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 motor vehicle collision that occurred between a Honda Civic occupied by two male parties and a marked Peel Regional Police (PRP) Dodge Charger. The two male occupants were transported to the hospital and sustained multiple serious injuries as a result of the collision.

At 8:00 a.m., on May 22, 2016, SIU media personnel began receiving inquiries about this incident. At 10:05 a.m., PRP was contacted and confirmed the following incident and injuries.

Earlier that day at 5:44 a.m., the Subject Officer (SO) was driving southbound on Hwy 10 (also known as Main Street) near Williams Parkway in Brampton. A motor vehicle driven by Complainant #1 travelled eastbound on Williams Parkway and turned right (southbound) onto Main Street. It then appeared as though Complainant #1 was trying to make a U-turn around a median and the SO’s police vehicle struck Complainant #1’s vehicle sideways. Complainant #1 was taken to the hospital with unknown injuries. The passenger, Complainant #2, was taken to the hospital with facial fractures, and was unconscious and intubated at the time of intake. PRP advised that Witness Officer (WO) #1 was driving behind the SO and likely witnessed the collision.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

SIU forensic investigators completed scene and vehicle examinations, took photographs and the scene was measured with a Total Station device, for forensic mapping purposes. The area of the intersection was canvassed for surveillance cameras and potential witnesses.

Complainant #1

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

Complainant #2

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

Civilian witness

CW Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed, notes received and reviewed[1]

WO #3 Not interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject officer

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

The scene

The intersection of Williams Parkway and Main Street is a residential area with a gas station on the northeast corner. The intersection is controlled by traffic signals. Main Street runs in a general north-south direction. The roadway is paved, flat and in general good repair with two lanes in each direction separated by a solid centre line and concrete medians near the intersection. The posted speed limit is 50 km/h.

Williams Parkway runs in a general east-west direction. The roadway is paved, flat and in general good condition with two lanes in each direction separated with a concrete median. The posted speed limit is 60 km/h. In all approaches to the intersection there are left turn lanes.

A marked PRP Dodge Charger was oriented in a southeasterly direction in the northbound left turn lane of Main Street, south of the intersection. There was heavy collision damage to the front and right front corner of the vehicle. No airbag had deployed.

A silver Honda Civic was oriented in a northwesterly direction in the centre northbound lane of Main Street, south of the intersection. There was heavy collision damage to the driver’s side of the vehicle. The driver door had been removed by the Fire Department to extract Complainant #1. No airbag had deployed. Five stainless steel beer barrels were located in the back of the vehicle.

Tire marks located at the scene indicated that the police vehicle and Honda Civic collided near the centre southbound lane of Main Street, south of the intersection.

Scene diagram

Expert evidence

SIU collision reconstruction report

The crash data recorder (CDR) in the SO’s police vehicle showed that up to 0.6 seconds before impact, the SO was driving 82 km/h. At 0.6 seconds, he pressed the brakes and started turning left. At 0.1 seconds his speed was 70 km/h.

The evidence showed that at about 5:44 a.m. on Sunday, May 22, 2016, the SO was driving his police vehicle in the southbound passing lane of Main Street approaching Williams Parkway. He was travelling 81 to 86 km/h and he was wearing a seatbelt.

At the same time, Complainant #1 was driving his Honda Civic eastbound on Williams Parkway. Complainant #1 was not wearing a seat belt. It is unknown whether Complainant #2, who sat in the passenger seat, was wearing a seat belt. At a point about 27.4 metres south of Williams Parkway, Complainant #1 made an abrupt left turn (28 degrees) into the southbound passing lane of Main Street directly into the path of the SO police vehicle.

The SO turned to the left and applied his brakes in an effort to avoid a collision, slowing to 70 km/h. The right front corner of the police vehicle came into collision with the left front fender, driver’s door and left rear quarter panel of the Honda Civic. The left rear tire of the police vehicle struck the southwest edge of the concrete median of Main Street. Both vehicles slid out of control southeast as the Honda Civic was wrapped around the front of the police vehicle. The police vehicle came to rest facing south in the northbound left turn lane of Main Street. The Honda Civic came to rest facing north on the left side of police vehicle in the northbound passing lane of Main Street.

Video/Aaudio/photographic evidence

Northbound Zum Bus Station CCTV

A video recording from the Main Street northbound Zum bus station showed the police vehicle and the Honda Civic made contact in the centre southbound lane of Main Street. The police vehicle was travelling in the centre lane and the Honda Civic was on the west side of the police vehicle. Both vehicles slid southbound and the Honda Civic wrapped around the front of the police vehicle and moved into the northbound lane of Main Street, facing northbound. The police vehicle came to rest in a southerly direction, in the left turn lane on Main Street. The Honda Civic jerked forward against the front driver side of the police vehicle, and came to rest in a northerly direction. The SO activated his police vehicle’s emergency lights.

