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 of a 23-year-old woman after the vehicle she was a passenger in refused to stop for police and crashed into a bridge abutment.

Notification of the SIU

On May 20, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the vehicle injury to a 23-year-old woman.

The OPP advised that on April 2, 2016 in the town of Napanee, Ontario, the Subject Officer was assisting another OPP officer (Witness Officer #1) who was dealing with an impaired driver when he saw a vehicle speeding past them. The Subject Officer activated his emergency equipment and pursued the vehicle. He briefly lost sight of the vehicle and when he found it again it had crashed into a bridge abutment. The Complainant was a passenger in the fleeing vehicle and after the collision complained of a sore wrist. She was taken to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a fractured wrist.

On May 19, 2016, the OPP operations manager (Witness Officer #3) was advised that a fail to stop report had not been submitted for the original incident. Witness Officer #3 spoke to the Subject Officer and the required fail to stop report was submitted that day. Upon review of the fail to stop report, Witness Officer #3 became aware of a passenger [now determined to be the Complainant] in the pursued vehicle who suffered a broken wrist as a result of a collision. Witness Officer #3 notified the OPP liaison officer the next day, who in turn notified the SIU.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Complainant: 23-year-old female, declined interview and refused to sign medical release for medical records.[1][2]

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[3]

Subject Officers

SO

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

The Scene

The scene was not held for SIU purposes and therefore it was not processed in relation to this incident.

Communications Recordings

On April 2, 2016 at 2:50:01 a.m., WO #1 advised the dispatcher she was stopped and investigating an impaired driver. About 10 seconds later, the SO advised the dispatcher he was with WO #1.

Twenty three seconds later, WO #2 asked the dispatcher for WO #1’s whereabouts. The dispatcher advised him that WO #1 was at the corner of Dundas Street East and Adelphi Street. Then at 2:55:04 a.m., the SO informed WO #2 he was at the train bridge.

At 2:54:23 a.m., the SO informed the dispatcher of a single motor vehicle collision involving one man [now determined to be the CW] and one woman [now determined to be the Complainant]. He also requested that an ambulance attend the scene.

At 2:56:59 a.m., the dispatcher advised that the ambulance was en route and inquired about injuries. Seconds later, the SO informed the dispatcher both the CW and the Complainant were conscious.

At 2:58:51 a.m., the dispatcher inquired if a police cruiser was involved in the motor vehicle collision. Seconds later, the SO confirmed with the dispatcher that no police cruiser was involved in the collision.

At 3:09:01 a.m., the SO updated the dispatcher, advising the Complainant was being transported to hospital by ambulance. He also advised that the CW was under arrest. A short time later, WO #2 inquired if the CW was in custody for a driving offence or for drunk driving. Then at 3:10:37 a.m., the SO advised that the CW was under arrest for flight from police.

At 3:11:54 a.m., the SO asked the dispatcher to query the licence plate on the vehicle. At 3:14:35 a.m., WO #2 informed the dispatcher the two scenes were only a couple of hundred metres apart. At 6:11:06 a.m., the communications recordings stopped.

Fail to Stop Report

The report noted that on Saturday, April 2, 2016, the OPP attempted to stop a vehicle containing two occupants for a “moving violation” under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). At 2:55 a.m., a pursuit was initiated by the OPP. Subsequent to the pursuit being discontinued at 2:56 a.m., the vehicle was involved in a collision.

It was noted that the vehicle had travelled 300 metres from the start of the pursuit until it crashed into a structure. After the collision, the two occupants in the vehicle, a man [now determined to be the CW] and a woman [now determined to be the Complainant], fled from police. The CW was subsequently arrested by police for impaired driving and flight from police.

The police cruiser involved in the pursuit was marked and had its emergency lighting and siren activated at the time of the pursuit. It was being operated by the SO, who initiated the pursuit. The report noted only the SO’s OPP police cruiser was involved in the pursuit.

The passenger in the vehicle, the Complainant, was taken from the scene by ambulance to the hospital. It was determined she had sustained an arm fracture.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPP Napanee Detachment:

• CAD printout and event chronology,
• fail to Stop Report,
• notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4,
• OPP photos of the complainant’s injuries,
• OPP witness statement- the Complainant,
• OPP witness statement- the CW,
• OPP witness statement- registered owner of motor vehicle, and
• communications - MVC impaired pursuit.

On April 2, 2016, just before 3:00 a.m., the CW and the Complainant, who had been drinking, left the Tim Horton’s in Napanee in the CW’s vehicle. The CW was driving, and the Complainant was the passenger. The SO and WO #1 were nearby attending to an unrelated impaired driving call. The CW squealed his tires as he pulled out of the Tim Horton’s, drawing the officers’ attention. As the CW drove by the officers, he slowed down as the SO was on the roadway directing the CW to stop, then accelerated quickly and drove away.

By the time the SO got into his cruiser and turned around, the CW had crashed his vehicle into a bridge abutment approximately 300 metres away. The CW told the Complainant to get out of the vehicle and run. The Complainant got out of the vehicle, but fell down an embankment.

Both the CW and the Complainant were apprehended by police. The Complainant was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed with a fractured wrist.

Section 216(1), Highway Traffic Act - Power of police officer to stop vehicles

216 (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

On April 2^nd, 2016, at approximately 2:55 a.m., the SO was assisting another officer with an impaired driver at the roadside when he observed a motor vehicle being operated by the CW driving erratically. The SO entered his cruiser with the intention of stopping this vehicle, when the CW lost control of his motor vehicle and crashed into a bridge abutment. His passenger, the Complainant, was injured and suffered a fractured wrist. Although the Complainant refused to provide a statement to SIU investigators, they did have access to a statement that she had initially provided to police and the CW agreed to provide an interview to investigators. Based on the evidence of these two witnesses, it is fairly clear what happened in the early morning hours of April 2^nd, 2016 leading to the Complainant’s injury.

The Complainant provided a statement to police regarding the evening of April 1^st into the early morning of April 2^nd, 2016. In her statement she stated that she and the CW had been drinking over the course of a number of hours at a local bar and when they left the bar and took a taxi back to the CW’s residence. Once at home, they decided to get a cup of coffee at a Tim Hortons, and the CW drove his mother’s car for that purpose. The Complainant described the CW’s driving as erratic when they left the Tim Hortons. She confirmed that she observed the emergency lights activated on a police cruiser and saw an officer walk out into the middle of the road. She advised that the CW initially braked, but then panicked and sped off without warning. The Complainant advised that she heard the officer yell, “Stop!” Moments later, the Complainant advised, the car driven by the CW struck a curb and the airbags deployed. The Complainant heard the CW yell at her to get out of the car and she opened the door to run, when she fell down an embankment. She advised that she was then transported to hospital and discovered that she had a small bone fracture in her wrist and a black eye. Her statement is silent as to what her belief was as to the cause of her injury.

On this evidence, it is clear that neither the CW nor the Complainant was at any point aware that a police officer was attempting to stop them, other than when he stepped out and signaled them over, and the actions of the CW were not caused by his belief that he was being pursued but rather his desire to get away from the officer who had legitimately signaled him to pull over. Neither the CW nor the Complainant ever mentioned seeing a police vehicle following them. As such, it is clear that there is no causal connection between the fact that the SO entered his motor vehicle with the intention of stopping the CW, who had sped away from officers, and the CW’s actions which lead to the accident. Moreover, it is further probable that the accident itself was not the cause of the injury suffered by the Complainant, but rather that it was her attempt to further evade police which caused her to fall down the embankment and injure her wrist.

This conclusion finds further support in the evidence of WO #1 and in the radio transmissions of the SO himself. WO #1 confirmed the CW’s evidence and the statement of the Complainant, in that she stated that she heard the sound of squealing tires which first caught her and the SO’s attention and that the car was fishtailing when it rounded the corner. She advised that both she and the SO stepped into the roadway to motion the vehicle to stop and WO #1 yelled, “Stop!” on a number of occasions. WO #1 observed two occupants in the vehicle when it sped off, and, she advised, the car came close to colliding with the two officers when it sped away. WO #1 stated that the SO then almost immediately entered his cruiser and began to “pursue” the vehicle. WO #1 advised that she heard the SO’s cruiser accelerate and then within seconds she heard a crash. WO #1 clarified that she heard the sound of the crash before the SO had even turned his cruiser around to follow the car and stated that neither she nor the SO had the opportunity to actively pursue the CW’s vehicle before it crashed, as, in her opinion, the car had crashed long before the SO could begin a pursuit.

According to the communications log, at 2:50:01 a.m., WO #1 advised that she was stopped and investigating an impaired driver; approximately ten seconds later, the SO advised that he was with WO #1.

At 2:54:23 a.m., the SO called in a single vehicle collision involving a male and a female and requested an ambulance to attend. At 2:56:59 a.m., the dispatcher confirmed that an ambulance was en route and asked about injuries. At 2:58:51 a.m., the dispatcher enquired if a police vehicle had been involved in the collision and the SO responded that no police cruiser had been involved.

It is evident on a review of all of the evidence, that neither the occupants of the CW’s motor vehicle, nor WO #1 or the SO, were of the view that an actual pursuit had ever taken place, although from the evidence of WO #1, that had been the SO’s intention when he entered his cruiser. She stated, however, that before the SO could even turn his vehicle in the same direction as the fleeing vehicle, it crashed into the bridge abutment, thereby ending any possible pursuit before it had even started.

On all of the evidence, it is clear that there is no causal connection either between the CW’s

driving and the SO’s efforts to follow him nor is there a probable causal connection between the collision and the injury to the Complainant.

It is clear that the SO was legally entitled to stop the CW’s motor vehicle for his obvious erratic driving, pursuant to s.216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. The SO was lawfully engaged in his duty when he signaled for the vehicle to stop. The CW, due to his own desire to evade responsibility, chose to speed off and was solely responsible for the subsequent crash. The collision was in no way in response to the SO pursuing the CW’s vehicle as, the collision occurred prior to the SO having even had any opportunity to pursue the vehicle.

It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against the SO by either the CW or the Complainant with respect to any inappropriate actions on his part. I am satisfied on this record that the SO did nothing to exacerbate the CW’s reckless driving and that he was acting lawfully when he first attempted to stop the CW’s motor vehicle pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act and that his conduct thereafter fell within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. I further find that the collision was a direct result of the CW’s poor judgment, excessive speed, and possibly his level of intoxication and that there is no causal connection between the actions of the SO and the subsequent collision. As such, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officer fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: August 14, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] On May 25, 2016, at 1:37 p.m., an SIU investigator attempted to contact the Complainant by phone and left a message for her to contact the SIU. At 4:11 p.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU and spoke to an SIU investigator involved in this matter. The Complainant sounded very upset and advised she did not want to relive the incident. When asked if she would consent to an interview with the SIU the Complainant flatly stated “no”, nor would she consent for the release of her medical records to the SIU. However, the Complainant informed the SIU investigator she had fractured her left wrist as a result of this incident. On June 6, 2016 and June 9, 2016, the Affected Persons Coordinator with the SIU called the Complainant several times but the calls were not answered. As well, the messages left by the Coordinator were not returned. On June 13, 2016, the SIU sent correspondence to the Complainant requesting an interview with her to facilitate a full investigation. As of July 4, 2016 there had been no verbal communication or correspondence from the Complainant. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The Complainant did provide a statement to the OPP at the time of the incident which was disclosed to the SIU. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] The SIU designated WO #4 as a witness officer for her notes only. The notes confirmed she was not involved in the incident and she was therefore not interviewed. [Back to text]