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 sustained by a 57-year-old woman during a motor vehicle collision on February 5, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On February 5, 2017 at 6:25 p.m., the SIU was notified by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) of a motor vehicle collision resulting in the injury to the Complainant.

TPS reported that TPS officers were attempting to stop a vehicle that they suspected of being involved in a carjacking on the day before. TPS officers attempted to stop the vehicle when backup arrived. The vehicle fled and was involved in a collision with a vehicle containing the Complainant and her husband. The four occupants of the fleeing vehicle fled on foot and three of them were captured. The collision occurred in the area of Driftwood Avenue and Venetian Crescent.

The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured sternum.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

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

57-year-old female interviewed, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

During the early afternoon of February 5, 2017, CW #3 was driving a stolen Toyota Camry in the area of Grandravine Drive and Jane Street. CW #1, CW #4 and CW #5 were his passengers. The SO was operating a marked TPS cruiser in the area – WO #1 was his passenger. The SO stopped at a red traffic light, when CW #3 made a sharp right turn onto Grandravine Drive, almost striking the left side mirror of the SO’s cruiser. At the time, CW #3 was trying to conceal his face by ducking his head while he passed.

Given the driving and unusual behaviour of the Toyota Camry, the SO followed the Camry in order to read the licence plate, and confirm whether or not the vehicle was stolen. As the SO approached the intersection of Grandravine Drive and Driftwood Avenue, the Toyota Camry was stopped at the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard and Driftwood Avenue. An inquiry into the Toyota Camry’s licence plate revealed that the plate was not registered to the Toyota Camry.

The SO activated the emergency equipment on his cruiser, and the Toyota Camry pulled over at the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard and Venetian Crescent. Suddenly the back passenger door swung open. The SO pressed on his air horn, and the door closed. As WO #2’s cruiser approached the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard and Venetian Crescent, the Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated and sped off at a high rate of speed, making a left turn onto Venetian Crescent, southbound toward the direction of Driftwood Avenue. The Toyota Camry then made a wide right turn onto Driftwood Avenue, but it was going too fast to make the turn in the southbound lane. The Toyota Camry ended in the northbound lane of Driftwood Avenue and collided with a white Toyota Corolla being driven by CW #2. The Complainant was the passenger in the Corolla, and sustained pulmonary contusions and a sternal fracture from the impact.

The scene

Venetian Crescent is controlled with a stop sign and intersects with Driftwood Avenue at near right angles only on the west side. It is a paved asphalt road with no lane delineations. At the intersection of Venetian Crescent and Driftwood Avenue, it permits east and west vehicular movement and is bordered by concrete curbs, grassed boulevards and concrete sidewalks. At the time of this collision, the boulevards were covered in snow and the roads and sidewalks were wet. Multiple unit residential development is located on both sides of both roads.

The speed limit on Driftwood Avenue is posted at 40 km/h. The speed limit on Venetian Crescent is not posted and is therefore 50 km/h in accordance with section 128 (1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA).

On February 10, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., two FIs re-traced the pursuit route for the purpose of calculating the distance and time while videotaping and photographing it. The distance of the pursuit was 1.5 kms. The total time to drive the pursuit route at the posted speed limits was 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

Scene diagram

Forensic evidence

Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) data from the SO’s cruiser

An SIU investigator reviewed the collected AVL data for the marked Ford Crown Victoria cruiser operated by the SO. The AVL data recordings showed the SO traveled westbound on Yewtree Boulevard, then eastbound on Venetian Crescent, at various speeds that fluctuated from 58 km/h, to 47 km/h, and then down to 31 km/h, before becoming stationary at the intersection of Venetian Crescent and Driftwood Avenue, where the collision had occurred.

The AVL data evidence suggests the SO did not drive at excessive speeds during the unfolding of this event.

Expert evidence

The SIU reconstructionist conclusions

CW #3 accelerated the Toyota Camry westbound on Yewtree Boulevard, turning left to travel southbound, and then eastbound on Venetian Crescent, at 70 km/h. CW #3 attempted a right turn onto Driftwood Avenue but was travelling at too great a speed for the wet surface. He lost control of the Toyota Camry and crossed into the northbound lane of Driftwood Avenue at a speed of 60 km/h. The front end of the Toyota Camry collided, head on, with the Toyota Corolla operated by CW #2 in the northbound lane at 28 km/h.

According to the Airbag Control Module (ACM) data, the Toyota Corolla had come to a complete stop when CW #3 then accelerated the Toyota Camry, pushing CW #2’s Toyota Corolla southwest, forcing both vehicles to strike the west concrete curb of Driftwood Avenue. Both vehicles then came to rest on the west boulevard, 47 metres south of Venetian Crescent. There is no evidence to suggest that the SO’s cruiser or WO #2’s cruiser ever made contact with any person or vehicle during the unfolding of this event.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

In-Car Camera System (ICCS) video recording

The SO’s police vehicle was equipped with an ICCS with audio. On February 5, 2017, at 1:29 p.m., the SO and WO #1’s ICCS was activated when they began following a four door Toyota Camry northbound on Driftwood Avenue, south of Venetian Crescent.

The ICCS images showed the police officers following a Toyota Camry to a three way stop sign at the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard. The left turn signal was activated on the Toyota Camry, which turned left to travel westbound onto Yewtree Boulevard. Immediately after the Toyota Camry completed the turn, the SO and WO #1’s police cruiser emergency lights were activated. A siren was heard on the ICCS video footage, followed by images capturing the Toyota Camry complying with the traffic stop by pulling over to the right side of the roadway east of Venetian Crescent.

The ICCS video footage showed the brake lights of the Toyota Camry were on, which indicated the vehicle remained in gear. The audio recording on the ICCS captured one of the police officers querying the licence plate number of the Toyota Camry through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) on the in-car computer system.

At 1:30 p.m., the ICCS images showed a back door opening from the passenger side of the Toyota Camry. A police siren can be heard on the audio of the ICCS, one short blast, signaling the occupants in the Toyota Camry to close the back passenger door. The door closed. From the audio recordings, one of the police officers can be heard saying there were four occupants in the vehicle and one of the occupants wanted out. Shortly after that, a radio transmission can be heard: “Remember what you have there, it is just an unattached plate that is all you have.” A second radio transmission (believed to be the SO’s voice) can be heard transmitting, “They parked, stopped, waiting for another unit to arrive.” A third radio broadcast, believed to be WO #2, reports that he turned onto Yewtree Boulevard.

At 1:31 p.m., the ICCS video captured the Toyota Camry accelerating and making an abrupt left turn onto Venetian Crescent, in front of an eastbound vehicle. Inside the police cruiser the audio footage recorded one of the police officers (believed to be WO #1’s voice) saying, “There he goes, don’t fucking chase him.”

The ICCS video captured the SO and WO #1’s police cruiser making a turn to travel the same direction as the Toyota Camry. WO #1 can be heard yelling a second time, “Don’t fucking chase him.” The SO can be heard responding that he was “not chasing him, just following him right now.” The ICCS indicated that the roof lights were activated while the SO was following the Toyota at a distance.

The SO and WO #1 continued to follow the Toyota Camry southbound on Venetian Crescent at a significant distance. The Toyota Camry can be seen approaching a curve in the roadway and was longer in view of the camera.

At 1:31:39 p.m., the ICCS video captured the SO and WO #1’s cruiser approaching the three way intersection of Venetian Crescent and Driftwood Avenue. The video footage showed two civilians standing on the south west corner of a sidewalk; the Toyota Camry is not in camera view.

At 1:31:42 p.m., the SO and WO #1’s police cruiser turned right onto Driftwood Avenue. The audio footage recorded WO #1 saying, “Geeze he just got into an accident.” The video captured a vehicle collision, south of the intersection of Driftwood Avenue and Venetian Crescent. The Toyota Camry was facing southbound in the northbound lane of Driftwood Avenue and a white Toyota Corolla was facing northbound in the northbound lane. The back passenger door to the Toyota Camry was open. At a distance, and in view of the camera, a dark figure can be seen running southbound on Driftwood Avenue in a westerly direction toward a townhouse complex. A male can be seen standing outside the white Toyota Corolla. The SO and WO #1 passed the male and continued to drive southbound on Driftwood Avenue.

The video showed the SO and WO #1’s police cruiser traveling a short distance from the collision scene and stopping on the west side of the road. The SO and WO #1 can be heard exiting their cruiser while the lights and sirens remained activated.

At 1:35:42 p.m., three male police officers walk out from a pathway located on the west side of Driftwood Avenue towards the SO’s cruiser and out of sight of the camera. There was no more video footage recorded.

Communications recordings

The communications recordings of the events of February 5, 2017, leading up to the Complainant’s injury, are consistent with the Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (ICAD) printouts, the radio communications and ICCS video footage.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Communications recordings
• AVL Global Positioning System (GPS) data for the SO’s and WO #2’s cruisers
• Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Unit History Report
• Collision Drawing Data
• Directive Project Stability - Project Statement
• Scene photos
• Event Details Reports
• Fail to Stop Report
• General Occurrence
• ICCS video recording from the SO’s cruiser
• Motor Vehicle Accident Report
• Notes of WO #1 and WO #2
• Prior Occurrence Summaries
• Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit, and
• Automated Dispatch System (ADS) Summary Sheet - Summary of Conversation

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…

(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.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal negligence

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.

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

1. (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.

2. (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.

3. (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.

On February 5^th, 2017, the SO and WO #1 were on routine patrol in a marked police cruiser at approximately 1:30 p.m. in the area of Jane Street and Grandravine Drive in the City of Toronto when they observed a Toyota Camry travelling northbound on Jane Street and turning right onto Grandravine Drive, almost striking the driver’s side mirror of the cruiser. Moreover, the vehicle drew their attention as the driver attempted to conceal his face under his arm as he passed the police cruiser. As a result of this suspicious behaviour, the SO and WO #1 decided to make a U-turn and follow the motor vehicle with the intention of capturing its licence plate and querying it on their police computer. Upon doing so, it was discovered that the licence plate was registered as attached to a different motor vehicle and the SO and WO #1 attempted a traffic stop, with the vehicle fleeing and thereafter becoming involved in a motor vehicle collision with a Toyota Corolla being driven by WO #2 with the Complainant as passenger. The Complainant was transported to hospital after the collision and diagnosed as having sustained a sternal fracture and soft tissue injuries.

During the course of this investigation, six civilian witnesses, including the Complainant and the driver of the Toyota Camry, were interviewed, as well as three police witnesses, including the SO. Additionally, investigators had access to the police communications recordings and logs, the memorandum notebooks of all involved officers, the ICCS recordings, the AVL data from the SO and WO #1’s police cruiser and the Accident Reconstruction Report. With the exception of two of the civilian witnesses who attempted to minimize their culpability, whose accounts provided minor inconsistencies which were not relevant to this investigation, there is no dispute as to the facts and a clear picture of the sequence of events has been extrapolated from the evidence.

On February 5^th, 2017, CW #3 was operating the stolen Toyota Camry in the company of CW #1, CW #4 and CW #5. CW #3 was not licensed to drive. The car was travelling toward the intersection of Jane Street and Grandravine Drive where it made a right turn onto eastbound Grandravine Drive. The SO and WO #1’s marked police cruiser was stopped at a red traffic light at the intersection. The SO advised that he observed the car make a sharp right turn onto Grandravine Drive, almost striking the left side mirror of his cruiser, and he saw the driver try to conceal his face by ducking his head as he passed the cruiser. The SO advised that he was unable to make out the licence plate of the car and that he and WO #1 agreed that they should follow the vehicle in order to obtain and query the licence plate. The SO then made a U-turn and caught up to the Camry stopped at the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard and Driftwood Avenue. The SO advised he was not in pursuit of the Camry and had not activated his emergency equipment. WO #1 then obtained the licence plate and, after querying it on their in car computer, it came back as being unattached and registered to another motor vehicle, which is an infraction under the HTA. At that point, the SO decided to perform a traffic stop for the licence plate infraction.

According to the SO, when he pulled the Camry over at the intersection of Yewtree Boulevard and Venetian Crescent, the driver came to a complete stop, the passenger rear door swung open and the SO pressed his air horn in order to signal the occupant to remain inside the car and he observed the car door to again close. The SO also noted that the car was still in gear and found the combination of these two things suspicious and decided to call for other police units to initiate a tactical combination stop to prevent the driver from fleeing. A sergeant was monitoring this traffic stop via police radio and reminded the SO and WO #1 that the only information in their possession at the time was that the car had unattached plates; which I take to mean that he was cautioning the officers not to engage in a pursuit. WO #1 then advised the SO to stay in the cruiser as he suspected that the driver was going to attempt to flee. Neither officer exited the cruiser but instead waited for the arrival of WO #2. At that point, the SO and WO #1 were joined by WO #2 in his cruiser. At this point, the Camry sped off and turned left onto Venetian Crescent. Shortly thereafter, the SO followed.

The SO advised that it was his intention to strategically follow the Camry and update the police dispatcher as to the vehicle’s location. WO #1 instructed the SO not to engage in a pursuit and to slow down. The SO advised he was not in pursuit but was following from a distance. WO #1 estimated the distance between their cruiser and the Camry ahead was approximately 40 to 50 metres. As the SO drove around the curve in the road on Venetian Crescent, he could see the back end of the Camry from a distance as it approached the intersection with Driftwood Avenue. The ICCS video confirms that the Camry was not in view from the point when it approached the curve in the road until after it had approached the intersection and subsequently collided with CW #2’s motor vehicle. As the SO neared, he saw that there had been a collision. WO #2, who was driving on Driftwood Avenue, observed the Camry approach the intersection at a high rate of speed, make a wide right turn into the oncoming lane of traffic on Driftwood Avenue and collide with CW #2’s motor vehicle, which was travelling northbound on Driftwood. As WO #2 approached the intersection, he activated his emergency equipment and observed the SO’s cruiser just approaching the intersection on Venetian Crescent.

The communications recordings as well as the ICCS video fully confirm the evidence of the SO and WO #1.

The Accident Reconstruction Report places the speed of the Camry at 70 km/h when travelling eastbound on Venetian Crescent, and at 60 km/h when it lost control while making the right turn onto Driftwood Avenue and crossing into the oncoming lane of traffic colliding with CW #2’s motor vehicle.

The AVL data from the SO’s cruiser recorded that the cruiser never exceeded 58 km/h, with speeds fluctuating from 58 to 47 to 31 km/h, and at no time approaching the 70 km/h at which the Camry was being operated on Venetian Crescent.

On all of this evidence, I am satisfied that the SO observed a motor vehicle with the driver actively attempting to hide his identity and almost colliding with the mirror on his cruiser and he decided to follow in an attempt to identify the licence plate to allow it to be queried. Having discovered that the vehicle was being driven with unattached plates, the SO was lawfully entitled to affect a vehicle stop in order to investigate an infraction of the HTA, and possibly more, judging from the driver’s active maneuvers in attempting to hide his identity from the police officers. With suspicions that the vehicle was about to flee, the SO and WO #1 both waited inside their cruiser for back up and then, on advice from both the communications sergeant and WO #1, decided to follow at a distance rather than pursue the vehicle. The communications recordings as well as the ICCS video and the AVL data confirm that the SO at all times maintained a substantial distance between his cruiser and the Camry and at no time did he accelerate to engage in a pursuit, with his speeds far less than those at which the Camry was being driven.

I find that the SO had reasonable grounds to attempt to stop and investigate the Camry for a HTA infraction and that the movements of the Camry in actively attempting to avoid the attention of the officer would have heightened the SO’s suspicions that there was the possibility that the Toyota might be involved in other criminal activity. I find, however, that once the Camry had sped off from the vehicle stop and sharply accelerated, that the SO did not engage in a pursuit, but rather followed at a speed far less than that of the Camry while keeping a significant distance between the two vehicles, that the Camry was no longer in view once it approached and entered the curve on Venetian Crescent, and that the SO was not actively engaging with the Camry in an attempt to bring it to a stop after his initial blast of the siren and activation of his roof lights. It is my view that this interpretation of events is confirmed by all six of the civilian witnesses, including the driver of the Camry, as well as the ICCS and AVL data.

Even if the SO’s following of the Camry can be categorized as a pursuit, which I do not believe it can, I find that the officer did not breach the TPS Policy on Suspect Apprehension Pursuits in that he did, almost immediately, if not immediately, contact the Communications Operator of the driver’s refusal to stop and continuously updated the dispatcher with all of the required information.

The offences that arise for consideration in this matter are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 249 and 221 of the Criminal Code respectively. Both offences are predicated on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. 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”; while the offence under s.221 requires “a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver in circumstances” where the accused “showed a reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others” (R. v. Sharp (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 428 (Ont. C.A.)).

On this record, I find that there is no evidence that the SO’s driving created a danger to other users of the roadway: at no time did he interfere with any other traffic, the environmental conditions were good[1], his speed was not excessive, and he maintained a significant distance at all points while following the Camry, as is evidenced by the ICCS. Furthermore, the officer did nothing to exacerbate the Camry’s pattern of dangerous driving, in fact, on the evidence of all of the civilian witnesses, the police cruiser was not even in sight prior to the Camry approaching and entering the intersection wherein it lost control and struck CW #2’s motor vehicle.

On this evidence, it is clear that CW #3 made a voluntary decision to try to outrun police and, in doing so, he fled at a dangerous rate of speed and in a reckless manner with no regard for other people using the road, and that he continued to do so both when the police officers attempted to stop him and after the officers had abandoned that intention in the interests of public safety and the Camry was lost from view. On all of the evidence, CW #3 chose to make a right turn at speeds that were excessive for that maneuver and lost control of his vehicle, entered the oncoming lane of traffic, and collided with CW #2’s vehicle while driving recklessly and at a rate of speed which was excessive for the turn, in order to make good on his escape.

I find on this evidence that the driving of the SO while following the Camry does not rise to the level of driving required to constitute “a marked departure from the norm” and even less so “a marked and substantial departure from the norm” and I find that there is no causal connection between the actions of the SO and the motor vehicle collision that caused the Complainant’s injuries. 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, the TPS Policy on Suspect Apprehension Pursuits and the Ontario Police Services Act[2], but he behaved at all times professionally, prudently and with good common sense and, as such, I find that there is absolutely no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: January 5, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] Although the road was wet in places. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] Sections 1-3, Ontario Regulation 266/10, Ontario Police Services Act – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits [Back to text]