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 broken toe resulting from a motor vehicle collision of a 17-year-old male on July 7, 2016 at 3:00 p.m., when he was operating his unlicenced dirt bike while being followed by a police cruiser.

Notification of the SIU

At 6:00 p.m. on July 7, 2016, Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) notified the SIU of the vehicle injury of the Complainant. HRPS reported that at about 3:00 p.m., the Subject Officer (SO) was driving a marked police cruiser, eastbound on Main Street in Milton, Ontario and he saw the Complainant driving an off-road dirt bike westbound on Main Street. The Complainant turned onto a side street. The SO made a U-turn and turned down the side street but he did not activate his emergency equipment. The Complainant collided with a stopped vehicle at Donovan Heights and Whitmore Street. He fled about a block, either on the dirt bike or on foot, before he was arrested.

After he was arrested, the Complainant complained that his foot hurt. He was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured big toe. The Complainant’s father arrived and was with him at the hospital. The Complainant was to be charged with dangerous driving and released to the care of his father.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators 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 and photography.

Complainant

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

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Subject officer

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

The scene of the collision was on Whitmer Street at the intersection of Whitmer Street and Kendall Drive in Milton. The vehicles were moved one block south to Donovan Heights at the intersection of Whitmer Street and Donovan Heights. Whitmer Street is a residential street that travels northbound and southbound with one lane in each direction. The posted speed limit on Whitmer Street is 40 km/h. Kendall Drive is a residential street that travels westbound from Whitmer Street. The road surface was in good repair, straight and level.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) data from SO’s cruiser

The AVL data captured the speed from the SO’s cruiser every five seconds from 3:00 p.m. to 3:05 p.m. on July 7, 2016. The SO drove his police cruiser at varying speeds between six and 62 km/h.

At 3:00:50 p.m., the SO was travelling eastbound on Main Street at 62 km/h. At 3:01:15 p.m., the SO was travelling eastbound on Main Street at the intersection of Scott Boulevard at 19 km/h. At 3:01:30 p.m., the SO was travelling eastbound on Main Street at 61 km/h. At 3:01:35 p.m., the SO was travelling eastbound on Main Street, just west of Whitmer Street at 56 km/h.

At 3:01:40 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Whitmer Street at 37 km/h. At 3:01:45 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Whitmer Street at 53 km/h. At 3:01:50 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Whitmer Street at 56 km/h. At 3:01:55 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Whitmer Street at 48 km/h, south of Kendall Drive. At 3:02:00 p.m., the SO was travelling southbound on Whitmer Street at 43 km/h, at the intersection of Donovan Heights.

At 3:02:05 p.m., the SO was travelling westbound on Donovan Heights at 6 km/h. At 3:02:10 p.m., the SO was stationary on Donovan Heights.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Arrest Report
• AVL Data –07JUL16 – SO’s Cruiser
• Collision Statement – CW #3
• Collision Statement – the Complainant
• Copy of SIU request letter with disclosure notation from HRPS
• Directive - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits
• Directive - Arrest and Search of Persons
• Driver Training Records – the SO
• Duty Roster – 07JUL16
• Duty Roster – Officer Call List
• Event Chronology
• Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch - iNet Event Information
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4, and
• Occurrence Report

During the afternoon of July 7, 2016, the Complainant had just purchased a dirt bike, and was driving it without valid ownership, insurance, headlights or licence plate. The SO noticed the dirt bike, and followed him in his marked cruiser with the intent of identifying the driver. The cruiser’s lights and siren were not activated.

As the Complainant approached a stop sign, he failed to notice the SUV in front of him that was slowing at the stop sign. When the SUV stopped, the Complainant’s right foot hit the left, rear bumper of the SUV, causing his right shoe to be knocked off. The Complainant continued driving, however, until the SO pulled him over about a block away. Once pulled over, the SO arrested the Complainant for Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code, handcuffed his hands behind his back, and walked him to the back of the police cruiser. The SO asked the Complainant if he was hurt and he said yes. The Complainant’s right foot was swollen and an ambulance was called.

The Complainant was transported by ambulance to the hospital, where an x-ray revealed that the Complainant had a transverse fracture through the midshaft of the proximal phalanx of the first toe, a fracture of the right 2^nd metatarsal neck (2^nd toe), and a questionable undisplaced fracture through the right 3^rd metatarsal neck (3^rd toe).

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…

Section 62, Highway Traffic Act - Lamps

62 (1) 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 vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), when on a highway at any time every motorcycle shall carry two lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on the front of the vehicle which shall display a white light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only…

(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…

(26) Subject to subsection (28), every vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, motor assisted bicycle, bicycle (except a unicycle) or a vehicle referred to in subsection (24), (25) or (27), 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, shall carry in a conspicuous position on the left side a lighted lamp which shall display a white light to the front and a red light to the rear or a lighted lamp which shall display a white light to the front and a lighted lamp which shall display a red light to the rear, and any lamp so used shall be clearly visible at a distance of at least 150 metres from the front and the rear of the vehicle, as the case may be.

For the following reasons there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in relation to the Complainant’s injury on July 7, 2016.

At 3:00 p.m. the SO was driving eastbound on Main Street in Milton, Ontario when he observed a dirt bike driving westbound. It turned out that the dirt bike was being driven by the Complainant (a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act). The dirt bike did not have head lights or a licence plate.

As the SO drove towards the Complainant, the Complainant made a sharp left turn onto Whitmer Street. The SO told the SIU that he turned right (south) onto Whitmer Street and followed the dirt bike with the intention of identifying the driver. He did not activate his emergency equipment and he was travelling at approximately 40 km/h. The SO said he noticed the Complainant looking back at him and not paying attention to the traffic on the roadway as he drove.

The Complainant had just purchased the motorized off-road dirt bike. En route, he saw the SO in a marked cruiser. In front of the Complainant, an SUV was slowing and preparing to stop. The Complainant only noticed the SUV when it was ten feet in front of him. He tried to swerve to the left to avoid the SUV but was unable to and grazed the back of the SUV. As the collision occurred, he struck his right foot against the rear of the SUV, causing the fracture to his first toe. The Complainant does not dispute that the collision was caused by his own actions.

In this case, the SO followed the Complainant as he was entitled to do under the authority of the Highway Traffic Act, Section 62, as the Complainant’s dirt bike did not have the appropriate equipment to be used on a roadway. The SO did not have his emergency equipment activated, and did nothing to exacerbate the Complainant’s driving. He was following the Complainant just to identify who he was. The Complainant was distracted by the presence of the police cruiser, was not paying proper attention and did not notice the SUV slowing down. He got too close to the SUV, attempted to swerve to miss it, it but was too close once it had stopped such that his right foot hit the SUV’s rear corner and he lost his shoe. The Complainant, however, continued driving. The SO eventually stopped him, and the Complainant was charged with dangerous driving. The collision caused the fracture to the big toe of the Complainant’s right foot.

In all the circumstances however, the totality of the evidence makes it clear that the injury suffered by this youth resulted from his inexperience and inattention, and were not related to any actions taken by the SO. Accordingly, no charges will issue.

Date: September 5, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit