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.

Shortly before 6 p.m. on January 16, 2017, a 59-year-old woman was operating a motorized wheelchair when she was struck by a London Police Service vehicle. She sustained a fractured left arm in the process.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the London Police Service (LPS) on January 16, 2017, at 10:45 p.m. LPS reported that on January 16, 2017, at 5:50 p.m., an LPS vehicle driven by a police officer was southbound on Adelaide Street, turning westbound onto Dundas Street. The vehicle struck a motorized wheelchair operated by the complainant. The complainant was taken to hospital where she was diagnosed with a broken left arm.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the scene by way of notes, photography, videography, sketches and measurements. The SIU’s Collision Reconstructionist attended the scene, and submitted a report.

Complainant

Interviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Police employees

PE #1 Interviewed

PE #2 Interviewed

PE #3 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

Subject officer

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

Scene diagram

Expert evidence

The SIU Collision Reconstructionist determined the following:

• The complainant was travelling eastbound towards the intersection at a speed of about 6 km/h
• the weather was cold, dark and raining
• the vehicular traffic was heavy
• the police cruiser, travelling southbound on Adelaide Street North, did not have emergency equipment activated
• the traffic light for Adelaide Street North was green with a corresponding pedestrian walk signal for the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection
• the subject officer was travelling at about 16 km/h when the front passenger corner of the police vehicle struck the complainant within the crosswalk

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence.

The SIU obtained CCTV footage from a nearby business. The footage showed that at the time of the incident, the road conditions were wet and the lighting was dark. The complainant’s wheelchair was black in colour, had no headlights, running lights, or reflective material on. The complainant entered the intersection southbound in her wheelchair. As she left the curb, a white LPS SUV was seen making a right hand turn onto Dundas Street. The complainant was in the marked crosswalk. The LPS SUV made impact with the complainant and her wheelchair. The subject officer stepped out of his LPS SUV and went to the front of his vehicle.

Communications recordings

The SO called the communicator and requested an ambulance to Dundas and Adelaide Streets. The communicator asked for patient information to provide to the ambulance. The SO said it was for the complainant, in a wheelchair, who was conscious and with an injury.

The communicator told the SO the ambulance was en route and asked if there had been a change in the complainant’s condition. The SO said the complainant was in quite a bit of pain.

Materials obtained from the LPS

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

• detailed call summary
• communications recording
• Duty Roster - SO
• Field Sketch - Traffic Management Unit
• General Occurrence
• LPS collision reconstruction field notes
• LPS witness statement-complainant
• maintenance log for involved vehicle
• motor vehicle collision report
• WO notes
• training records-SO
• statements – three police witnesses

On January 16, 2017, at approximately 5:50 p.m., the complainant was operating a motorized wheelchair on the north side of Dundas Street west of Adelaide Street North in London. She was travelling eastbound towards the intersection. The weather was cold, dark and raining, and the vehicular traffic was heavy.

The SO was operating a fully marked police vehicle, travelling southbound on Adelaide Street North approaching the intersection.

As the traffic light for Adelaide Street North was green with a corresponding pedestrian walk signal for the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection, the complainant entered the crosswalk and began to travel southbound. While the SO slowed down as he executed a right hand turn onto Dundas Street, the front passenger corner of the police vehicle struck the complainant within the crosswalk and knocked the wheelchair and the complainant to the ground.

Having felt the collision, the SO immediately brought his vehicle to a stop in the crosswalk and tended to the complainant. Paramedics were called to the scene and the complainant was taken to hospital.

Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

249 (1) (a)

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

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.

The offence that arises for consideration is that of dangerous driving causing bodily harm pursuant to subsections 249 (1) (a) and 249 (3) of the Criminal Code. The offence is one of penal negligence and predicated on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence gathered by the SIU in the investigation, which included a video recording of the collision captured by a security camera in the vicinity, a forensic reconstruction of the accident, and statements from the SO, the complainant and a civilian eyewitness.

It is clear to me that what appears to have been a momentary lack of attention on the part of the SO falls short of that standard. There is no indication, for example, of dangerous or even careless driving in the moments preceding the collision; on the contrary, the SO appears to have been operating the vehicle carefully and at moderate speeds as he was making his way back to the police station. Nor is there any suggestion or evidence that the officer was unduly distracted as he entered into the turn.

It is also fair to note the low profile of the complainant’s wheelchair and the lack of any lighting or reflectors on it, making it difficult to see in circumstances of poor visibility (it was dark and raining at the time), factors which likely contributed to the accident. This is not to excuse the SO’s conduct. After all, the complainant clearly had the right-of-way as she entered onto the crosswalk lawfully at a green light and was entitled to expect vehicular traffic to yield safely around her. It does, however, assist in my determination that the officer’s conduct fell within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law notwithstanding his failure to see the complainant and to correct his driving accordingly.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the SO’s conduct was such as to warrant criminal charges.

Date: May 26, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit