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 25-year-old man during a motor vehicle collision on April 12, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On April 12, 2017, at 3:07 p.m., Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) reported a serious motor vehicle collision (MVC) to the SIU.

DRPS reported that the Subject Officer (SO) was responding to an alarm call when he noticed a white pick-up truck speed by him. He followed the white truck but lost sight of the vehicle. At 11:48 a.m., the white truck was involved in a three vehicle MVC at McQuay Boulevard and Dundas Street West in Whitby. The driver of the white truck [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #4] fled on foot and was arrested a short distance away. The driver of the second vehicle in the MVC [now known to be the Complainant] sustained six fractured ribs, a fractured collar bone, a fractured pelvis and a ruptured spleen. The driver of the third vehicle [now known to be CW #5] and CW #4 were not injured.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements.

Complainant

25-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 but did not witness the incident and had no information to offer

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Not interviewed (provided closed circuit television (CCTV) video recording)

CW #9 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #10 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #11 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #12 Interviewed

CW #13 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #14 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #15 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #16 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #17 Interviewed

CW #18 Interviewed

CW #19 Interviewed

CW #20 Interviewed

CW #21 Interviewed

CW #22 Interviewed

CW #23 Interviewed

CW #24 Interviewed

CW #25 Interviewed

CW #26 Interviewed

CW #27 Interviewed

CW #28 Interviewed

CW #29 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

CW #30 Interviewed

CW #31 Interviewed

CW #32 Interviewed

CW #33 Not interviewed (provided CCTV video recording)

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

WO #7 Interviewed

WO #8 Interviewed

Subject officers

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

During the morning of April 12, 2017, several DRPS officers, including the SO and WO #4, were dispatched to an alarm call at a vacant school in Whitby. At the time that the SO was travelling westbound on Manning Road with his emergency lights activated, CW #4, driving his Ford truck, was also travelling westbound on Manning Road. CW #4 stopped in the left turn lane at the intersection of Manning Road and Garden Street, and then turned left onto Garden Street. The SO also turned. CW #4 kept pace with the SO’s cruiser, so the SO activated his horn to get CW #4 to move out of his way. CW #4, however, mistakenly believed that the SO was attempting to pull him over, and he drove off at a high rate of speed.

Because of CW #4’s reaction to seeing the police, the SO and WO #4 followed him from a distance, but eventually lost sight of the truck.

CW #4 continued on at a high rate of speed, and drove through the red light at the intersection of Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard. He collided with two vehicles being driven by the Complainant and CW #5. CW #4 exited his truck and ran, but was apprehended a short distance away. Neither CW #4 nor CW #5 was injured.

The Complainant, however, sustained serious injuries and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. The Complainant was diagnosed with acute fractures of the left distal clavicle, seven rib fractures, left splenic renal laceration, hepatic laceration, left pelvic sacral hematoma and retroperitoneal hemorrhage, liver laceration, kidney laceration, left sacral fracture, left acetabular fracture, oval lesion to the left thyroid, left superior and inferior pubic rami fractures, small left hemopneumothorax and mild left lower lobe contusion in the chest.

The scene

CW #4 drove southbound on Garden Street from Manning Road, turned right onto Dundas Street East, and continued westbound until he collided with the two vehicles at Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard. According to Google Maps, the route is 3.9 km long and would take about six minutes to travel at the speed limit.

The route from Manning Road and Garden Street, to Dundas Street East and Garden Street, was 1.4 km in length. The speed limit on Garden Street was 50 km/h and slowed to 40 km/h at the school zone, when school was open.

The route from Dundas Street East and Garden Street, to Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard, was predominantly a commercial area and the posted speed limit was 50 km/h. The route was 2.5 km in length. There were four posted speed limit signs and six traffic lights including the traffic lights at Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard.

Scene diagram

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

GPS – the SO’s vehicle

The GPS data was provided by DRPS for the SO’s vehicle for April 12, 2017. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) and GoogleEarth were used to track the location of the police vehicle.

At 11:41:02 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Thickson Road approaching Winterberry Drive at 109.3 km/h. At 11:42:32 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Thickson Road approaching Manning Road at 22.7 km/h.

At 11:43:26 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Manning Road at Ribblesdale Drive at 101.14 km/h and at 11:43:54 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Manning Road approaching Garden Street at 3.1 km/h.

At 11:44:40 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street, approaching the railroad overpass at 119.76 km/h. At 11:45:00 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street approaching Dundas Street East at 20.18 km/h. At 11:45:23 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Hickory Street at 98.5 km/h.

At 11:45:45 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Brock Street at 0 km/h. At 11:45:54 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Brock Street at 5.74 km/h. At 11:46:00 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Brock Street at 31.98 km/h.

At 11:46:05 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street West, west of Brock Street at 47.22 km/h. At 11:46:10 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street West at Byron Street at 54.28 km/h. At 11:46:26 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street West, west of King Street, at 55.98 km/h.

At 11:46:34 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street West at Euclid Street at 1.23 km/h. At 11:47:14 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street West approaching Wellington Street at 112.46 km/h. At 11:47:44 a.m., the SO’s vehicle stopped at the intersection of Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard and the speed was 0 km/h.

GPS Data – WO #4’s Vehicle

The GPS was provided by DRPS for WO #4’s vehicle for April 12, 2017. The UTM and GoogleEarth were used to track the location of the police vehicle.

At 11:42:31 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Rossland Road East approaching Garden Street at 86.15 km/h. At 11:43:53 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was stopped facing south on Rossland Road, north of Regional Road 58. At 11:44:40 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street approaching a railroad overpass at 101.83 km/h. At 11:44:50 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street approaching Mary Street East at 92.11 km/h.

At 11:44:56 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street at Mary Street East at 88.29 km/h. At 11:45:15 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling southwest through the Petro Canada at Garden Street and Dundas Street East, at 25.98 km/h. At 11:45:26 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Reynolds Street at 74.72 km/h.

At 11:45:42 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East approaching Ash Street at 58.95 km/h. At 11:45:53 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling northbound on Ash Street at 32.92 km/h. At 11:46:26 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling eastbound on Mary Street East approaching Garden Street at 72.25 km/h. At 11:47:14 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was in the parking lot behind the Petro Canada on Garden Street. At 11:51:25 a.m., WO #4’s vehicle was travelling southwest on McQuay Boulevard approaching Dundas Street East at 1.9 km/h.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and received 12 CCTV recordings from businesses along the route and one dash cam video recording from CW #23.

Dash cam video from CW #23

On April 21, 2017, CW #23 provided dash cam video to the investigators. The time on the video was four hours ahead of the actual time.[1] On April 12, 2017 at 3:42 [11:42] p.m., CW #23 was driving on Hopkins Street towards Dundas Street East. The 680 News channel on the radio reported the time was 11:43 a.m.

At 3:43:52 [11:43:52] p.m., CW #23 turned left and drove westbound on Dundas Street East. At 3:44:32 [11:44:32] p.m., CW #23 stopped at a red traffic light at the intersection of Dundas Street East and Garden Street. At 3:45:15 [11:45:15] p.m., CW #23 was travelling westbound on Dundas Street East and approached Brock Street. At 3:45:21 [11:45:21] p.m., a white truck passed CW #23 and travelled westbound in the right turn lane. The traffic light was red at the intersection of Dundas Street and Brock Street.

At 3:45:23 [11:45:23] p.m., the white truck briefly applied the brake as it approached the intersection, then the white truck continued westbound on Dundas Street East through the red traffic light. The white truck drove in the eastbound lanes to pass the westbound traffic. At 3:45:35 [11:45:35] p.m., the white truck disappeared as CW #23 waited at the red traffic light. At 3:45:50 [11:45:50] p.m., the traffic light turned green and CW #23 travelled westbound on Dundas Street East.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the time distance calculation (TDC) based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 3:45:21 p.m. [11:45:21 a.m.], the white truck was travelling at 98 km/h. At 3:45:22 p.m. [11:45:22 a.m.], the SO’s DRPS vehicle was travelling at 73 km/h. At 3:45:23 p.m. [11:45:23 a.m.], the SO’s DRPS vehicle was travelling at 54 km/h.

Sign company CCTV

On April 18, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a sign company located on Garden Street. The recording captured four lanes of traffic on Garden Street. On April 12, 2017 at 11:43:20 a.m., there was a DRPS vehicle travelling southbound in the curb lane on Garden Street.

At 11:44:27 a.m., there was a white truck travelling southbound in the curb lane on Garden Street. At 11:44:29 a.m., the white truck was off camera. There was a DRPS car travelling southbound in the curb lane. At 11:44:31 a.m., the DRPS car was off camera. There was a DRPS SUV travelling southbound in the centre lane on Garden Street.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:44:28 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 130 km/h. At 11:44:30 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 101 km/h. At 11:44:31 a.m., a DRPS SUV was travelling at 113 km/h.

Petro Canada CCTV

On April 18, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV and snap shots from the Petro Canada located on Dundas Street East. The Petro Canada was located on the northwest corner of Dundas Street East and Garden Street. The camera captured gas pumps seven and eight and the entrance from Garden Street. The gas pumps were close to Garden Street and away from the store.

On April 12, 2017 at 11:42:50 a.m., a white truck travelling southbound on Garden Street entered the Petro Canada parking lot. The white truck passed gas pumps seven and eight on the south side and continued through the lot and off camera.

At 11:42:58 a.m., a DRPS vehicle was travelling southbound on Garden Street and entered the Petro Canada. The DRPS vehicle passed gas pumps seven and eight on the south side and continued through the lot. The police vehicle’s emergency lights were activated. Five seconds later, a DRPS SUV travelling southbound on Garden Street entered the Petro Canada station. The DRPS SUV passed gas pumps seven and eight on the south side and continued through the parking lot and off camera. The emergency lights were not activated.

Shelter CCTV

On April 20, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a shelter located on Dundas Street East. The recording captured four lanes on Dundas Street East. At 11:43:19 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound in the centre lane. At 11:43:21 a.m., the white truck went off screen. At 11:43:31 a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound. The emergency lights were not activated. At 11:43:32 a.m., the DRPS car went off screen.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:43:19 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 115 km/h. At 11:43:32 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 85 km/h. At 11:43:42 a.m., the DRPS SUV was travelling at 68 km/h.

Welfare centre CCTV

The SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a welfare centre located on Dundas Street East. The camera captured the traffic on Dundas Street East.

At 11:14:35 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound in the centre lane on Dundas Street East. At 11:14:48 a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound on Dundas Street East.

At 11:15:01 a.m., there was a DRPS SUV travelling westbound in the curb lane. The emergency lights were not activated. At 11:17:18 a.m., there was a second DRPS SUV travelling westbound. The emergency lights were activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:14:35 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 100 km/h. At 11:14:47 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 100 km/h. At 11:15:00 a.m., the DRPS SUV was travelling at 52 km/h.

Monument company CCTV

On April 19, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a monument company located on Dundas Street East. The camera captured the traffic on Dundas Street East.

On April 12, 2017 at 11:33:39 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound in the curb lane. At 11:33:53 a.m., a DRPS car was travelling westbound in the through lane. The emergency lights were not activated. At 11:34:09 a.m., a DRPS SUV was travelling westbound in the curb lane. The emergency lights were not activated. At 11:42:40 a.m., a DRPS SUV was travelling westbound in the through lane. The emergency lights were activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:33:39 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 75 km/h. At 11:33:53 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 75 km/h. At 11:34:09 a.m., the DRPS SUV was travelling at 56 km/h. At 11:42:40 a.m., the second DRPS SUV was travelling at 56 km/h.

Pizza restaurant CCTV

On April 20, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a pizza restaurant located on Dundas Street East. The camera captured the traffic on Dundas Street East. The CCTV had gaps in the recording. At 11:47:52 a.m., there was a DRPS SUV travelling westbound in the through lane. The emergency light was activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:47:40 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 55 km/h.

Funeral home CCTV

On April 19, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a funeral home located on Dundas Street East. The camera captured the intersection at Dundas Street East and Green Street. The recording was one hour behind Eastern Standard Time (EST).

On April 12, 2017 at 10:42:10 [11:42:10] a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound in the right turn lane. At 10:42:27 [11:42:27] a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound in the through lane. The emergency lights were activated, then turned off at Green Street.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 10:42:09 [11:42:09] a.m., the white truck was travelling at 82 km/h. At 10:42:27 [11:42:27] a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 60 km/h.

Church CCTV

On April 20, 2017, the investigators received CCTV from a church located on Dundas Street West. The camera captured the intersection of Dundas Street West and Centre Street North. There were no time stamps on the recording but the length of the recording was 29 minutes and 33 seconds.

At 17:41 minutes, there was a white truck travelling westbound in the through lane. At 18:23 minutes, there was a DRPS car travelling westbound in the through lane. The emergency equipment was not activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 17:41 minutes, the white truck was travelling at 43 km/h. At 18:23 minutes, the DRPS car was travelling at 40 km/h.

Bakery CCTV

On April 19, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a bakery located on Dundas Street West. The bakery had two cameras but only one camera captured the four lanes on Dundas Street West.

On April 12, 2017 at 11:42:11 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound on Dundas Street West. At 11:43:24 a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound on Dundas Street West. The emergency lights were not activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:42:42 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 61 km/h. At 11:43:24 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 56 km/h.

Motel CCTV

On April 15, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a motel located on the south side of Dundas Street West. The recording captured four lanes of traffic on Dundas Street West.

On April 12, 2017 at 11:46:10 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound on Dundas Street West, approaching a crosswalk. At 11:47:10 a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound approaching a crosswalk. The emergency lights were not activated.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 11:46:09 a.m., the white truck was travelling at 66 km/h. At 11:47:09 a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 83 km/h. At 11:48:12 a.m., the DRPS SUV was travelling at 79 km/h.

Car wash CCTV

The SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from a car wash located on Dundas Street West. The investigators reviewed camera one, two, three and five, but only camera two was of interest.

On April 12, 2017 at 11:57:51 a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound on Dundas Street West in the centre lane. At 11:59:26 a.m., there was a DRPS car travelling westbound on Dundas Street West in the centre lane. At 12:00:28 p.m., there was a DRPS SUV travelling westbound on Dundas Street West with the emergency lights activated.

Auto glass company CCTV

On April 19, 2017, SIU Forensic Investigators received CCTV from an auto glass company located on Dundas Street West. The investigators reviewed two recordings but only one was helpful to the investigation. The recording captured eastbound and westbound traffic on Dundas Street West. The footage was an hour behind EST.

On April 12, 2017 at 10:46:31 [11:46:31] a.m., there was a white truck travelling westbound on Dundas Street West. At 10:47:31 [11:47:31] a.m., there was a DRPS vehicle travelling westbound on Dundas Street West.

SIU Forensic Investigators determined the TDC based on GoogleEarth measurements. At 10:46:31 [11:46:31] a.m., the white truck was travelling at 128 km/h. At 10:47:31 [11:47:31] a.m., the DRPS car was travelling at 114 km/h. At 10:48:33 [11:48:33] a.m., the DRPS SUV was travelling at 132 km/h.

Communications recordings

DRPS Communication Recordings and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)

DRPS provided communication recordings for April 12, 2017.

There was an alarm call at a vacant school located on Garden Street. The communication recording started at 11:34:24 a.m. and ended at 11:47:12 a.m. At 11:38:45 a.m., the dispatcher sent two units [now known to be WO #7 and WO #8] to the alarm call.

At 11:39:25 a.m., the SO asked to be added to the alarm call. At 11:39:52 a.m., the dispatcher advised WO #4 of the alarm call and at 11:40:00 a.m., WO #4 asked to be added to the alarm call. At 11:40:07 a.m., WO #1 asked to be added to the alarm call.

At 11:44:41 a.m., a male [now known to be the SO] said, “WO #4, did you see that truck in front of me?” At 11:44:49 a.m., WO #4 said, “That’s 10-4, you were trying to get by him with your lights for the call and he took off.” The SO said, “Yeah 10-4 and now he is cutting through the Petro and headed west on Dundas.” At 11:45:03, a male said “What kind of vehicle?”

At 11:45:05 a.m., the SO said, “It was a white pick-up truck.” At 11:45:10 a.m., a male said, “Male driver…” and at 11:45:14 a.m., the SO said, “I didn’t see, he is currently westbound on Dundas approaching Brock Street.” At 11:45:38 a.m., WO #4 said, “Yeah, seeing your hydro off there, see if you can grab a plate or something, but don’t pursue him right now, through downtown.”

At 11:45:42 a.m., the SO said, “Yeah 10-4, he blew through the red light at Brock and is now westbound and I have lost him.” At 11:45:57 a.m., a male said, “What kind of pick-up is it…?” At 11:46:00 a.m., the SO said, “Looks like a white [describes truck].” At 11:46:36 a.m., WO #8 said, “Yeah, I am just going westbound on Taunton to see if I can catch up to that vehicle.” At 11:47:12 a.m., WO #4 said, “Sgt 1, 10-6 on the alarm.”

There was a MVC call and the communication recording started at 11:47:17 a.m. and ended at 4:29:11 p.m. At 11:47:17 a.m., the SO said, “It looks like the white pick-up truck crashed at McQuay.” At 11:47:33 a.m., a male said, “Get canine moving to that area, quick.” At 11:47:36 a.m., the dispatcher contacted WO #1 and WO #2, and WO #1 said he was on it. At 11:47:49 a.m., a male said, “There is a car on fire here.”

At 11:48 a.m., a male said, “Okay, I got a male seriously injured here, can we get …” and at 11:48:17 a.m., the SO said, “He is seriously injured I need medical.” At 11:48:41 a.m., a male said “… take a look in the truck there and see the male there.” At 11:49:10 a.m., a male said, “Northbound running with a black hoodie on McQuay.” At 11:56:53 a.m., a male said, “One in custody.”

DRPS provided a copy of the CAD reports for the alarm call and MVC call. The CAD reports were consistent with the DRPS communications recordings.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from DRPS:

• Communications recordings – MVC dispatch and alarm call
• Civilian Witness List and statements from CW #2, CW #5, CW #17, CW #18, CW #22, CW #23, CW #25, CW #26, CW #27, CW #28, CW #30, CW #31 and CW #32
• Detailed Call Summaries
• DRPS Previous Contacts with CW #4
• Duty Roster (x4)
• General Occurrence Report and Attachments
• GPS Data Tables
• GPS / Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Data
• DRPS Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO) photos
• Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) Records
• Motor Vehicle Accident Report
• Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Documents for CW #4
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7 and WO #8
• Police Witness List and Roles
• Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits
• Training Record – the SO, and
• Prepared statements from WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7 and WO #8

Sections 1-3, Ontario Regulation 266/10, Ontario Police Services Act – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits

(1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a suspect apprehension pursuit occurs when a police officer attempts to direct the driver of a motor vehicle to stop, the driver refuses to obey the officer and the officer pursues in a motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle

(2) A suspect apprehension pursuit is discontinued when police officers are no longer pursuing a fleeing motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

(1) A police officer may pursue, or continue to pursue, a fleeing motor vehicle that fails to stop

1. if the police officer has reason to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or is about to be committed; or
2. for the purposes of motor vehicle identification or the identification of an individual in the vehicle

(2) Before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall determine that there are no alternatives available as set out in the written procedures of,

1. the police force of the officer established under subsection 6 (1), if the officer is a member of an Ontario police force as defined in the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009
2. a police force whose local commander was notified of the appointment of the officer under subsection 6 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part II of that Act; or
3. the local police force of the local commander who appointed the officer under subsection 15 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part III of that Act

(3) A police officer shall, before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, determine whether in order to protect public safety the immediate need to apprehend an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle or the need to identify the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle outweighs the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit.

(4) During a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall continually reassess the determination made under subsection (3) and shall discontinue the pursuit when the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit outweighs the risk to public safety that may result if an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended or if the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

(5) No police officer shall initiate a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence if the identity of an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is known.

(6) A police officer engaging in a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence shall discontinue the pursuit once the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is identified.

(1) A police officer shall notify a dispatcher when the officer initiates a suspect apprehension pursuit

(2) The dispatcher shall notify a communications supervisor or road supervisor, if a supervisor is available, that a suspect apprehension pursuit has been initiated.

Section 159(1), Highway Traffic Act – Approaching emergency vehicles

159 (1) The driver of a vehicle, upon the approach of a police department vehicle with its bell or siren sounding or with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light, or upon the approach of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or public utility emergency vehicle with its bell or siren sounding or its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light, shall immediately bring such vehicle to a standstill,

1. as near as is practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway and parallel therewith and clear of any intersection; or
2. when on a roadway having more than two lanes for traffic and designated for the use of one-way traffic, as near as is practicable to the nearest curb or edge of the roadway and parallel therewith and clear of any intersection.

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

(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…

(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.

On April 12^th, 2017, at approximately 11:39 a.m., the SO and WO #4 were dispatched to an alarm call at a school on Garden Street in the Town of Whitby.[2] At the time of the dispatch, the SO was driving a fully marked DRPS police sedan and he drove westbound on Manning Road towards Garden Street. WO #4 was operating a fully marked DRPS Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) southbound on Garden Street. The SO accelerated, in response to the call, to approximately 90 km/h while en route, intermittently activating his emergency equipment to get other drivers to pull over and out of his way as he continued to the call. At the intersection of Manning Road and Garden Street, CW #4 was operating his motor vehicle, a white Ford pick-up truck, westbound on Manning Road and was stopped at the red light at the intersection with Garden Street. On all of the evidence, it appears that CW #4’s presence at the intersection of Manning Road and Garden Street was totally coincidental and completely unrelated to the presence of the other police in the area who were responding to the call at the public school. For whatever reason, however, CW #4 was under the impression that the police were pursuing him, and he accelerated to extremely dangerous speeds and disobeyed a number of traffic signals, as well as contravening other rules of the road pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). His actions caught the attention of police, making him a person of interest. When CW #4 arrived at the intersection of Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard, he entered the intersection on a red light, striking two other motor vehicles and resulting in serious injuries to the driver of one of those vehicles, the Complainant. Those injuries included seven fractured ribs, a fractured collar bone, fractured pelvis and a ruptured spleen.

CW #4 alleged that police had him under surveillance, and, after seeing the SO and WO #4, he believed that they were trying to box him in. CW#4 then panicked, blacked out and fled; he neither knew the speed at which he travelled nor where he was going. He could not recall if he observed any police emergency equipment activated at that time. At some point, CW#4 observed the police try to bump his vehicle and that they were only a couple of car lengths behind him. He also alleged that police were weaving in and out of traffic and entering the oncoming lanes of traffic and that the police vehicle was travelling behind him at over 100km/h and did not have its emergency lighting activated at that time.

While CW #4 also alleged that he was beaten by two officers other than those that he alleged were involved in the pursuit, I will not set that portion of his evidence out here since, for the reasons that follow, I find that CW#4 has no credibility whatsoever and therefore there is no reliable evidence upon which I could find that CW#4 was beaten by police officers upon his arrest, as there is no independent evidence to support his allegations of such.

While, as indicated above, I am forced to discount the evidence of CW #4 in its entirety because he has no credibility whatsoever, I am still obligated to assess the remaining evidence in order to determine if reasonable grounds exist to find that the SO acted outside of his lawful duties and committed a criminal offence in that his actions caused the collision between the motor vehicle operated by CW #4 and that of the Complainant and that the SO is therefore criminally responsible for the serious injuries sustained by the Complainant.

During the course of this investigation, 22 civilian witnesses were interviewed, in addition to the Complainant and CW #4, and 12 CCTV recordings along the route were reviewed. Additionally, eight police witnesses and the SO were all interviewed and the memorandum book notes of all witness officers were reviewed, as well as the police communications recordings, the dash cam footage from CW #23 and the GPS data from the two involved police vehicles.

Based on all of the physical evidence, as well as the 21 independent witnesses (CW#6 not having witnessed the incident), whose evidence is confirmatory of that of the police witnesses, I am unable to place any credence on the evidence of CW #4 as it is directly contradicted by all of the witnesses and the video evidence. Additionally, I find that CW #4’s assertion that he panicked and blacked out when he sped away from the police and was unaware of where he was going or at what speeds he was travelling is a convenient self-serving statement without any evidentiary basis. Furthermore, the black out and the memory that CW #4 still retains appears to be very selective, in that CW #4 was able to fully recall being pursued by police, and the actions of police, but had no recall of his own excessive rates of speed or the fact that, according to numerous civilian witnesses, he ran at least one red traffic signal before the one in which he collided with the two motor vehicles or that he was driving at various points on the wrong side of the road and in a reckless manner.

The SO, in his statement, advised that he was dispatched to the alarm call at the public school and that he accelerated to 90 km/h in order to respond to that call. While driving westbound on Manning Road, the SO intermittently turned on his emergency equipment to get other vehicles to pull over and let him pass. As he approached the intersection of Manning Road and Garden Street, the SO advised that he observed WO #4, in his marked SUV, stopped at the traffic light going southbound on Garden Street. When the signal light controlling traffic on Manning Road turned to green, the SO activated his emergency equipment and drove in the centre through lane beside the white truck, which was in the left turn lane, and the SO turned left. As he turned left, he indicated that the white truck driven by CW #4 also turned left and kept pace with the SO’s vehicle. The white truck, in the centre lane, was then ahead of the SO’s cruiser, in the right lane, on Garden Street and continued southbound.

WO #4 advised that he observed the SO activate his emergency lights as he approached the right side of the white truck stopped on Manning Road and that he believed that the SO did so in order to alert CW #4 that the cruiser was also making a left turn onto Garden Street. WO #4 observed that the white truck continued and did not stop for the cruiser, and that both vehicles then proceeded southbound on Garden Street. He observed the SO travelling in the curb lane, while CW #4 was in the centre lane. This is consistent with the evidence of the SO and contradicts the evidence of CW #4. I reject the evidence of CW #4 not only because it is contradicted by WO #4, but also because, from their positions where they were stopped on Manning Road, CW #4’s version would have necessarily involved the cruiser and the white truck crossing each other’s paths as they made their turns and would likely have resulted in a collision.

WO #4’s evidence is further consistent with that of the SO wherein he then observed the SO to pull into the centre lane behind the white truck and the white truck then accelerate and block the SO’s path. The SO then activated his air horn, but CW #4 did not pull over or move out of the path of the SO. WO #4 then activated his emergency lights as well and travelled through the intersection on Garden Street in the centre lane about two blocks behind the SO, who was behind CW #4. The SO then repeatedly activated his air horn in order to convince CW #4 to change lanes and let him pass; instead, CW #4 slowed and straddled both the centre and the curb lane. I find that this evidence is consistent with CW #4’s mistaken belief that police were trying to box him in and, by straddling both lanes, he was attempting to thwart that action. As CW #4 approached the overhead railway, he entered the curb lane and then accelerated to 120 km/h, as a result of which the SO indicated that he was shocked, and transmitted over the radio asking WO #4 if he had seen what the white truck had just done. This is confirmed by the radio transmission recording wherein at 11:44:41 a.m. the SO is heard to say, “WO #4, did you see that truck in front of me?” and WO #4 is heard to respond, “That’s 10-4, you were trying to get by him with your lights for the call and he took off.”

The SO advised that he then continued driving towards the alarm call at speeds of 85 to 90 km/h, not pursuing the white truck, when he observed the truck approach the red traffic light at the intersection of Garden Street and Dundas Street East, where it turned and drove through the gas station at the corner at speeds estimated at 60 to 70 km/h and then re-entered onto Dundas Street and continued westbound. The SO passed the school with the alarm call and followed the white truck through the Petro Canada station and WO #4 then transmitted over the radio that he was not to pursue the truck but should try to get the licence plate. Once the SO had entered onto Dundas Street, he advised that he had lost sight of the truck. This evidence is also confirmed by the radio transmission recording wherein the SO is heard to say, “Yeah, 10-4 and now he is cutting through the Petro and headed west on Dundas,” and then later at 11:45:05 a.m., “It was a white pick-up truck … I didn’t see, he is currently westbound on Dundas approaching Brock Street,” and WO #4 is recorded as responding, at 11:45:38 a.m., “Yeah, seeing your hydro [which I take to mean emergency roof lights] off there, see if you can grab a [licence] plate or something, but don’t pursue him right now, through downtown. “ At 11:45:42 a.m., the SO is again heard on the recording indicating, “Yeah 10-4, he blew through the red light at Brock and is now westbound and I have lost him.”

The SO advised that once he had entered onto Dundas Street and lost sight of the white pick-up truck, he turned off his emergency lighting in hopes that CW #4 would slow down at a red traffic light and the SO would then have the opportunity to read his licence plate. The SO advised that he continued westbound on Dundas Street East but did not see the white truck again until approaching Reynolds Street, when he observed the white truck approaching Brock Street at a high rate of speed and weaving in and out of traffic. The SO then travelled with the flow of traffic and observed the white truck pass on the right side of the vehicles stopped at the red light and then drive through the red light at Brock Street. The SO advised that the truck did not slow and he again lost sight of it as he stopped behind other vehicles at the red light.

Several civilian witnesses confirmed that CW #4 weaved around vehicles in the curb lane, entered the through lane and did not stop for the red traffic light.

Several witnesses also saw the white truck travelling at a high rate of speed as it approached the intersection at McQuay Boulevard and then enter the intersection, against the red light, colliding with another motor vehicle and then swinging counter clockwise before coming to rest.

On the evidence of the 21 independent civilian witnesses interviewed (the Complainant being unable to comment as he was unconscious following the collision), and as confirmed by the radio transmission recordings, the dash cam video, the GPS data and the CCTV footage from various commercial locations along the route taken by CW #4 prior to his collision, it is clear that the SO, after initially pursuing CW #4’s motor vehicle south on Garden Street and through the Petro Canada gas station where he failed to pull over for an emergency vehicle, terminated any police pursuit. It appears clear on all of the evidence that CW #4 mistakenly believed that he was being pursued by police, when in fact, police were simply responding to another alarm call.

Having discounted the evidence of CW #4, on all of the remaining evidence, including the civilian witnesses and the physical evidence, I find that while the SO and WO #4 were responding to an emergency alarm call, CW #4 mistakenly believed that they were pursuing him and he chose to drive at excessive rates of speed and in a reckless manner in order to evade them. In doing so, he drove at speeds twice and almost three times the posted speed limit, drove on the wrong side of the road, ran two red stop lights, and collided with two other motor vehicles that were lawfully in the intersection at the time, causing the serious injuries to the Complainant.

On the evidence of all of the witnesses, while the SO and WO #4 were originally travelling at high rates of speed in response to their emergency call, once CW #4 entered onto Dundas Street West and was travelling towards the downtown core of the Town of Whitby at Dundas and Brock Streets, WO #4 immediately directed the SO not to pursue the motor vehicle, and the SO terminated any pursuit. While the SO continued to follow CW #4’s motor vehicle in order to attempt to obtain his licence plate, he did so in full compliance with Ontario Regulation 266/10 of the Ontario Police Services Act (OPSA) entitled Suspect Apprehension Pursuits in that he slowed his vehicle, turned off his emergency equipment and fell back in the hope that CW #4 might also slow, allowing the SO to obtain his licence plate information.

21 civilian witnesses either observed the driving of the motor vehicle operated by CW #4 prior to his arrival at the intersection of Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard, or were involved in, or witness to, the subsequent collision between CW #4 and the other two motor vehicles. Of those witnesses, none observed the DRPS cruiser operated by the SO at the time that CW #4 sped into the intersection against the red light causing the collision. The estimates of various witnesses ranged from one to three minutes between the time of the collision and the arrival of the first police cruiser on the scene.

It is clear on all of the evidence, that at the time that the SO first observed the white pick-up truck being driven by CW #4 and observed him to fail to pull over for an emergency vehicle (contrary to s. 159 (1) of the HTA) and then flee at extremely high rates of speed, he was lawfully entitled to stop and investigate the driver of the motor vehicle pursuant to the HTA.

I note that the evidence of the SO is fully confirmed by the 21 civilian witnesses who observed CW #4’s driving en route, or who were at the collision scene at the time of impact, as well as the communications recordings, the CCTV footage, the dash cam video and the GPS data from the SO’s cruiser, all of which fully substantiate the fact that the SO was not in a vehicular pursuit at the time of the motor vehicle collision in which the Complainant was injured, nor had he been in pursuit immediately prior to the collision, having abandoned his efforts to apprehend CW#4 shortly after CW#4 entered onto Dundas Street West. The evidence of the SO is also fully consistent with that of WO #4, who was driving behind him when he first interacted with the white pick-up truck.

On all of the evidence, it is clear that although the SO initially attempted to pursue the truck, which he was lawfully entitled to do, at no time did he pursue CW #4 after the truck sped off on Dundas Street West after going through the Petro Canada gas station. Rather, the SO de-activated his siren, slowed his vehicle and fell back in an attempt to obtain the licence plate of the truck. This evidence is fully confirmed by the radio transmission recording wherein WO #4 is heard to say that he observed that the SO had turned off his “hydro”. Thereafter, though CW #4’s vehicle was seen travelling at high rates of speed and contravening several provisions of the HTA, all witnesses confirmed that they neither heard nor saw a police vehicle, or if they did, they described it as well back, travelling at a far lesser rate of speed and with the flow of traffic, without emergency equipment activated and stopping for the red light at Brock and Dundas Streets. This evidence is confirmed by all of the civilian witnesses who saw the SO’s cruiser only after they had already lost sight of CW #4’s truck and by the radio transmission recording wherein the SO transmitted that he lost sight of the vehicle as he exited the gas station lot. This evidence is further conclusively confirmed by the CCTV footage which tracked CW #4 on his route and revealed that the SO only followed behind after some time had passed. As such, I can find no causal connection between the driving of the SO and the injuries sustained by the Complainant in the collision, which I find to have been solely attributable to CW #4’s decision to drive in the manner that he did.

It is worthy of note that the SO fully complied with the requirements of the OPSA, in that he contacted his supervisor, WO #4, as soon as the truck cut him off; he immediately terminated any pursuit when directed to do so by WO #4; he provided the information that he had on the vehicle to the dispatcher along with his direction of travel and continued to update the dispatcher with events as they occurred; within seconds of pursuing the truck, he terminated the pursuit and lost sight of the vehicle as he gave priority to public safety over pursuing the speeding vehicle; and he abandoned his efforts and deactivated his siren while continuing to search for the vehicle. It can be inferred on this evidence that the SO considered whether in order to protect public safety, the immediate need to apprehend an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle, or the need to identify the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle, outweighed the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit and determined that it did not. Additionally, I note that rather than giving chase to CW #4, after CW #4 ran from his vehicle following the collision, the SO gave precedence to assisting the Complainant and left the apprehension of CW #4 to other officers.

The final question to be determined is whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the SO, in his initial pursuit of CW #4, committed a criminal offence, specifically, whether or not his driving rose to the level of being dangerous and therefore in contravention of s.249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R.v.Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, sets out the law with respect to s.249 in that it 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”.

On a review of all of the evidence, I find that there is no evidence that the driving of the SO created a danger to other users of the roadway or that at any time he interfered with other traffic. The SO used his emergency equipment prudently, initially activating both his emergency roof lighting system and his siren but then immediately deactivating his siren when he determined that CW #4 was not going to pull over. Additionally, the environmental conditions were good and the roads were dry.

Furthermore, the evidence establishes that the SO did nothing to exacerbate CW #4’s pattern of dangerous driving. On the evidence all of the civilian witnesses along CW #4’s route, CW #4 was driving at excessive rates of speed and disobeying traffic signals despite the fact that the SO was no longer in sight of the truck, had long since deactivated his emergency equipment, and had fallen back and stopped at a red light. On this evidence, it is clear that CW #4 continued speeding, ran at least two red signal lights and illegally entered the intersection at McQuay Boulevard, causing a collision and injuring another motorist, long after the SO had abandoned any attempt to pursue him. On this evidence, it is clear that CW #4 had made a voluntary decision to drive in a reckless manner, and that he continued to do so long after the SO had abandoned his intention in the interests of public safety and the truck was lost from view.

On this record, I find that the evidence of the SO’s driving does not rise to the level required to constitute “a marked departure from the norm” and, as indicated earlier, there is no evidence to support a causal connection between the actions of the SO and the collision and consequent injuries to the Complainant. While it may be that the SO only abandoned his police pursuit because he was directed to do so by WO #4 and that he then completely lost sight of CW #4 when he accelerated away from him, CW #4 was only able to do so because the SO put public safety ahead of his desire to apprehend CW #4. In fact, in reviewing the evidence in its entirety, it is clear that not only did the SO respond to the situation in full compliance with the Criminal Code, the HTA and the OPSA, but he behaved at all times professionally, prudently and with good common sense. I cannot find any criticism of the SO’s actions and, as such, find that there is no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: February 8, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The “real time” [EST] will be placed in square brackets after the time recorded. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The school was no longer in operation as a school and had temporary construction fencing around it at the time. [Back to text]