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 a serious injury sustained by a 33-year-old male on September 30, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by a member of the Belleville Police Service (BPS) on September 30, 2017, at 1:15 p.m.

A BPS member indicated that on Saturday, September 30, 2017, at approximately 12:50 p.m., BPS officers were conducting a foot patrol near the Moira River trail when they saw a man riding a bicycle. One of the police officers recognized the man riding the bicycle as the Complainant, who had outstanding warrants for his arrest.

The police officer called out to the Complainant. The Complainant rode his bicycle over a pedestrian bridge across the Moira River and collided with a pickup truck travelling southbound on Coleman Street.

The Complainant was subsequently transported to a hospital and diagnosed with a fracture to his pelvis and right knee.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

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

Complainant:

33-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

On September 30, 2017, the SO and WO were on foot patrol near the Moira River in Belleville. At around 12:23 p.m., the SO saw the Complainant riding his bicycle in a parking lot near a pedestrian bridge over the river. The SO was aware that the Complainant had outstanding warrants for his arrest and called out his name. The Complainant heard him but decided to continue biking across the pedestrian bridge. The SO and WO did not pursue the Complainant on foot and returned to their police cruiser, which was parked nearby, to drive around the area and eventually over a vehicular bridge to locate the Complainant. Less than a minute later, the SO and WO came upon the scene of a collision. The Complainant was lying in the street and there was a pickup truck in the middle of an intersection. CW #2 told the SO that he was driving his pickup truck when the Complainant suddenly rode his bicycle through the intersection. The Complainant took responsibility for the collision and was taken to a hospital where it is alleged that he was diagnosed with fractures to his pelvis and right knee.

The Scene

The scene was located at the ‘T’ intersection of Coleman Street and Catharine Street. Coleman Street is a two lane paved asphalt road with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h, and permitted vehicular movement in a north-south direction. Catharine Street is a paved asphalt road with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h, and permitted vehicular movement in an east-west direction. Catharine Street ends at Coleman Street.

Bridge Street West is a two lane paved road that permitted vehicular movement in an east-west direction over the Moira River.

The Moira River flows in a north to south direction through the city of Belleville. A pedestrian bridge linked a parking lot near the Riverfront Trail to the end of Catharine Street and allowed pedestrian movement across the Moira River.

Scene Diagram

The Google map below depicts the direction of travel of the police vehicle [identified in blue colour], the pickup truck [identified in yellow colour], and the Complainant [identified in red colour].

The distance travelled from the parking lot to the collision scene by the police vehicle is approximately 600 metres.

Forensic Evidence

SIU Reconstructionist Report

The longest tire skid mark measured on the roadway was 12.99 metres from the right front tire of the pickup truck. Using a skid to stop mathematical formula and a range for the coefficient of friction value [determined at 0.55 to 0.70 in a well-travelled asphalt road], the speed range for the pickup truck was determined to fall between 42.4 km/h and 47.8 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

City of Belleville CCTV Recordings

The SIU received and reviewed the CCTV video images recorded by the City of Belleville security cameras. The security cameras are located at the parking lot near the Riverfront Trail and depicted the following:

• At 12:24:46 p.m. The SO and WO walked towards a parked police vehicle in the parking lot.
• At 12:25:12 p.m. A man [later identified as the Complainant] rode his bicycle in the parking lot towards the pedestrian bridge.
• At 12:25:21 p.m. The Complainant travelled over the pedestrian bridge towards the intersection of Coleman Street and Catharine Street.
• At 12:25:44 p.m. The SO and WO drove their police vehicle out of the parking lot on to Front Street.

parking lot on to Front Street.

Communications Recordings

Communication Recordings & Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

The SIU received and reviewed the communication recordings and CAD report relevant to the incident. The communications recordings depicted the following:

• At 12:26 p.m. The SO told the dispatcher that he saw the Complainant riding a bicycle towards the pedestrian bridge.
• At 12:27 p.m. The SO requested an ambulance.

The CAD report was consistent with the content of the communication recordings obtained from the BPS.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the BPS

• Event Chronology
• Notes of the SO and WO, and
• Radio communications

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

1. in doing anything, or
2. in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

The Complainant was riding his bicycle in Belleville when the SO recognized him and called out his name to execute an outstanding arrest warrant. The Complainant did not stop and travelled onto a roadway where he was struck by a pickup truck, resulting in fractures to his pelvis and knee. In these circumstances, there are absolutely no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in relation to the Complainant’s injuries.

The SIU’s investigation included interviews with the complainant, three civilian witnesses, the SO and the WO. All statements are materially consistent and clearly establish the factual circumstances of the incident.

The only charge to be considered in these circumstances would be one of criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to s. 221 of the Criminal Code. A person is criminally negligent when he or she shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons in doing something or omitting to do anything he or she has a duty to do. The Court of Appeal for Ontario further clarified in R. v. Sharp (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 428 (Ont. C.A.) that criminal negligence requires a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances of the accused. In this case, there is no evidence that the SO’s decision to call out to the Complainant amounted to a “marked and substantial” departure from the standard of a reasonable police officer. Police officers are required to execute arrest warrants and I can find no fault with the SO for calling out to the Complainant in an attempt to execute the arrest. When the SO called out to the Complainant he was in a parking lot by a pedestrian bridge on the east side of the river and it was in no way foreseeable that the Complainant would be hit by a pickup truck when he rode away from the SO. Furthermore, as the Complainant was already biking and simply decided not to stop for the police, who did not pursue him, I cannot find that there is any causal connection between the actions of the SO and the Complainant’s injuries. For these reasons, I find there are no reasonable grounds to believe the SO committed a criminal offence relating to this incident and the case will be closed.

Date: July 12, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit