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 death of an 89 year-old female on May 15, 2016, following her interaction with police during a traffic stop on May 10, 2016.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) on May 10, 2016. The SIU was advised that on May 10, 2016 at 1:00 a.m., a civilian witness approached a police officer and reported that the Complainant was driving erratically, at the intersection of Angeline Street and Highway 7 in Lindsay. Police officers located the Complainant who told them that she was disoriented and lost. The police officers decided to escort the Complainant to her residence.

While turning her vehicle, the Complainant made contact with one of the police cruisers. The Complainant was placed into one of the police cruisers and shortly after she complained she was not well. An ambulance was called and she was taken to hospital. Later in the morning, a police officer went to the hospital to check on the Complainant and was told she might have suffered a brain bleed and was not expected to live.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists 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:

89-year-old female, deceased, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

Expert Evidence

On May 31, 2016, the SIU asked the regional supervising coroner to assign a coroner to review the medical records related to the Complainant’s hospitalization and death. The coroner was asked for an opinion regarding whether any delay in obtaining prompt medical attention for the Complainant would have contributed to her death.[1] On June 14, 2016, the coroner assigned to review the matter, reported it was likely the Complainant’s brain hemorrhage was occurring earlier in the evening, when she complained of a severe headache. The Complainant became confused while driving and that was when the police became involved. The coroner advised the SIU, “In my view, there was nothing that could have been done to change the outcome.”

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from KLPS:

• the radio communications recordings,
• computer aided dispatch (CAD) record,
• the duty roster for the night platoon on May 9-10, 2016,
• a general occurrence report completed by WO #1,
• motor vehicle collision report,
• notes for WO #1 and WO #2, and
• GPS data for the SO’s police cruiser.

On May 10, 2016 at approximately 1:00 a.m., the Complainant was driving her motor vehicle on Angeline Street at the intersection of Highway 7 in the Town of Lindsay, Ontario. She had been experiencing a headache that had lasted all day, and had just dropped off her friend when she became disoriented and confused. The Civilian Witness observed that she was driving erratically, and notified the SO. The SO conducted a traffic stop. WO # 2 arrived and agreed to escort the Complainant home. The Complainant was instructed to make a U-turn and follow the police officers southbound, but while making the U-turn, the Complainant collided with the driver’s side of the WO #2’s cruiser and continued to drive southbound on Angeline Street.

The SO stopped the Complainant and placed the Complainant in her police cruiser and attempted to identify her next-of-kin. The Complainant started to vomit inside the SO’s cruiser. An ambulance was called and the Complainant was transported to hospital. The Complainant’s medical condition deteriorated quickly, and she was diagnosed with a large intraventicular bleed (brain hemorrhage). The Complainant succumbed to her brain hemorrhage and passed away five days later.

On May 10^th, 2016 at approximately 1 a.m., the Complainant was operating her motor vehicle on Angeline Street at the intersection of Highway 7 in the Town of Lindsay in the City of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario. As a result of an observation of erratic driving on the Complainant’s part, the SO effected a traffic stop. During the course of the SO’s interaction with the Complainant, she began to vomit and was transported to hospital. Once at hospital, the Complainant was diagnosed with a large intraventricular bleed (brain hemorrhage) and died shortly thereafter.

The SO did not consent to an interview with SIU investigators, as is her legal right, but provided her notes from which the following was gleaned:

The SO, according to her notes, was approached by the CW who advised her that she was concerned for an elderly female driver who she believed had possibly been drinking or was suffering from some medical issue. The SO located the Complainant driving slowly along the shoulder of the roadway and stopped her. The Complainant advised the SO that she had dropped a friend off at home and had become lost. WO #2 then arrived on scene and agreed to escort the Complainant home, however, the Complainant ended up striking WO #2’s vehicle with her vehicle as a result of which the SO stopped the Complainant again. The Complainant apparently had no idea that she had struck the officer’s vehicle. The SO had the Complainant sit in her cruiser while she attempted to identify her next of kin, when the Complainant began to vomit and an ambulance was summoned.

WO #2 advised investigators that he received information over the radio at approximately 12:50 a.m. regarding a possible impaired driver and he attended the area to assist. He observed the SO stopped on Angeline Street with another motor vehicle. WO #2 stated that the SO advised him that the driver was the Complainant. WO #2 recognized the name and was familiar with the Complainant’s address and volunteered to escort the Complainant home, however, when the Complainant made a U-turn to pull in behind WO #2’s vehicle, she impacted the driver’s side of his vehicle and scraped down the side of his vehicle striking his mirror and pushing it forward. The Complainant continued to drive on Highway 7, without stopping, and the SO stopped her at a red light. WO #2 then placed his cruiser in park, activated his emergency lighting and approached the SO’s cruiser where he observed the Complainant now seated in the front passenger seat with the SO attempting to get next of kin information from her. WO #2 did not observe any injuries to the Complainant. WO #1 then arrived at the scene and five to ten minutes later, the ambulance arrived. WO #2 observed that the Complainant had vomited inside the SO’s vehicle.

WO #1 was working as the shift supervisor when, at approximately 1:07 a.m. on May 10^th, 2016, she responded to a radio call regarding a departmental motor vehicle collision in the area of Angeline Street and Highway 7. WO #1 arrived at the scene within two to three minutes of the call and observed that WO #2’s cruiser had scrapes running along the entire driver’s side of his cruiser, from back to front. WO #1 spoke to both the SO and WO #2 and they advised her as per their notes and statement above. WO #1 advised that she decided to seize the Complainant’s driver licence and issue her a form for driver re-examination and was seated in her vehicle doing so when she was approached by the SO and advised that the Complainant had begun to vomit. WO #1 immediately called for an ambulance which arrived within one minute and the Complainant was transported to hospital.

The ambulance call report indicates that the Complainant was having cognitive issues while in the ambulance, apparently believing it to be 1986, and complained of having suffered from a headache the entire day. Although the Complainant was observed by medical staff at the hospital as being conscious and aware on admission, she quickly deteriorated thereafter. On May 15^th, 2016, the Complainant passed away.

A coroner, whom is a doctor, was assigned to review the matter to determine if any delay in obtaining prompt medical attention may have contributed to the death of the Complainant. His determination was that the Complainant had likely suffered a brain hemorrhage earlier in the evening of May 9^th, 2016 as evidenced by her complaint of severe headache earlier in the day. The doctor opined that, in his professional opinion, “there was nothing that could have been done to change the outcome”.

On an overview of all of the evidence, it is clear that the Complainant suffered a brain hemorrhage earlier in the evening of May 9^th, 2016, after which she drove a friend home and then became confused. Due to her erratic driving, she first came to the attention of the CW, who then contacted the SO. WO #2 also attended to assist. On all of the evidence before me, it appears that the Complainant had already experienced a brain hemorrhage prior to any involvement with police and that the police, in dealing with her, showed nothing but kindness and patience and did everything they could to assist the Complainant. There was no outward indication that the Complainant required medical attention until she vomited, at which point an ambulance was immediately called and she was transported to hospital. According to the coroner who reviewed the matter, nothing police or anyone else did could have affected the outcome of this matter and the Complainant eventually succumbed to the brain hemorrhage and passed away days later.

On all of the evidence, it is clear that the police, in their contact with the Complainant, were at all times professional, kind and helpful. The outcome for the Complainant was due to natural causes and in no way reflects on the treatment she received from police officers. As such, there are no grounds to believe that there was any inappropriate conduct here from any police officer who came in contact with the Complainant and no basis for the laying of any criminal charges.

Date: August 11, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] This request was made to assist in determining whether this investigation, initially classified as a vehicle injury investigation, should be considered a custody investigation (due to the Complainant being placed into a police cruiser, rather than the immediate summoning of an ambulance) or an “other death” investigation. [Back to text]