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 the complainant while crossing at an uncontrolled intersection and struck by a police vehicle.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the London Police Service (LPS) on April 4, 2016, at 8:00 a.m.

The LPS reported that on April 4, 2016, at 12:12 a.m., the Subject Officer (SO) was operating a police vehicle with Witness Officer #2 as a passenger. They were travelling northbound on Richmond Street near the railroad crossing, south of Piccadilly Street.

A southbound taxi cab stopped ahead of them. Two people exited the cab and ran across the street to a pub. A third person, the complainant, exited the cab and crossed in front of the police vehicle. She was struck by the police vehicle. The complainant was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a fractured upper arm.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

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

Civilian Witnesses

CW # 1 Interviewed

CW # 2 Interviewed

CW # 3 Interviewed

CW # 4 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO # 1 Interviewed

WO # 2 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

Materials obtained from LPS

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

• Cadet driver examination – SO,
• Detailed call summary – ambulance call,
• Disclosure log,
• List of officers on duty,
• Motor vehicle accident report,
• Notes of WO #1 and WO #2,
• Officer activity,
• Release tracking – hardcopy, and
• Vehicle maintenance reports.

The Scene

Richmond Street is a four lane street running north / south in this area with two lanes each way divided by a solid line in the middle and dashed lines dividing the northbound/ southbound lanes. Most of the lines would have been obscured at the time of the incident due to an ongoing snowstorm.

Piccadilly Street is one way to the west and is two way and controlled by a stop sign to the east. There are no pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection at Piccadilly Street.

The next crossing of Richmond Street to the south of Piccadilly Street is at a railway crossing about 70 metres south of Piccadilly Street and controlled by railway crossing lights.

There are three streetlights on the west side of Richmond Street between Piccadilly Street and the railway tracks. There is a “no U-turn” sign on the west side of Richmond Street for southbound traffic.

There are no speed limit signs in the area, but the default speed limit in downtown London is 50 km/h.

Summary of Police Vehicle # 55 GPS

At 12:11:22 a.m., the SO’s police vehicle was travelling northbound on Richmond Street, just past Central Avenue at a speed of 40.1 km/h. At 12:11:37 a.m., the police vehicle passed Pall Mall Street driving at 42.7 km/h. The police vehicle passed Piccadilly Street on the north side of the train tracks driving at 9.0 km/h and, at 12:12:45 a.m., the vehicle’s speed was 0.4 km/h. The police vehicle appeared stationary just past the train tracks in the same position as at 12:12:09 a.m.

Summary of the Subject Officer’s Driver’s Record

On October 19, 2004, the SO completed a driver examination as a cadet. On December 15, 2006, the SO successfully completed all Basic Constable Training at the Ontario Police College (OPC). Part of the training included Police Vehicle Operations (PVO). Driver training during PVO represents the bulk of all police driver training unless remedial training is required. To date, the SO had not been subject to remedial training.[1]

Summary of the Communication Tape

On April 4, 2016, at 0012 hrs, the SO contacted the dispatcher and requested an ambulance to the area of Piccadilly and Richmond Streets. He reported that a woman just ran out in front of his police vehicle. The police officers reported that the woman was complaining of pain to her right shoulder, and she was conscious and breathing.

Summary of Taxi Video

Two men entered the taxi and said, “Bonjour Monsieur. Can we hit up a McDonald’s that’s open?” CW #1 said, “This one on Oxford?” The man replied, “Ya.”

A woman, believed to be CW #3, crossed Richmond Street from the west to east. She stopped and turned around to look back. A man and a woman, believed to be CW #2 and a male[2] , also crossed the street from the west to the east towards the pub.

CW #2 was on the sidewalk and the male was still on the roadway. The complainant can be seen in the headlights in front of the LPS police vehicle.

An audio track recorded someone saying, “Look at this gal.” The police vehicle impacted with the complainant, at the right front headlight area. The complainant was spun and landed on the roadway. One of the men in the taxi said, “Holy shit.”

The LPS vehicle passed the complainant as she was lying on the roadway. CW #2 walked towards the complainant and blocked the view of the camera. It appeared the complainant was trying to get up.

The audio track recorded someone saying, “Look at that girl,” and, “He just leveled that girl.” CW #1 said, “He hit her.”

The police vehicle’s brake lights were on, and it was seen backing up towards where the complainant was struck. The audio track recorded someone saying, “Did we just see that?” and, “Dude, we just saw it.” CW #1 said, “Ya, ya, I did.” The taxi moved away.[3]

Summary of the Molly Bloom Pub’s Video Footage

The Patio Gate Camera did not capture the event and provided no investigative value. Camera 25 - Richmond South recorded the taxi stopped on Richmond facing northbound and two men standing outside the pub get into the taxi.

In the background, heading northbound on Richmond Street, a white fully marked LPS police vehicle was seen in the centre lane. The taxi moved forward, and the LPS police vehicle was about six car lengths back, driving northbound.

On April 4^th, 2016 at approximately 12:12 a.m., a taxi travelling southbound on Richmond Street stopped across the street from the Molly Bloom Pub, which was located on the east side of Richmond Street just north of the railroad tracks. In the taxi were the complainant, CW #2, CW #3 and a male. The roads were snowcovered at the time, and it was snowing. CW #2 and the male exited the taxi and crossed Richmond Street. The location they crossed at was not a controlled intersection, nor did it have a marked pedestrian crosswalk. CW #2 and the male crossed in front of a white sedan that was travelling southbound at the time, causing it to brake. The SO was in a marked LPS cruiser, travelling northbound. CW #2 and the male continued to cross Richmond Street in front of the cruiser. The complainant then exited the taxi and followed CW #2 and the male, crossing Richmond Street behind the white sedan. The complainant continued across the street, and collided with the front passenger corner of the SO’s police vehicle. The cruiser was traveling at an approximate speed of 15-20 km/h at the time. The complainant was transported to the hospital by ambulance, where she was assessed as having sustained a radial head fracture of the right humerus bone, a severed nerve of the right arm, and a concussion. No damage was sustained by the cruiser.

Section 219, Criminal Code – Criminal negligence

219 Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) In doing anything, or

(b) In omitting to do anything that is his duty to do,

Shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Section 221, Criminal Code - Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Section 249 (1) (a), Criminal Code - Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) 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

On April 4^th, 2016 at approximately 12:12 a.m., the complainant crossed Richmond Street, south of Piccadilly Street, near a railroad crossing, in the City of London. Road conditions were snow covered at the time and it was continuing to snow. When the complainant crossed Richmond Street, she was struck by a LPS cruiser driven by the SO. The complainant was transported to hospital by ambulance, where she was assessed as having sustained a radial head fracture (a fracture in the part of the bone near the elbow) of the right humerus bone and a concussion. According to the website of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, this is apparently a common injury caused while trying to break a fall with your hands causing the force of the fall to travel up your forearm bones and break the smaller bone (radius) in your forearm. Fractures of the radius often occur in the part of the bone near the elbow, called the radial “head”. The injury to the complainant’s right arm required surgery and pins and plates had to be inserted to stabilize the fracture to her shoulder and arm. During surgery, the attending physician also located a nerve to the shoulder that had been severed.

The evidence upon which to make an assessment in this matter is scant. None of the civilian witnesses indicated that they observed the actual collision, and other potential witnesses could not be located or refused to cooperate. The video cameras at Molly Bloom’s Pub, in close proximity to where the incident occurred, was non-operational or of limited usefulness.

What information is available, that is not in dispute, is that the complainant, CW # 3 and CW # 2 arrived in a taxi cab travelling southbound and were deposited on the west side of Richmond Street just before the railroad tracks. The Molly Bloom’s Pub is located on the east side of Richmond at number 700, just north of the railroad tracks. CW #2 and the male walked across Richmond Street toward the pub, and the complainant followed behind them. There was neither a crosswalk nor any traffic lights at this location. From the initial comments made by CW #2 and the male to police, it appears that they had no idea that it was actually the police vehicle that had struck the complainant.

Other than the fact of the collision itself then, and the consequent injuries to the complainant, the only evidence that can be relied upon to form reasonable grounds to believe that any offence has been committed is the GPS record from the police cruiser and the two officers present in the cruiser at the time of the collision, that being the SO, and his partner for that evening, WO # 2, both of whom provided statements to investigators with the SIU.

On a review of the evidence gleaned from the GPS record, it is clear that at no time was the SO travelling in excess of the 50 km/h speed limit which was in effect for this portion of Richmond Street. At 12:11:22 a.m., the police cruiser is recorded as travelling at 40.1 km/h in the area of Richmond Street, just past Central Avenue, approximately 450 metres south of the point of impact. At 12:11:37 a.m., the police vehicle is recorded going 42.7 km/h and is passing Pall Mall Street roughly 240 metres to the south of the point of impact. When the cruiser was passing Piccadilly Street just north of the train tracks, it was recorded as driving at 9 km/h; this would have been in the immediate area of the impact. At 12:12:45 a.m. the vehicle was stationary and remained in that position.

According to the SO, he was operating his motor vehicle in the area just south of Piccadilly Street when he observed a taxi drop off a male and a female passenger who then ran across Richmond Street from west to east towards a pub. He advised in his statement that he observed a southbound vehicle have to brake hard to avoid contact with the male and female passenger. He observed at that time that they were crossing in an area of Richmond Street where there were no traffic controls nor any crosswalk and was considering speaking to them about the offence of jaywalking pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. The SO estimated his speed had been approximately 20 km/h when he crossed the railroad tracks, but he slowed to approximately 15 km/h when he observed the two pedestrians run across the road. He described the road as snow covered and it was snowing at the time.

The SO advised that he then observed the complainant run out in front of his vehicle and the front passenger corner of his vehicle made contact with her. He stated that it happened so fast that he did not have time to react. He observed the complainant go partially up on to the hood of his vehicle and then land on the roadway. The SO then stopped his vehicle, activated his emergency lighting, called for an ambulance and assisted the complainant until it arrived.

WO #2’s statement to investigators corroborated incidents as relayed by the SO. WO #2 also observed the female and male passenger cross in front of the white sedan, causing it to brake. He further advised that same white sedan was parallel with the police vehicle when the complainant appeared in front of the police vehicle. He believed that she had run out from behind the sedan and as such his view of the complainant had been obstructed by the sedan and the first time he saw her was when she was already in front of the right bumper of the police cruiser. WO #2 was also of the view that things happened so quickly that there was no time to react. WO #2 estimated the cruiser speed at the time of impact to have been approximately 20 km/h. This lesser rate of speed would appear to account for the fact that there was no damage to the cruiser as a result of the impact.

The possible offences to be considered in these circumstances would be criminal negligence causing bodily harm or dangerous driving causing bodily harm, contrary to sections 221 and 249 of the Criminal Code respectively.

The offence of criminal negligence requires proof that the driver showed a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons and the driving must amount to a ‘marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver in circumstances where the accused either recognized and ran an obvious and serious risk to the lives and safety of others or, alternatively, gave no thought to that risk’. Similarly, the offence of dangerous driving also requires driving that amounts to ‘a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s situation’.

On a review of the evidence, it is clear that the SO was at all times driving at a rate of speed below the speed limit, presumably to take into account the poor road and weather conditions, and there is no evidence whatsoever that could lead to the conclusion that his driving could amount to a marked departure from the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person. In all of the circumstances in this matter, including the fact that the SO was driving at speeds below the speed limit, was taking into account the road and weather conditions, was apparently aware of and perhaps distracted momentarily by other users of the roadway, including the female and male passenger running across Richmond Street and causing another motor vehicle to have to brake hard to avoid a collision, and the fact that his motor vehicle made contact with a pedestrian, I cannot find fault with the SO or his driving. It is clear that the claimant stepped out into traffic in poor weather and lighting conditions where there was no crosswalk and no traffic controls.

Consequently, on a review of all of the evidence, despite the fact that the police cruiser operated by the SO made contact with the complainant which led to her injuries, I find that the manner in which he was operating his motor vehicle fell within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. As such, I find that the evidence in this matter does not provide reasonable grounds for the laying of criminal charges. Accordingly, there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer and no charges will issue.

Date: July 24, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] A police officer involved in two preventable MVCs is required to complete a Canadian Police Knowledge Network online course on police driving. If involved in three preventable MVCs, an officer is required to attend the OPC for the remedial driver training (one day). [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The male with CW #2 refused to provide a statement to SIU investigators. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] The two males inside the taxi could not be indentified by SIU investigators. [Back to text]