Examination of SO’s police vehicle

GPS

The Global Positioning System (GPS) data and a video documenting the track of the SO’s police vehicle were reviewed. At 5:42:57 a.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Main Street, just south of Gillingham Drive[2], at a speed of 93 km/h. At 5:43:11 a.m., he was in the area of Main Street and Brickyard Way[3], travelling at 89 km/h. At 5:43:27 a.m., he was south of Williams Parkway travelling at 23 km/h.

Text messaging from MDT

Text messages from the SO’s Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) were reviewed and there were no text messages sent or received near the time of the collision.

I/CAD

The Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (I/CAD) Unit History Report for the SO’s police vehicle was reviewed. It showed that the SO logged on at 7:14:27 p.m. on May 21, 2016. He responded to many different calls for service that night. At 5:43:55 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Main Street and Williams Parkway. At 5:45:29 a.m., the SO reported a motor vehicle collision and that the driver was semi-conscious.

Communications recordings

According to the communication recordings dated May 22, 2016, at 5:43:35 a.m., the SO said he was hit by a car in the area of Williams Parkway and Main Street and he requested an ambulance. At 5:45:19 a.m., the SO said the driver was semi-conscious.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Audio copy report for Communication recordings
• Communication recordings
• Disclosure Logs for May 21, 2016 and May 22, 2016
• Chronology Report
• I/CAD Unit History Report for the SO’s police vehicle
• Complainant #1 - Occurrence Report and history of all contacts with PRP
• notes for WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, and WO #5, and
• text messages from the SO’s police vehicle MDT

On May 22, 2016 at approximately 5:44 a.m., Complainant #1 was operating a motor vehicle travelling eastbound on Williams Parkway in the area of the intersection of Highway 10 (Main Street) in the City of Brampton. Complainant #2 was his passenger. Complainant #1 was stopped on Williams Parkway, in the curb lane, at the intersection facing a red light. Complainant #1 was not wearing his seatbelt. Complainant #1 decided to turn right on a red onto Main Street, then make a U-turn and turn right again back onto Williams Parkway and continue traveling eastbound. At the same time, the SO was operating a marked PRP Dodge Charger travelling southbound in the centre lane on Main Street. The SO was travelling 81 to 86 km/h and he was wearing a seatbelt. The posted speed limit of Main Street is 50 km/h. At a point about 27.4 metres south of Williams Parkway, Complainant #1 made a left turn into the southbound passing lane of Main Street and collided with the SO’s police vehicle.

The police vehicle came to rest in a southerly direction, in the left turn lane on Main Street. The Complainants’ vehicle jerked forward against the front driver side of the police vehicle, and came to rest in a northerly direction. The SO activated the police vehicle’s emergency lights. At 5:45 a.m., the SO reported a motor vehicle collision and that Complainant #1 was semi-conscious.

As a result of the collision, Complainant #2 sustained multiple facial fractures that required surgical repair, while Complainant #1 suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, a non-displaced fracture to his left clavicle and multiple lacerations to the left side of his face.

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;

Section 249(3), Criminal Code - Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

249 (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.

Section 142(1), Highway Traffic Act - Signal for left or right turn

142 (1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement.

Section 128(1), Highway Traffic Act - Rate of speed

128 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,

1. 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a local municipality or within a built-up area;
2. despite clause (a), 80 kilometres per hour on a highway, not within a built-up area, that is within a local municipality that had the status of a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have had the status of a township on January 1, 2003, if the municipality is prescribed by regulation;
3. 80 kilometres per hour on a highway designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a controlled-access highway under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, whether or not the highway is within a local municipality or built-up area;
4. the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);
5. the maximum rate of speed set under subsection (10) and posted in a construction zone designated under subsection (8) or (8.1); or
6. the maximum rate of speed posted on a highway or portion of a highway pursuant to section 128.0.1.

On May 22, 2016 at approximately 5:44 a.m., Complainant #1 was operating a motor vehicle travelling eastbound on Williams Parkway in the area of the intersection of Highway 10 (Main Street) in the City of Brampton. Complainant #1 was stopped on Williams Parkway at the intersection facing a red light when he and his passenger, Complainant #2, decided to turn right on a red onto Main Street, then make a U-turn and turn right again back onto Williams Parkway and continue traveling eastbound. While the Complainant’s vehicle was travelling on Main Street, it was struck by a police cruiser travelling southbound on Main Street driven by the SO. As a result of the collision, Complainant #2 sustained multiple facial fractures that required surgical repair, while the driver, Complainant #1, suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, a non-displaced fracture to his left clavicle and multiple lacerations to the left side of his face.

Having reviewed the video footage from the Zum bus shelter frame by frame, it reveals the following:

5:43:25 a.m.

Headlights are seen entering the view on the north side for vehicles travelling southbound on Main Street; the headlights appear to be coming from the curb lane and are angled across the street in an easterly direction;

Two vehicles are seen entering the frame, both travelling southbound. The Honda Civic is slightly ahead and is angling across the centre lane of traffic while the police cruiser is travelling in the centre lane and the right front passenger side of the cruiser makes contact with the Civic which is partially angled across the lane striking it on the driver’s side rear panel. It is clear that the Civic has only just begun its U-turn and is still fully in the southbound lanes;

The police cruiser continues to move forward southbound while the Civic is continuing its forward momentum eastbound making its U-turn while both vehicles are in contact;

5:43:26 a.m.

The Civic is now almost perpendicular to the police cruiser and then continues travelling on an arc so that it is now facing fully eastbound and then starts to face northbound while the police cruiser continues southbound propelling the rear of the Civic southbound causing the front end to move northbound. Both vehicles are still fully in the southbound lanes;

5:43:27 a.m.

The Civic is now in the northbound lanes but being propelled backwards by the police cruiser which is still moving southbound and is in contact with the driver side of the Civic. The Civic then moves slightly backwards in the northbound lane from the momentum of the cruiser and the vehicles appear to disengage;

5:43:28 a.m.

But then the Civic begins to move forward again (as if the gas pedal is still being depressed) again striking the police vehicle which is now stopped in the southbound lane. The driver’s side of the Civic is now in contact with the front driver’s corner of the police cruiser, forcing the cruiser slightly backward from the momentum;

5:43:29 a.m.

Both vehicles are fully stopped. The cruiser is facing southbound in the centre southbound lane, the Civic is facing northbound in the centre northbound lane.

5:43:32 a.m.

There is no further movement from either vehicle until the cruiser emergency roof lights are activated;

5:43:36 a.m.

A second cruiser pulls up travelling southbound approaching from the rear of the SO’s cruiser. No one has yet exited either vehicle. This second cruiser passes on the right side of the cruiser in the curb lane of southbound traffic;

5:43:47 a.m.

The second cruiser returns now heading northbound in the northbound curb lane;

5:44:06 a.m.

WO #1 is seen to stop his cruiser directly adjacent to the Civic and he exits his vehicle and approaches the passenger side of the Civic; and

5:44:18 a.m.

The SO is seen to exit his cruiser and both officers go to the assistance of the occupants of the Civic.

From the CCTV video it is clear that it is light out, though not yet fully daylight, the road is dry and there is no other traffic seen on the video until the second police vehicle arrives at the collision scene. It is also quite clear that Complainant #1 was incorrect in his version of events - perhaps he may have become disoriented as a result of the collision. The version of events that the collision occurred as soon as Complainant #1 started the U-turn, appears to accord with the video. The video also confirms that the cruiser was not travelling on the wrong side of the road, but that both vehicles were travelling in the same direction prior to the collision.

It is further clear from the GPS data from the SO’s police vehicle that his last reported speed at 5:42:57 a.m., approximately 30 seconds prior to the collision, was 93 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. A review of the data from the MDT in his police cruiser confirms that the SO did not send or receive any text messages near the time of the collision and a review of the I/CAD Unit History indicates he had not been dispatched to a call at the time.

Although the SO did not make himself available to be interviewed by SIU investigators, as is his legal right, and WO #1, who was travelling somewhere behind the SO police vehicle, indicated that he did not observe either the collision nor the speed or location of the SO’s police vehicle leading up to the collision, on a review of all of the reliable evidence, and relying specifically on the evidence from Complainant #2 and the CW, the CCTV footage and the GPS data from the SO’s police cruiser, the sequence of events is fairly clear.

Pursuant to s.142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, the driver of a vehicle, before making a left turn from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic, shall first see that the movement can be made in safety. It is clear that the turn made by Complainant #1 was not made in safety as he turned directly into the path of the SO’s police vehicle. It may well be that, Complainant #1, when he turned right onto Main Street, did not see any traffic approaching from the north due to the significant rate of speed of the SO’s police vehicle; however, it appears from the video that had he checked just prior to turning out, the SO’s police vehicle should have been visible to him at that time.

Pursuant to s. 128(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than (a) 50 kilometres per hour on a highway within a local municipality. It is clear on the GPS evidence, that the SO was travelling at a speed far in excess of the permitted speed limit and was thus in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act.

The question to be determined, however, is whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that the SO 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 and did thereby cause bodily harm contrary to s.249(3).

Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, this offence 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, it is clear that the SO was travelling at a rate of speed approximately 30 km/h in excess of the speed limit in the area when he collided with Complainant #1’s motor vehicle. However, the collision occurred at 5:43 a.m. on a Sunday morning, road conditions were dry, the weather was clear, it was light out, and traffic was minimal, if any. Further, the SO was neither texting nor receiving any texts at the time immediately prior to or at the time of the collision and there is no evidence that he was not driving within the normal standards of care of a prudent driver, with the exception of his excessive rate of speed. The fact that Complainant #1 chose to engage in the maneuver which he did appears to support the conclusion that he and the SO both likely did not expect any traffic to be in the area at that time on a Sunday morning. I find on this evidence that the driving of the SO does not rise to the level of driving required to constitute “a marked departure from the norm” and as such find that there is insufficient evidence to form reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed. Thus, in the final analysis, I find that there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: September 6, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] WO #2, #3, #4 and #5 attended the scene and/or hospital after the accident. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] 750 metres north of Williams Parkway and Main Street. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] 350 metres north of Williams Parkway and Main Street. [Back to text]