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 26-year-old man and a 61-year-old man on December 31, 2016 during a motor vehicle collision.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident on December 31, 2016 at 4:16 a.m. by Peel Regional Police (PRP).

PRP reported a vehicle collision following a terminated short pursuit that occurred at 1:56 a.m. this morning. The Subject Officer (SO) had initiated a vehicle traffic stop (reason not known at this time) on Kennedy Rd south of Queen Street, Brampton, with lights and siren activated. The vehicle fled northbound and the SO disengaged and stopped his cruiser. About two minutes later, the fleeing vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle at Rutherford Rd and Vodden Rd, Brampton.

The driver of the fleeing vehicle, Complainant #1, was taken to the hospital with internal stomach bleeding and a brain injury. His passenger, Civilian Witness (CW) #3, was taken to another hospital with facial and chest injuries, but the doctors did not speak with police.

The driver and passenger from the vehicle struck by Complainant #1’s vehicle are Complainant #2 and CW #1. These two men are also at the same hospital as CW #3, but again doctors would not speak with the police about their injuries.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 7

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

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, video, sketches and measurements.

Complainant #1

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

Complainant #2

61-year-old male interviewed[1]

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Subject officers

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

The scene

As seen in the photo above, the collision scene was located at the intersection of Rutherford Road North and Vodden Street East in Brampton. This intersection operates on a semi-actuated basis[2], meaning until a vehicle or pedestrian is detected on Rutherford Road North the traffic signals will stay green for Vodden Street East.

Rutherford Road North is a two-lane paved asphalt road that travels in a north-west and south-east direction with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h and 40 km/h while approaching school zones.

Vodden Street East is a four-lane paved asphalt road that travels in a north-east and south-west direction with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h and 40 km/h while approaching school zones.

The two involved vehicles (a Nissan and a Chevrolet panel van) came to rest on the northeast corner of the intersection. An examination of the Nissan revealed extensive damage to its front and damage was noted on the driver’s side door of the Chevrolet panel van.

The distance calculated from the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road (when the SO first noticed the Nissan) to Rutherford Road North and Vodden Street East was approximately 2.4 km.

Scene diagram

Video evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and received closed circuit television (CCTV) recordings from a business located at Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road, as well as from various Brampton Transit ZUM station stops.

CCTV from business

The CCTV recordings from the business at Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road depicted the following:

• Between 1:56:42 a.m. and 1:56:51 a.m., the SO’s police vehicle – with its emergency lights activated – travelled northbound on Kennedy Road South towards the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East

Communications recordings

Communications Recordings and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

The SIU reviewed the communications recordings and CAD report from PRP.

The communications recordings depict the following:

• At 1:55:54 a.m., the SO advised the dispatcher that a Nissan had evaded a traffic stop initiated by him and drove through a red traffic light at the intersection of Rutherford Road South and Queen Street East. He is not in pursuit
• At 1:56:33 a.m., WO #4 advised the dispatcher that he is with the SO at a parking lot located at the south-east corner of Queen Street East and Kennedy Road South
• At 1:57:42 a.m., another police officer advised the dispatcher she is with the SO at a parking lot located at the south-east corner of Queen Street East and Kennedy Road South
• At 1:57:43 a.m., WO #1 informed the dispatcher that he had come up on a motor vehicle collision (MVC) located at the intersection of Kennedy Road North and Vodden Street East. He informed the dispatcher that he believed that one of the vehicles involved in the collision was a Nissan that had evaded a traffic stop earlier, and
• At 1:57:44 a.m., CW #5 contacted 911 in regards to a MVC in front of his residence

The CAD data obtained from PRP was consistent with the audio communication recordings.

Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data

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

• At 1:55:57 a.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled northbound on Kennedy Road South towards Queen Street East. The GPS recorded that his police vehicle travelled between 41 km/h and 65 km/h
• At 1:56:37 a.m., the GPS data indicated the SO’s police vehicle was stationary at a shopping plaza parking lot located at the south-east corner of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East
• At 1:58:44 a.m., the GPS data recorded the SO’s police vehicle travelled northbound through the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East
• At 1:59:54 a.m., the GPS recorded the SO’s police vehicle travelled at a rate of 80 km/h towards the collision scene, and
• At 2:10:01 a.m., the GPS data indicated the SO’s police vehicle was stationary at the collision scene

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Communications recordings
• GPS data for the SO’s vehicle
• Audio Copy Report - 911 Calls
• Audio Copy Report - DA Support Calls
• Audio Copy Report - Radio Transmissions
• Event Chronologies
• Message Processing System Messages
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Occurrence Report, and
• Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit

Just before 2:00 a.m. on December 31^st, 2016, the SO observed a Nissan motor vehicle drive past him at a high rate of speed. The SO activated his police vehicle’s emergency roof lights and accelerated in order to conduct a traffic stop of the Nissan. Shortly after, the SO estimated the Nissan’s speed reached 100 km/h as it approached the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East. Because of the Nissan’s speed and the dangerous manner in which it was being driven, the SO deactivated his emergency roof lights and abandoned his intention to stop the vehicle. The Nissan then entered the intersection on a red traffic signal and proceeded through without stopping.

Complainant #2 was operating a Chevrolet van northbound on Rutherford Road North. When Complainant #2 entered the intersection at Vodden Street East on a green light, the Nissan struck Complainant #2’s van.

Complainant #1 was taken to hospital and sustained a cracked vertebrae and internal bleeding in his head and stomach. Complainant #2 was also taken to hospital and assessed as having sustained fractured ribs and bruising to his heart.

Section 249(1), 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

Section 253(1), Criminal Code - Operation while impaired

253(1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

1. while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
2. having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood

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 December 31^st, 2016 at approximately 1:56 a.m., the SO observed a motor vehicle, a black Nissan operated by Complainant #1, drive past him in the curb lane of Kennedy Road South at the intersection of Orenda Road in the City of Brampton; he observed the motor vehicle driving at an excessive rate of speed, which he estimated to be approximately 70 km/h in a posted 50 km/h zone. As the Nissan entered the intersection, the SO observed it to brake hard in order to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection, making a screeching sound, and then fish-tailing. At that time, the SO activated his police vehicle’s emergency roof lights as he approached the intersection.

The GPS data from the SO’s cruiser confirmed that the speed of his vehicle at 1:55:57 a.m. varied between 41 and 65 km/h as he drove northbound on Kennedy Road South; CCTV footage from a business located nearby confirmed that the SO had his emergency roof lights activated for nine seconds, while travelling northbound on Kennedy Road South towards the intersection with Queen Street East (according to Google maps, the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East is 530 metres north of the intersection at Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road).

Once the Nissan travelled through the intersection at Orenda Road, the SO observed the Nissan move into the passing lane of Kennedy Road South and observed that its full lighting system was not activated. The SO then accelerated in order to conduct a traffic stop of the Nissan, and estimated that the speed of his cruiser increased to approximately 90 km/h, while the Nissan appeared to reach speeds of 100 km/h as it approached the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East. As a result of the actions of the driver of the Nissan, the SO deactivated his emergency roof lights and abandoned his intention to stop the motor vehicle, due to the dangerous manner in which the Nissan was being operated. The SO then observed the Nissan to enter the intersection on a red traffic signal and proceed through the intersection without stopping.

The communications recording confirms that the SO called in at 1:56:36 a.m. and reported that a Nissan had just taken off from him going northbound on Kennedy Road at Queen Street and that he was not pursuing; he also indicated that the vehicle had gone through a red light at the intersection. The SO’s voice is calm on the recording, there is no background noise and it is clear that his sirens are not activated.

The SO then drove into a plaza on the southeast corner of the intersection of Queen Street East and Kennedy Road South, where he was joined moments later by another officer and WO #4. The GPS data from the SO’s cruiser confirmed that at 1:56:37 a.m., the SO’s cruiser was stationary at a shopping plaza parking lot at that location.

Complainant #2 was operating a Chevrolet panel van with CW #1 as passenger, travelling northbound on Rutherford Road North and entered the intersection at Vodden Street East on a green light when he observed the Nissan coming from his left travelling at a rate of speed that he estimated at 200 km/h; Complainant #2 observed the Nissan enter the intersection against the red light and strike his van, causing it to spin around and Complainant #2 to lose consciousness. Complainant #2 was later taken to hospital and assessed as having sustained fractured ribs and bruising to his heart, while CW #1 suffered a cut to his leg.

All of the civilian witnesses interviewed indicated that there was no police vehicle in view when the collision occurred, and that the first cruiser to arrive, moments after the collision, was that of WO #1 and WO #2.

At approximately 1:58 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were travelling in an unmarked police vehicle southbound on Rutherford Road North when they came upon a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Vodden Street East and Rutherford Road North involving a Nissan and a Chevrolet panel van. WO #2 advised that his was the first police vehicle on scene, and the next emergency vehicle to arrive was an ambulance.

At 1:58:45 a.m., the communications recording confirmed that WO #1 called in a two vehicle personal injury accident at the intersection of Vodden Street East and Rutherford Road North. The transmission further indicated that four persons required ambulance assistance and that two of the parties were unconscious. The vehicles were identified as a Nissan and a van.

At 1:58:44 a.m., the GPS data recorded that the SO was again mobile and travelling northbound through the intersection at Kennedy Road South and Queen Street East and continued towards the collision scene at speeds of 80 km/h. At 2:10:01 a.m., the SO’s cruiser was stationary at the collision site.

There is no dispute that the driver of the Nissan motor vehicle, Complainant #1, and its occupant, CW #3, were intoxicated at the time of the collision and leading up to that point.[3] As a result of the collision, Complainant #1 suffered a cracked vertebra and internal bleeding in his head and stomach.

It is clear on all of the evidence, that at the time that the SO first observed the Nissan motor vehicle, it was being driven at an excessive rate of speed and was almost involved in a collision at the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road, and, as such, the SO was lawfully entitled to stop and investigate the motor vehicle pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act and to investigate whether or not the driver was impaired contrary to the Criminal Code.

I note that the evidence of the SO, as confirmed by the four civilian witnesses who were at the collision scene either at impact or shortly thereafter, as well as the communications recordings, the evidence of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #4, the CCTV footage and the GPS data from the SO’s cruiser, fully substantiates the fact that the SO was not in a vehicular pursuit at the time of the motor vehicle collision in which Complainant #2, CW #1 and Complainant #1 were injured, nor had he been in pursuit immediately prior to the collision, having abandoned his efforts to apprehend the Nissan shortly after he initially activated his emergency equipment and attempted to stop the motor vehicle. On all of the evidence, it is clear that although the SO initially attempted to bring the Nissan to a stop, which he was lawfully entitled to do, at no time did he pursue the Nissan after the Nissan entered the intersection against the red light; rather, the SO de-activated his emergency equipment and allowed Complainant #1 to carry on without interference and he was lost from view. It is clear from the CCTV footage, that within seconds of the SO activating his emergency equipment, he deactivated it and allowed Complainant #1 to drive away. From the point where the SO first attempted a traffic stop, until the point where the SO deactivated his emergency equipment and pulled over into the plaza parking lot, the distance covered was no more than 550 metres and, according to the CCTV footage, lasted only nine seconds. From the time when the emergency equipment was deactivated, until the time of the Nissan’s collision, approximately a further 1.1 kms had been travelled by the Nissan. As such, I can find no causal connection between the driving of the SO, and the injuries sustained by the three persons involved in the collision, which are solely attributable to the reckless driving of Complainant #1.

It is worthy of note that the SO fully complied with O Reg 266/10 of the Ontario Police Services Act entitled Suspect Apprehension Pursuits, in that, within seconds of attempting a traffic stop of the Nissan, he abandoned his efforts, called dispatch, deactivated his emergency equipment, and allowed the Nissan to accelerate away without interference. 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 (s.2(3)) and determined that it did not.

The final question to be determined is whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the SO, in his attempt to stop the Nissan, 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 did he interfere with other traffic; he used his emergency equipment prudently, initially activating his emergency equipment to attempt to stop the Nissan, but immediately deactivating his equipment when it became clear that Complainant #1 was not going to stop; the environmental conditions were good and the roads were dry. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that the SO did nothing to exacerbate the Nissan’s pattern of dangerous driving; on the evidence of the SO, the Nissan was already travelling at an excessive rate of speed when he first observed the vehicle and it was almost involved in a collision in the intersection of Kennedy Road South and Orenda Road, prior to any attempt at a traffic stop. Thereafter, it is clear that Complainant #1 continued speeding and driving erratically, and ran the red light at Vodden Road East and Rutherford Road North, long after the SO had deactivated his emergency lighting and abandoned any attempt to stop him. Based on the evidence of the civilian witness, not only was Complainant #1 speeding when he entered the intersection at Vodden Road East, but, if the witness’ estimation as to the rate of speed of the Nissan is accurate, he had sharply accelerated after the SO had abandoned any attempt to stop him and had continued at even more dangerous speeds. On this evidence, it is clear that Complainant #1 had made a voluntary decision to drive in a dangerous and reckless manner, and that he continued to do so both when the officer attempted to stop him and after the officer had abandoned his intention in the interests of public safety and the Nissan 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 motor vehicle collision caused by the Nissan. 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 Highway Traffic Act and the Ontario Police Services Act, but he behaved at all times professionally, prudently and with good common sense. As such, I find that there is absolutely no basis here for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: November 23, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] Complainant #2 did not consent to the release of his medical records. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] Received from Public Works & Engineering for City of Brampton. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] Two pitchers of beer and several shots of alcohol were shared by the two of them prior to their driving and neither had any recollection of the events leading to the collision. [Back to text]