Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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 Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries sustained by a 21-year-old man, a 20-year-old woman and a 29-year-old police officer, in a collision between a civilian motor vehicle and a police vehicle on November 9, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 11:29 a.m. on November 10, 2017, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of Complainant #1’s vehicle injury.

The OPP reported that on Thursday, November 9, 2017, at approximately 11:00 p.m., two OPP officers were transporting a prisoner in an OPP vehicle when a civilian vehicle made a left turn in front of their vehicle.

The police officers and the occupants of the civilian vehicle were transported to hospital. The driver of the civilian vehicle (Complainant #1) was diagnosed with a fracture to his foot and the passenger (Complainant #2) was still being assessed for injuries at the time of the notification.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainants

Complainant #1 21-year-old male interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 20-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #3 29-year-old police officer interviewed (Referred to as WO #1)

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Did not make himself available for an interview

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Provided a written statement

CW #6 Provided a written statement

SIU Investigators made several attempts to contact CW #2 but were unable to reach him, nor did he contact the SIU.

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed (who is also Complainant #3)

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

The Scene

The scene was located at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Sidney Street in the City of Belleville.

Dundas Street West is a four lane paved asphalt road that permits vehicular movement in the east/west direction with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. A separate lane extends from the east and westbound traffic lanes of Dundas Street West that permits vehicles to turn at the intersection and travel northbound on Sidney Street.

Sidney Street is a three lane paved asphalt road permitting vehicular movement in the north/south direction with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h.

Complainant #1’s Volkswagen motor vehicle was in the eastbound turning lane of Dundas Street West prior to turning left onto Sidney Street. The police vehicle was travelling westbound in the passing lane of Dundas Street West prior to the collision.

An examination of the vehicles involved in the collision revealed extensive damage to the front of the Volkswagen. It did not have any crash data due to being an earlier model. It came to rest in the westbound passing lane of Dundas Street West.

The police vehicle had extensive damage to its front and driver’s side door. The crash data from the police vehicle was downloaded by the SIU. It came to rest after it struck a concrete traffic signal light standard.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data and I/Tracker Playback (Animation of the police vehicle path of travel based on its GPS coordinates):

The SIU reviewed the GPS data from the SO’s police vehicle. The data depicted the following:

• At 10:19:13 p.m. The SO left the Belleville Police Service (BPS) station
• At 10:20:08 p.m. The SO’s police vehicle travelled westbound on Dundas Street West at a speed of 42 km/h.
• At 10:21:15 p.m. The SO’s police vehicle travelled at a speed of 84 km/h as it approached the intersection of Dundas Street West and Sidney Street.
• At 10:21:25 p.m. The SO’s police vehicle was travelling at a speed of 87 km/h before it entered the intersection of Dundas Street West and Sidney Street.

The I/tracker playback obtained from the OPP was consistent with the GPS data above.

Forensic Evidence

The SIU forensic investigators made a digital photographic record of the scene, collected physical evidence and exhibits, took measurements, and completed scale drawings of the scene relevant to the incident.

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Expert Evidence

BPS Collision Reconstruction Report

Due to the delay in the OPP reporting the incident, the SIU requested the BPS to conduct a collision reconstruction of the scene. The collision reconstruction report from BPS was later reviewed by the SIU and depicted the following:

The SO’s police vehicle was travelling at a rate of 87 km/h five seconds prior to the collision. The area of impact indicated that the SO’s police vehicle was travelling westbound in the curb lane of Dundas Street West when it collided with Complainant #1’s Volkswagen motor vehicle after the Volkswagen turned left in front of the police vehicle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU investigators canvassed for closed circuit television recordings but found none.

Communications Recordings

Communications Recordings & Event Chronology Report:

The SIU reviewed the communications recordings and event chronology report from the OPP. The communications recordings depicted the following:

• At 10:06:42 p.m. The SO told the dispatcher that he was travelling to the BPS station with WO #1 to pick up a prisoner (CW #2)
• At 10:18:02 p.m. The SO told the dispatcher that he and WO #1 were escorting CW #2 to OPP’s Quinte West detachment
• At 10:23:02 p.m. The SO told the dispatcher that he was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision and that he, WO #1 and CW #2 had been injured. The SO requested paramedics and provided his location
• At 10:26:14 p.m. WO #1 requested that the dispatcher send additional police officers to the scene. WO #1 told the dispatcher that he was injured and the SO had sustained an injury to his leg, and
• At 10:26:47 p.m. WO #1 requested a supervisor attend the scene as CW #2 was injured

The event chronology report obtained from the OPP was consistent with the communication recordings.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP Quinte West Detachment and the BPS

• Event Details Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Notes of WO #1
• OPP Communications Recording
• OPP Event Chronology
• OPP Witness Statement from CW #1 dated Nov 9, 2017
• Request for OPP Smith Falls Communications
• GPS data and I/Tracker playback
• Mapped GPS data
• Crash Data from involved police vehicle
• Witness List, and
• Collision reconstruction report from BPS

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

• Medical Records of Complainant #s 1-2, and
• Written Statements from CW #5 and 6

Nature of Injuries/Treatment

Complainant #1 suffered multiple fractures of his left leg and Complainant #2 sustained fractures to her spine and left foot.

WO #1 did not consent to the release of his medical records but reported that he was left with a concussion and soft tissue damage to the left leg.

Section 249, Criminal Code - Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

1. a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place&hellip

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Section 1(1), Highway Traffic Act – Definition: Highway

1(1) “highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof.

Section 128, Highway Traffic Act – Rate of Speed – Exception 13 (b) Police Vehicles

128 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,

• 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a local municipality or within a built-up area
• Despite clause (a), 80 kilometres per hour on a highway, not within a built-up area, that is within a local municipality that had the status of a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have had the status of a township on January 1, 2003, if the municipality is prescribed by a regulation
• 80 kilometres per hour on a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a controlled access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, whether or not the highway is within a local municipality or built-up area
• The rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7)
• The maximum rate of speed set under subsection (10) and posted in a construction zone designated under subsection (8) or (8.1); or
• The maximum rate of speed posted on a highway or portion of a highway pursuant to section 128.0.1

(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

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

s. 141 (5), Highway Traffic Act – Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle

No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision.

On November 9, 2017, at approximately 10:10 p.m., the SO and WO #1 of the OPP were tasked with transporting a person in custody from the Belleville Police Service station to the Quinte West OPP Detachment. En route, their police SUV and a left turning civilian vehicle operated by Complainant #1, with passenger Complainant #2, collided in the intersection of Dundas Street West and Sidney Street in the City of Belleville. While both occupants of the civilian vehicle and all three occupants of the police vehicle were injured to varying degrees, the following persons suffered “serious injuries” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction: Complainant #1 (multiple fractures of his left leg), Complainant #2 (fractures to her spine and left foot) and WO #1 (concussion and soft tissue damage to left leg). For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied there are no reasonable grounds to believe the driver of the police vehicle and subject officer – SO – committed a criminal offence in connection with the motor vehicle collision.

The sequence of events leading to the collision are clear on the overriding weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included: statements from the two officers, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, and an independent civilian eyewitness; a reconstruction of the accident; police communication recordings; and, critically, GPS and other data downloaded from the police vehicle relating to its speed and location as it approached the collision site. At the time of the collision, the roads were wet, traffic was light, and the posted speed limit on Dundas Street West was 60 km/h. At about 10:20 p.m., Complainant #1, who was driving eastbound on Dundas Street West in a Volkswagen, approached the intersection with Sidney Street where he intended to make a left turn to travel northbound on Sidney Street. The SO was simultaneously traveling westbound on Dundas Street West in a fully marked police SUV, approaching Sidney Street, with the intention of continuing straight through the intersection. Complainant #1 was stopped at the intersection waiting for an unidentified westbound vehicle to clear the intersection. Complainant #1 began his left turn in front of the SO’s police vehicle, causing the SO to brake and then try to maneuver to the right in order to avoid Complainant #1’s motor vehicle. The two vehicles collided in the intersection, with the police vehicle then veering to the right and striking a light standard on the northwest corner. The collision caused Complainant #1’s vehicle to rotate counterclockwise and come to rest facing west in the Dundas Street West westbound passing lane, just west of the intersection.

The offence that arises for consideration on this record, as far as the SO’s conduct is concerned, is that of dangerous driving causing bodily harm pursuant to section 249(3) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, it is predicated in part on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. It is apparent that Complainant #1 is largely, if not completely, to blame for the collision in question. Under the Highway Traffic Act, there is a strict onus placed on drivers to only proceed with left turns when all opposing traffic has cleared and it is safe to do so. Complainant #1 failed in that duty and, in so doing, precipitated the collision with the SO’s vehicle. The question is whether the SO shares in any of the responsibility.

But for his speed in the final moments leading to the collision, I find there was nothing objectionable with the manner in which the SO was operating his vehicle en route from the Belleville Police Service headquarters. The evidence indicates his cruiser’s headlights were on, making the vehicle visible to pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. The evidence further establishes that the SO traveled at speeds that were never more than moderately above the 60 km/h speed limit for most of the journey leading to the Dundas Street West and Sidney Street intersection. Of note also was the SO’s application of his vehicle’s brakes and an attempted evasive steering maneuver as Complainant #1 turned left into his path, suggesting the officer was alert and keeping a proper lookout of his surroundings at the time in question. However, as the SO neared the scene of the collision, his speed picked up significantly. Fifteen seconds prior to impact, the police vehicle was traveling at a speed of 84 km/h; it was 87 km/h five seconds prior to impact. These speeds were upwards of 40 percent in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit and, in my opinion, may well have contributed to the collision with Complainant #1’s vehicle.

It is true that speed limits do not apply to police vehicles being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties pursuant to section 128(13) of the Highway Traffic Act. However, that does not provide police officers carte blanche to speed as they wish; their foremost duty is to ensure they operate their police vehicles having due regard for the public’s safety. In my view, the SO’s speed in the seconds before the collision was ill-advised, particularly as the roads were wet and, on some accounts, slippery, and in the absence of any evidence that speed was of the essence as the officers made their way to the Quinte West OPP detachment. Thus, while the SO may have been attentive as he neared the Sidney Street intersection, the fact that he was well over the speed limit left him a smaller margin to react to Complainant #1’s vehicle and, potentially, take action to avert a collision.

That said, I am satisfied that the SO’s indiscretion as regards his speed is not such as to render his conduct a marked departure from a reasonable level of care. To reiterate, but for the SO’s speed in and around the scene of the accident, there is nothing to suggest that his driving was anything other than safe and reasonable. And though the roads were wet on the night of the incident, it also bears noting that they were in good repair, visibility was decent given the artificial lighting in the area and vehicular traffic was light, factors which in my view temper if not excuse the SO’s speed. In the final analysis, while the officer’s driving was not perfect, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that it fell well within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law and that there is therefore no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: August 2, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit