Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the deaths of a 17-year-old male (“Complainant #1”) and a 19-year-old male (“Complainant #2”), and the serious injuries of a 48-year-old female (“Complainant #3”) and a 17-year-old male (“Complainant #4”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 15, 2023, at 2:07 a.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 15, 2023, at approximately 1:20 a.m., uniform members of the WPS observed a Dodge Charger proceed through a red light at a high rate of speed at the intersection of Park Street and Ouellette Avenue in the City of Windsor. The involved officers activated their emergency lighting in an attempt to stop the vehicle, but it continued northbound on Ouellette Street making no attempt to stop. The officers were reported to have discontinued their attempt to stop the vehicle just south of University Avenue. The Dodge Charger continued northbound on Ouellette Street and then eastbound on Riverside Drive where it eventually collided with at least one civilian vehicle at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Glengarry Avenue.

The Dodge Charger was occupied by four males. One male, believed to be the driver, Complainant #1, was transported to the Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH), Ouellette Campus, and pronounced deceased. A second male, Complainant #2, believed to be occupying the rear passenger seat of the Dodge Charger, was ejected during the collision. He too was pronounced deceased. The two other occupants of the Dodge Charger, Civilian Witness (CW) #1 and Complainant #4, were transported to WRH with non-life-threatening injuries.

An occupant from a civilian vehicle involved in the collision suffered unknown non-life-threatening injuries.

The scene had been secured for forensic examination and collision reconstruction.

The Subject Official (SO) was the driver of the involved cruiser, and Witness Official (WO) #2 was the passenger.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning at the intersection of Ouellette Avenue and Park Street, continuing north on Ouellette Avenue and east on Riverside Drive East, and ending at the site of a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Riverside Drive East and Glengarry Avenue, Windsor.

Scene Diagram

The scale diagram of the collision scene was mapped by SIU forensic investigators on October 15, 2023.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with persons involved in the motor vehicle collision and a police eyewitness to the events in question, GPS data associated with the SO’s cruiser, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

Section 320.13 (2) and (3), Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm or death

On October 15, 2023, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 lost their lives, and Complainant #4 and Complainant #3 were seriously injured, in a motor vehicle collision. As WPS officers had briefly attempted to stop one of the vehicles involved in the collision prior to it occurring, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing death contrary to sections 320.13(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code. As offences of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, they are predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. There clearly was not.