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 injury reportedly sustained by a 31-year-old man during his arrest on June 16^th, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20^th, 2017, the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s serious injury.

The WRPS reported that on Friday, June 16^th, 2017, WRPS officers were searching the Kitchener area for a man wanted by the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, robbery, and various firearms offences. At 11:00 a.m., on June 16^th, 2017, the Complainant was located and taken to the ground where he was arrested on the outstanding warrants. He was transported to hospital where he was cleared medically, released back to police, and remanded into custody.

Over the course of the weekend, a sergeant from the WRPS Major Crime Unit (MCU) became aware that the hospital had apparently missed a small, subtle, non-displaced, fracture in the complainant’s foot. The sergeant did not disclose his knowledge of the injury until Tuesday June 20^th, after which the SIU was contacted.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, conducted a canvass for additional witnesses, and searched for closed circuit television (CCTV) images relevant to the incident. SIU forensic investigators (FI) made a digital photographic record of the scene, collected physical evidence, seized exhibits relevant to the incident, and examined the white van.

Complainant:

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right

The Complainant was a resident of Manitoba wanted on a ‘Canada Wide’ arrest warrant for murder and other serious offences obtained by the WPS. The WRPS received information from the WPS as to where the Complainant might be found. WPS requested that the WRPS arrest the Complainant on their behalf.

On Tuesday, June 16^th, 2017, the Complainant was arrested by WRPS police officers and in the course of being arrested, the Complainant sustained a fractured bone in his left foot.

Nature of Injuries / Treatment

The Complainant sustained a comminuted fracture of the base of the left second metatarsal.

The Scene

Westmount Road West in Kitchener has a north/south bearing with Karn Street intersecting from the east. Approximately 55 to 60 metres south of Karn Street, on the southerly edge of the front lawn at 400 Westmount Road West, was an area of grass showing tire marks beginning from the east curb that travelled in a south-easterly direction across the median and across the east sidewalk to the front lawn where they stopped at an area of ground cover surrounding a tree.

The tire mark on the sidewalk surface consisting of cement showed a black mark and a pattern that was not detailed enough for comparison purposes. There were no areas on the grass portions that could be used for comparison purposes. The wheelbase measurement of the tire mark pattern was found to be 1.905 metres. The distance of the right tire mark track from the curb to the ground cover was measured and found to be 8.991 metres.

The numeral ‘50’ that appears at the most northerly point on Westmount Road West as exhibited on the Google Map® inserted below denotes essentially where the white van crossed the northbound lanes to mount the east curb and grassy knoll at the rear of a residential property.

Physical Evidence

WRPS Involved Vehicle

The FI examined the involved white WRPS van. The exterior surfaces of the van were examined. One mark on the passenger side sliding rear door was observed and found to consist of a rubbery substance and should be discounted as material to this incident. There were no other markings on the vehicle.

Region of Waterloo Traffic Signal Data

Upon request, the Analyst for the Traffic Systems Management with the Region of Waterloo, provided time and light sequence data during the incident with a time-window of 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. specific to the intersection of Westmount Road West and Victoria Street South, which was the controlled intersection immediately south of the incident scene. It was this intersection that would have been of primary concern to the SO for the safe operation of the involved vehicle at the material time.

• Northbound/southbound left turn arrows minimum 5.0 seconds - maximum 7.0 seconds
• Amber arrows - 3.0 seconds
• All red - 1.0 seconds
• Green - 38.0 seconds, walk 22.0 seconds
• Flashing don’t walk - 16.0 seconds
• Amber - 4.0 seconds
• All red - 2.0 seconds

There was nothing in the data to suggest that the time and light sequence was manipulated in any way to ensure an absence of northbound traffic when the SO drove across the northbound lanes of Westmount Road West.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and obtained and reviewed the CCTV footage from a nearby Tim Hortons store, as well as photographs taken by a civilian witness.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the WRPS

• Arrest Reports for the Complainant and WO #3
• Arrest Warrant for the Complainant
• Diagram by WO #1
• List of Officers
• Emergency Response Unit (ERU) Training Log Spreadsheets
• Traffic Report
• ERU Training Day Spreadsheet (2013-2017)
• General Occurrence Report
• Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – Involved Cruiser
• Notes of WO #s 1-8
• Operational Plan and Risk Assessment
• Prisoner Detain Sheet and Injury Reports for the Complainant and CW #3
• Product Specifications
• Supplemental Occurrence Reports
• Training Records - Use of Force, WO #1 and the SO
• Written Statements for six undesignated police officers
• WRPS Photos of the Complainant, CW #3 and one other person, and
• WSIB Report re: WO #1

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from other sources:

• Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) data from Tim Hortons Restaurant

• Medical records for the Complainant, and
• Photographs made by a civilian witness

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

1. as a private person
2. as a peace officer or public officer
3. in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
4. 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.

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.

As a result of information received from the Winnipeg Police Service, the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) became aware that there was a Canada-wide arrest warrant outstanding for the Complainant for the offences of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, armed robbery with a firearm, possession of a prohibited weapon and breaching the conditions of his probation order. The Complainant was described as being armed and dangerous. Consequently, the WRPS Emergency Response Unit (ERU) was tasked with locating, surveilling, and ultimately arresting the Complainant on the warrant.

On June 16^th, 2017, the Complainant and CW #3 were observed by officers of the ERU walking on the sidewalk near Westmount Road West and Victoria Avenue South in the City of Kitchener. The ERU members were situated in two unmarked vans on Westmount Road and had been following the Complainant when it was decided that this would be the opportune moment to arrest the Complainant on the warrant. Following the arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and his foot was x-rayed, later revealing that he had sustained a broken bone in the top of his left foot.

During the course of this investigation, three civilian witnesses at the scene, including the Complainant, two responding emergency medical personnel, and two doctors were interviewed, in addition to eight police witnesses, with the subject officer declining to be interviewed or to provide his memorandum book notes, as was his legal right. SIU investigators also had access to the Complainant’s medical records, the notes and prepared statements of various police officers, and closed circuit television data from the Tim Hortons Restaurant near the incident. Other than exactly how the Complainant came to be injured, there is little dispute as to the actions of police leading up to his arrest.

On the morning of June 16^th, 2017, the ERU team met and went over the operational components of the plan to arrest the Complainant. At approximately 11:00 a.m., the Complainant and CW #3 were observed walking on the sidewalk past a residence on Westmount Road West. Simultaneously, police had the Complainant and his companion under observation from two separate unmarked under cover vans. The first van, a white construction van, contained the driver, the SO, with WO #2 in the front passenger seat and WO #1 in the back. The second undercover vehicle, a grey van, was being driven by an undesignated officer, with WO #6 and WO #3 on board.

Once northbound traffic had cleared and additional traffic was stopped at the stoplight, the SO, who was in the southbound lanes of traffic on Westmount Road, veered diagonally across the northbound lanes of traffic and mounted the curb, blocking the forward movement of the Complainant and CW #3. This is confirmed by the evidence of both the Complainant and CW #3, as well as an independent witness, and is consistent with the evidence of all the other police witnesses in the area.

WO #2 then threw a distractionary device, more commonly referred to as a ‘flash-bang’ device, in front of and to the right of the Complainant and CW #3, which landed on the northbound curb lane and exploded. The white van continued on to mount the curb and cross the boulevard seconds later, cutting off the Complainant’s forward movements.

Both the Complainant and CW #3 indicated that they were immediately aware that the explosion came from a distractionary device and CW #3 advised that he immediately assumed that the occupants of the white van were police officers because of the ‘flash-bang’ device having been deployed.

The Complainant alleges that he then saw a vehicle coming toward him, which then knocked him out, and he went flying. That was the last thing he recalled before he blacked out.

The evidence of the Complainant, as to what occurred after the deployment of the two distractionary devices, is inconsistent with the evidence of all of the other witnesses, including that of his companion, CW #3.

A civilian witness at the scene described the van as moving quickly, but not at an excessive rate of speed, and he heard no screeching of tires or other noise at the time. The witness opined that the driver of the van had driven off the roadway for a purpose and that he appeared to have control of the vehicle. He did not view the operation of the white van as being of any concern and he opined that the officer had used a good spot to block the Complainant and CW #3 as they had nowhere to go when the white van blocked their escape.

Despite the assertion by the Complainant that he lost consciousness immediately upon seeing the dark coloured van driving toward him, and being in and out of consciousness thereafter, his paramedic record reads as follows:

Alert, oriented, denies head injury, no loc (loss of consciousness), somewhat uncooperative refusing to answer questions other than his name and birthday

… c/o (complains of) left foot pain today as a result of struggle when being arrested …

The Complainant’s hospital records describe him as ‘alert, no acute distress, no obvious discomfort’.

Additionally, one of the paramedics at the scene described the Complainant as alert and awake at the time that he first observed him sitting up on the ground in handcuffs and was complaining of a sore foot or ankle. Paramedics then retrieved the stretcher for the Complainant and he was assisted onto the stretcher. The second paramedic on the scene advised that the Complainant told her that he believed that he had been struck by the white van; however, police officers at the scene advised her that the Complainant had been running and rolled his ankle. This second paramedic examined the Complainant and observed no other fresh injuries and indicated that had the Complainant been hit by the van, she would have expected to have seen other injuries to him.

On all of the evidence, it appears clear, based on the comments of the Complainant at the time, and the observations of CW#3 that the Complainant was starting to run, as well as the observations of the Complainant by medical personnel, that he did not lose consciousness either at the scene, or in the ambulance, or at hospital. It is unclear to me why the Complainant would then indicate a complete loss of memory due to being unconscious, when that did not occur, other than to surmise that he either did not recall how he came to be injured, or he wished to capitalize on his injury and make it appear much more serious than it was. In either scenario, I find this inconsistency to be damaging to the Complainant’s credibility.

An expert medical opinion obtained indicated that the injury to the Complainant could have occurred either by his foot being struck by the tire of the van or when he was tackled. The opinion also went on to indicate that the injury was not consistent with the Complainant’s foot being entirely run over by the vehicle tire, as he would have expected there to be more fractures to the foot had that occurred, rather than the single fracture sustained.

A second medical expert, after having reviewed the Complainant’s x-rays, opined that the injury to the Complainant’s foot, which consisted of a minimally displaced comminuted fracture at the base of the second metatarsal with soft tissue swelling to the top of the foot, was consistent with the mechanism of the injury being trauma to the foot consistent with force applied to the top of the foot, but he was unable to quantify the amount of force required other than to say that it would have been significant and is consistent with commonly seen crush-type injuries to the top of the foot. He indicated that the injury certainly could have been caused by the car wheel rolling over the top of his foot or against the top of his foot.

On the evidence of all police officers present who were interviewed, it appears that police were aware that the Complainant was wanted for very serious crimes of violence, including murder, and that he might be armed and dangerous.

WO #3, who was situated in the darker coloured van, indicated that he, like the SO, was of the view that the time chosen to execute the apprehension of the Complainant was ideal. WO #3 advised that he was able to observe, from his location, that there were only two other pedestrians on the sidewalk at the time, neither of whom was in close proximity to the Complainant; that the fencing located on the east side of the Complainant would eliminate his ability to escape in that direction; and that the vans would be able to block the Complainant’s ability to run either north or south bound. WO #3 described traffic as light at the time and that northbound traffic had either already passed or was stopped at the red light at Victoria Street. WO #3 opined that just prior to the apprehension, the vans were positioned in such a way as to allow them to come up behind the Complainant for a surprise apprehension. He also indicated that it would have been unwise to allow the Complainant to leave the area in favour of arresting him later, as that could have ultimately led to police losing sight of him.

WO #1, in the white van, advised that the SO had decided that it was the opportune moment for the takedown of the Complainant and that, as soon as south and northbound traffic cleared, the SO turned across both lanes of northbound traffic and went up onto the east sidewalk, while WO #2 simultaneously deployed the ‘flash-bang’ device. When the van stopped on the knoll, WO #1 observed the Complainant five or six feet away from the van, standing motionless, after which the Complainant ran back toward the van and slipped on the knoll’s incline. WO #1 then opened the rear sliding door and ran and tackled the Complainant as he was trying to run away from the van. WO #1 described himself as coming down on top of the Complainant in a bear hug and rolling him over while shouting, “Police, don’t move!” WO #1 advised that the Complainant never came closer than within five feet of the van and he never saw the Complainant come into contact with the van; neither did he ever see any police officer either strike or step on the Complainant.

Similarly, WO #2 advised that he observed the Complainant pause for a split second, after the distractionary device was deployed, following which the SO positioned the white van in order to cut off the Complainant, should he try to run northbound. WO #2 observed the Complainant take two to three steps toward the front of the van, from his position some 15 to 20 away, and then turn and take two to three steps southbound, at which point WO #1 exited from the rear of the van. WO #2 next saw WO #1 on top of the Complainant, as both were falling to the ground. WO #2 described the Complainant as falling face first, with WO #1 on his back, and that they fell at a location that was some six to eight feet from the van.

On all of the evidence, and relying primarily on the expert medical opinions, it appears that the Complainant injured his foot either when it came into contact with a wheel of the white van, or when he was tackled by WO #1. Having said that, however, it appears somewhat unlikely that the Complainant was injured by the van, since none of the police officers ever saw the van come within five feet of the Complainant, although CW #3 indicated that it was possible. While I am therefore unable to determine exactly how the Complainant came to be injured, it is clear that the injury was as a direct result of his interaction with police. Whether the Complainant was injured as a result of his foot making contact with the van tire, or when he was tackled by WO #1, I am unable to find that police resorted to an excessive use of force or that they contravened s.25 (1) of the Criminal Code in either scenario.

Pursuant to the requirements of s. 25, I find that police were acting lawfully at the time that they attempted the arrest of the Complainant in that there was a valid judicially authorized Canada-wide warrant for his arrest and police were carrying out their duties by attempting to execute that warrant. As such, unless there was an excessive use of force on the part of police toward the Complainant, s. 25 (1) provides them protection from prosecution.

Dealing with the amount of force relied on by police at the time of the arrest of the Complainant, despite finding that his injury was caused by police during their interaction with him, I cannot find that their actions amounted to an excessive use of force in the circumstances. I accept that police were dealing in this case with a potentially armed and dangerous man who was wanted on the most serious offence of violence included in the Criminal Code of Canada, and as such, there was pressure to arrest the Complainant as quickly as possible, while ensuring the safety of both the public and the police officers themselves.

It appears on the evidence of the police officers involved, as supported by the independent civilian witness who observed the operation, that the actions of the SO were controlled and deliberate and that the plan to arrest the Complainant in that particular location appears to have been both well thought out and prudent, in that it prevented the escape of the Complainant to the east, by the presence of the fencing, to the north, by the location of the white van, and to the south and west, by the location of the darker coloured van.

I fully expect from the fact of the possibility that the Complainant may have been armed at the time, and the knowledge that police in Winnipeg had already formed the reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant had committed the offence of murder, that the WRPS police officers would have been fully aware of the danger posed by the Complainant not only to themselves, but to the public in general, and as such, that they would have found it preferable to avail themselves of any possible advantages in arresting the Complainant, including surprise and speed. In taking advantage of the circumstances to arrest the Complainant as quickly as possible, I find that not only were the actions of police reasonable, but well-advised, in the circumstances.

Despite the assertion by the Complainant that he immediately fell unconscious as the dark coloured van moved toward him, I reject that evidence in favour of that of CW #3, which corroborates and is fully consistent with the evidence of the police officers present, that the Complainant actually began to run after the deployment of the distractionary device and the white van had driven over the curb, in order to escape from police. It is clear from the evidence of the Complainant and CW #3 that they both immediately surmised that the ‘flash-bang’ device was related to police and, according to CW #3 and consistent with the evidence of police, they both attempted to flee. If the Complainant’s foot was injured by the white van driven by the SO, I find that this only occurred because the Complainant began to run toward the van, and that the SO could not have planned for that reaction and the subsequent injury, which would have been unforeseeable in the circumstances.

If the wheel of the white van did not make contact with the Complainant’s foot, the only other available explanation for the Complainant’s injury is that it occurred when he was tackled by WO #1. It appears that this scenario, according to the second expert opinion, is as consistent with the injury sustained by the Complainant as is the scenario that his foot may have come in contact with the tire of the van. In these circumstances, where police were attempting to arrest a potentially dangerous individual for extremely dangerous offences, I take no issue whatsoever with the actions of WO #1 in tackling the Complainant when he appeared to be attempting to flee from police. On the evidence before me, I find that the actions of WO #1 were more than reasonable in the circumstances and did not amount to an excessive use of force.

In finding that the actions of neither the SO, nor of WO #1, were excessive in the circumstances, I have relied upon the jurisprudence as set out by our higher courts with respect to the actions of police officers in dangerous and fast-paced situations, akin to the fact scenario before me. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nasogaluak [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, decided as follows:

Police actions should not be judged against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances. As Anderson J.A. explained in R. v. Bottrell(1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.):

In determining whether the amount of force used by the officer was necessary the jury must have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time the force was used. They should have been directed that the appellant could not be expected to measure the force used with exactitude. [p. 218]

Additionally, I have considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baxter (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), that officers are not expected to measure the degree of their responsive force to a nicety. On this record, it is clear that the actions of the SO, WO #1, and the other officers involved in the arrest of the Complainant, fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect his lawful detention and to remove the risk that he continued to pose as long as he was at large in the community.

Having found that the officers did not exercise an excessive use of force against the Complainant, the question still remains whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the driving of the SO posed a danger to the public and, as such, whether or not the offence of dangerous driving is made out contrary to s. 249 of the Criminal Code.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R.v.Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, indicates that s.249 requires that “the driving be dangerous to the public, having regard to all of 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” and the driving must be such that it amounts to “a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances”. In this particular factual situation, the question is more specifically whether or not the actions of the SO were a marked departure from those that a reasonable police officer, attempting to execute the arrest of a potentially dangerous wanted person, would observe in these circumstances.

On the evidence before me, it appears that there was little traffic in the area at the time, with CW #3 indicating no more than one to three cars were travelling in both directions at the time, and WO #3 indicating that all northbound traffic had already either passed their location, or was stopped at the stoplight at the intersection with Victoria Street. Furthermore, on the independent evidence of one of the civilian witnesses, it appears that the white van driven by the SO, although moving quickly, was not travelling at an excessive rate of speed and the actions of the SO were controlled and appeared to be for a specific purpose and caused the witness no concern. The witness also indicated that he based his opinion that the actions of the SO were controlled and planned on the lack of any screeching of tires, that nothing was struck, and there were no horns heard, which would have indicated that he had interfered with other traffic. The witness also agreed with the assessment of the SO and WO #3 that the location chosen for the arrest was ideal in that the Complainant had nowhere to run because of the location of the white van and the fence.

I find, on this evidence, that the driving of the SO, in his attempt to apprehend the Complainant, does not rise to the level of driving required to constitute ‘a marked departure from the norm’ in that there is no evidence that the driving created a danger to other users of the roadway or that at any time the SO interfered with other traffic, in that he waited for other traffic to first pass and ensured that the way was clear before he carried out his manoeuvre. Additionally, although he was described as moving quickly, his speed was not described as excessive and the environmental conditions appeared to have been good and the roads were dry.

In conclusion, I find that the available reliable evidence does not satisfy me on reasonable grounds that the SO drove dangerously, or that the actions of either of the SO or WO #1 amounted to an excessive use of force despite the injury sustained by the Complainant. As such, I find that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed and no basis for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: March 23, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit