, then pulled over to the curb and stopped. WO #1 was seen passing the SO and following the BMW but quickly stopping on Cedar Street near the traffic light at Cedar Street and Queen Street North. The SO indicated he believed the BMW had a male and CW #2 as occupants. The SO did not move his OPP Tahoe from the final position.
Video Footage - École Élémentaire Catholique Sainte-Marie Starting at about 8:42 a.m., October 4, 2023, the Complainant’s silver Impala was captured travelling north on Queen Street North. CW #6 in her white pick-up truck was behind the Complainant. Four seconds after the Complainant came into camera view, a silver BMW struck the Impala in its lane of traffic and pushed it sideways to the left. CW #6 stopped her white pick-up truck. The video skipped forward and CW #2 was seen getting out of the driver’s side of the BMW. About 50 seconds after the collision, an OPP SUV (WO #1) with its emergency lighting activated stopped near the collision site.
Dash Camera Footage – CW #6CW #6, operating a white pick-up truck, was captured driving north on Queen Street North behind the Complainant in his silver Impala. This area was governed by a 40 km/h speed limit because of a school. In the distance, at the traffic light at Cedar Street and Queen Street North, a silver BMW turned right onto Queen Street North at a high rate of speed. The BMW swerved and entered the Complainant’s lane of traffic. The Complainant applied the brakes. The front of the BMW collided with the front of the Complainant’s Impala. No OPP vehicle was in the area.
About 43 seconds into the footage, emergency lights were seen in the distance on Cedar Street. CW #6 got out of her vehicle and approached the Complainant’s Impala. CW #2 exited through the driver’s door of the BMW.
At about 50 seconds into the footage, WO #1 made a right turn onto Queen Street North and stopped near the BMW. He would proceed to place CW #2 in handcuffs behind her back.
Communications Recordings and Event HistoryStarting at about 8:42 a.m., October 4, 2023, the SO broadcast that he had just been rammed by a BMW. The SO then repeated what he had said in a calmer voice and said the BMW was occupied by a male and CW #2. He said he was pulled over and that his ICCS had captured images of the driver; he was not pursuing the BMW. A male OPP officer, believed to be WO #1, broadcast that there was a motor vehicle collision on Queen Street North, and that persons were in custody.
Materials Obtained from Police Service Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between October 6, 2023, and November 10, 2023:
- Data downloaded from Pontiac Vibe;
- Data downloaded from Chevrolet Impala;
- Data downloaded from OPP Tahoe (SO);
- Charge Summary (CW #2);
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes - SO;
- GPS data from SO’s OPP Tahoe;
- GPS data from WO #1’s OPP SUV;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Event Details Report;
- MVC Report;
- ICCS footage from SO’s OPP Tahoe;
- ICCS footage from WO #1’s OPP SUV; and
- Canvass Summary.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained the following records from other sources:
- Video footage from École Élémentaire Catholique Sainte-Marie, received October 16, 2023;
- Dashcam footage from CW #6, received October 13, 2023;
- The Complainant’s medical records from HGH, received October 23, 2023; and
- The Complainant’s medical records from Norfolk General Hospital, received October 16, 2023.
In the morning of October 4, 2023, the SO, operating a marked police SUV, was on the lookout for a BMW. A colleague of his – WO #1 – had informed him that he had located the vehicle and followed it earlier that day. The BMW was known to police officers, who also knew it to be ordinarily operated by a male who was wanted on an arrest warrant.
The male was not in the BMW on the day in question. Rather, it was being driven by a female – CW #2 – who was also wanted by police.
The SO located the BMW travelling north on King Lane towards Cedar Street. The officer entered onto King Lane from Tyrell Street and accelerated to drive past the BMW on its driver’s side, thereafter, maneuvering his cruiser across the front of the BMW, which had come to a stop at the Cedar Street stop sign.
CW #2 immediately drove forward and rammed into the rear passenger side of the cruiser. She then reversed, striking the car behind her, before travelling forward to strike the cruiser again. Having created enough of a gap, CW #2 proceeded to turn right onto Cedar Street where she fled at speed eastward towards Queen Street North.
At about this time, the Complainant was operating his Chevrolet Impala north on Queen Street North. He was about 60 metres from the intersection when CW #2’s BMW struck his vehicle head-on. CW #2 had turned south onto Queen Street North from Cedar Street and lost control of the BMW, entering into the northbound lane and colliding with the Impala.
WO #1, who had been behind the SO as they travelled north on King Lane, was the first officer to arrive at the collision site on Queen Street North. Having seen the BMW strike the SO’s cruiser and get away, WO #1 had briefly chased it on Cedar Street before disengaging and pulling over. Hearing the sound of the collision, the officer had proceeded onto Queen Street North. It was he who placed CW #2 under arrest.
The SO did not pursue the BMW after it turned right onto Cedar Street. Rather, he stopped his cruiser just east of King Lane on Cedar Street and exited to check on the welfare of the driver whose vehicle had also been struck by the BMW.
The Complainant suffered serious injuries in the collision, including a brain bleed and fractures of his neck, back and right leg.
Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
Analysis and Director's Decision
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. There was not.
The SO was within his rights in pulling in front of the BMW to stop its progress. The officer had reason to believe that the driver was wanted by police for criminal offences.
Thereafter, aside from absorbing a number of impacts from the BMW as it attempted to escape the blockade, the SO did little other than sit in his vehicle. Wisely, neither he nor WO #1 chose to pursue CW #2 as she accelerated away. Her conduct had made it clear that she would not stop for police and was prepared to place public safety in jeopardy to get away. On this record, it is apparent that CW #2 is alone responsible for the collision with the Impala.
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
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, 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) In fact, neither of the BMW’s occupants sustained a serious injury. [Back to text]
- 3) OPP liaison officer believed the bag might have contained a controlled substance. [Back to text]
- 4) 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]
- 5) SIU investigators watched a complete feed of the video which showed the entire event. However, the video would not play for SIU investigators as it was a proprietary program. The version the SIU received had been vetted. The video from the French school was consistent with that from the dash camera of CW #6. [Back to text]
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.