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 suffered by a 23-year-old female on November 11, 2016 while driving an e-bike on a roadway.

Notification of the SIU

On November 11, 2016, at 10:43 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the injuries to the female. The OPP reported that just before 9:00 p.m. on November 11, 2016, the Subject Officer (SO) was driving northbound on Brantford Road near Windham Road 2 when he came upon a northbound mini-bike towing an e-bike. The SO drove past the mini-bike and e-bike and then pulled over onto the gravel shoulder of the roadway. When the two bikes passed the SO, he activated his emergency equipment. The female, who was not wearing a helmet, fell off of the e-bike. The female suffered serious but not life threatening head injuries. She was transported to a local hospital and subsequently to another hospital in Hamilton.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

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, sketches and measurements.

Complainant

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

Civilian witnesses

CW Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

This incident took place on Regional Road 4, which is also known as Brantford Road. The complainant was injured in the vicinity of a residence located on Brantford Road, approximately 115 metres north of Windham Road 2. Brantford Road is a two lane asphalt surface which permits vehicles to travel in a northeasterly direction towards Brantford and in a southwesterly direction towards Delhi. There is no artificial lighting along Brantford Road.

Scene diagram

On the evening of November 11, 2016, the SO was driving a black police cruiser with low profile markings northeast on Brantford Road when he drove up behind a bicycle with a single red taillight. The SO moved into the oncoming lane of traffic to pass the bicycle, when he noticed there were actually two bicycles tied together. The CW was operating a mini-bike in front with no lights, and using an electrical cord to tow the complainant on an e-bike behind him. The SO drove past the bicycles and re-entered the right hand lane of travel. The SO decided to stop the CW and the complainant to caution them as this was a dangerous situation and the complainant was not wearing a helmet.

The SO pulled onto the shoulder of the roadway ahead of the bicycles. The CW travelled past him and as soon as the complainant’s e-bike came up beside the SO’s police cruiser, the SO activated his emergency lights. The complainant abruptly applied the brakes and she fell off the e-bike. The complainant’s head struck the ground and she was dragged along the ground before the CW stopped. The SO radioed for Emergency Medical Services to attend.

The complainant was taken by ambulance to a local hospital and diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and facial fractures. She was subsequently transferred to a hospital in Hamilton.

Section 104(1), Highway Traffic Act – Motorcyclists to wear helmet

104 (1) No person shall ride or operate a motorcycle or motor assisted bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.

Section 62(17), Highway Traffic Act – Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc

62 (17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear.

Section 160, Highway Traffic Act – Towing of persons on bicycles, toboggans, etc., prohibited

160 No driver of a vehicle or street car shall permit any person riding, riding on or operating a bicycle, coaster, toboggan, sled, skateboard, toy vehicle or any other type of conveyance or wearing roller skates, in-line skates or skis to attach the same, himself or herself to the vehicle or street car on a highway.

On the evening of November 11, 2016, the complainant suffered a traumatic brain injury and multiple facial fractures during an encounter with a member of the OPP. For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in relation to the injuries sustained by the complainant during their interaction.

On November 11, 2016, the CW tied an electrical cord between his gas powered mini-bike and the complainant’s electric bicycle and towed it in the dark along Brantford Road. Only the CW was wearing a helmet. The mini-bike was only equipped with reflectors, but the complainant’s e-bike had lights which were illuminated.

The SO was on patrol driving northeast on Brantford Road when he drove up behind a bicycle with a single red taillight. The SO moved into the oncoming lane of traffic to pass the bicycle, when he noticed there were actually two bicycles tied together and only one had lights. The SO drove past the bicycles and re-entered the right hand lane of travel. At the time, he was driving a black police cruiser with low profile markings, which may have made it difficult for the CW and the complainant to recognize that it was a police vehicle passing them. The SO decided he should stop them because he considered this a dangerous situation and the complainant was not wearing a helmet.

The SO pulled onto the shoulder of the roadway ahead of the bicycles. The CW travelled past him and as soon as the complainant’s e-bike came up beside his police cruiser, he activated his emergency lights. Suddenly as if she panicked, the complainant applied the brakes and leaned her e-bike over onto its right side. Her head struck the ground and she was dragged a bit before the CW’s brakes were engaged and he was able to stop. She was taken by ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and facial fractures. She was subsequently transferred to a Hamilton hospital.

The events are not in dispute. After passing the bicycles, the SO pulled to the side of the road onto the shoulder. Subsequently, he engaged his emergency lights with the intent to stop the CW and the complainant. As he did so, the complainant overreacted and fell off her bicycle. There is no evidence that the SO’s police vehicle came into contact with the complainant or the CW’s bicycles. In no way did the SO attempt to interfere with their path of travel.

The SO was clearly acting in the lawful execution of his duty when he sought to pull over the CW and the complainant for conduct that violated the Highway Traffic Act. For instance, section 104 directs that cyclists travelling on highways must wear a helmet. Furthermore, section 160 declares it illegal for a bicycle to be towed by another vehicle on the highway. Regrettably, in the SO’s effort to warn them and prevent a dangerous event from continuing, catastrophe struck.

I have no hesitation in concluding that, while it is a tragedy that the complainant suffered such serious injuries during her encounter with the OPP, there was nothing in the conduct of the SO that would warrant criminal charges in this case. Accordingly, this case will be closed and no charges will issue.

Date: September 20, 2017

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit