SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVI-455
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have 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.Mandate Engaged
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 serious injuries of a 20-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and an 18-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
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 serious injuries of a 20-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and an 18-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On November 2, 2023, at 3:12 p.m., the Saugeen Shores Police Service (SSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On November 2, 2023, at 2:04 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was travelling on Concession Road 14 in Saugeen Shores when he noticed a Honda Civic approaching him in the opposite direction. The windshield had damage that was consistent with an impact. The SO activated his emergency lighting and siren, and turned around to stop the vehicle. In response, the vehicle sped away at a high rate of speed. As the SO’s SSPS pick-up truck approached an incline in the road, he lost sight of the vehicle for a short period of time. Upon cresting the hill, he observed smoke emanating from the side of the road as the Honda had struck a tree.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/02 at 4:00 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/02 at 6:38 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)
Complainant #1 20-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed Complainant #2 18-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainants were interviewed between November 2 and 3, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 2 and 14, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewedWO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed on November 6, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning a distance west of High Street (Southampton) and travelling east to Carlisle Street, then south on Carlisle Street and east on Concession Road 14 until a distance east of Doll Sideroad. Physical Evidence
On November 2, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator spoke to a SIU investigator and learned of the involvement of OPP reconstructionists. At 8:30 p.m., the SIU agreed to let the OPP photograph and map the scene.
At 10:00 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator arrived at the SSPS station to view the SO’s truck - a black Ford F150 with subdued markings. There were no signs of damage or paint transfer to the vehicle’s body or the vehicle’s front-end push bar. The emergency lighting and siren operated properly. The vehicle was photographed. The SIU forensic investigator downloaded the data from the airbag control module (ACM) of the Ford F150.
Figure 1 – The SO’s Ford F150
At 11:09 p.m., the SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene located near Concession Road 14 and Doll Sideroad, Saugeen Shores. The roadway was not a defined gravel or asphalt roadway, rather, a section of mud and long, tamped grass that formed a linear path that paralleled existing hydro poles. It was a farmer’s access road.
A black 4-door Honda Civic was resting on a steep angle against a tree. The vehicle’s front-end was positioned upwards, and its rear-end was resting on the ground. The passenger doors had been cut away and were resting on the ground. Vehicle debris littered the surrounding area.
Figure 2 – The Honda Civic resting on a tree
Figure 3 – Path of travel of the Honda Civic on the access road prior to hitting the tree
Expert Evidence
OPP Technical Traffic Collision Investigation Review
On November 10, 2023, the SIU received the notes of OPP officers WO #3 and WO #4, who did the technical traffic collision investigator review of the motor vehicle collision in question. A SIU collision reconstructionist attended the scene and met with WO #3 and WO #4. The SIU reconstructionist reviewed the notes of WO #3 and WO #4, the computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) report, witness interviews and the Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) Report.Concession Road 14 was an east/west road. It intersected with Doll Sideroad - a north/south road. Traffic on Concession Road 14 had the right of way at the intersection. The collision occurred about 560 metres east of the intersection.
For a distance of about 200 metres east of the intersection, Concession Road 14 was a gravel road. It then became a dirt access road along a line of hydro poles bordering farm fields. The dirt access road was not meant for normal vehicular traffic. Clearly, it was meant for slow moving farm machinery vehicles, such as a tractor.
The Honda travelled eastbound on Concession Road 14 at a high rate of speed. It continued through the intersection at Doll Sideroad, along the gravel portion, past the dead end, and onto the dirt access road. On the dirt access road, about 50 metres of rolling tire tracks led to the final resting position of the Honda against a large tree. The tire marks indicated it had left the road, travelled through the ditch on the north side, and collided violently head-on with the tree. The tire marks were overlapping, indicating the left and right rear tires overlapped the left and right front tires, consistent with the Honda having travelled straight as it left the dirt road, entered the ditch, and moved towards the tree. There were no other tire marks at the scene related to this collision. The front of the Honda climbed up the base of the tree and came to rest facing up the tree at an angle of 45 degrees or more. The Honda was destroyed in the collision.
The speed of the Honda at the time it struck the tree could not be determined by physical evidence as it was not supported by the Crash Data Retrieval system due to its year of manufacture. The OPP officers were unable to calculate the speed of the Honda when it crashed.
An examination of the seat belts in the Honda by the OPP officers supported a finding that Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were wearing their seat belts while the rear seat passenger, CW #1, was not wearing his seat belt.
The police pick-up truck was examined and there was nothing to suggest there was any contact between it and the Honda. The ACM of the SO’s police truck was downloaded. No collision event had been recorded, and no deployment of airbags were recorded.
The physical evidence gathered during the investigation of this collision supported a finding that Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were injured in a single vehicle collision in which Complainant #1 drove the Honda at a high rate of speed eastbound on Concession Road 14. At the dead end, Complainant #1 continued at a high rate of speed onto the dirt access road. The dirt was wet from snow which had melted, making the uneven surface very slippery. Complainant #1 lost control of the Honda and it left the dirt access road and entered the ditch. Complainant #1 drove straight into a large tree at a high rate of speed and caused a violent collision with intrusion of the front and engine of the Honda into the passenger compartment, thereby causing injury to himself and Complainant #2.
The physical evidence gathered for the investigation of the collision supported a finding that the SO was eastbound on Concession Road 14, west of Doll Sideroad, and hundreds of metres west of the collision when it occurred. The SO was neither directly nor indirectly involved in the collision.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser
On November 13, 2023, SSPS provided the SIU the GPS data for the truck driven by the SO. The GPS data transmitted every 16 seconds.On November 2, 2013, between 1:56 and 2:00 p.m., the data indicated that the SO drove northbound on Highway 21 and onto Carlisle Street. He turned left on High Street towards the hospital located at 341 High Street.
At 2:01 p.m., the SO was driving eastbound on High Street approaching Carlisle Street. He drove at a speed of 109 km/h and then turned right onto southbound Carlisle Street. He travelled about 80 metres and made a left onto eastbound Concession Road 14. He continued east on Concession Road 14, where the speed limit was 80 km/h. The SO accelerated to 125 km/h. As he approached the Southampton landfill in the area of Links Side Road, the SO’s speed rose to 154 km/h. He continued eastbound on Concession Road 14 slowing to 117 km/h at a point between Links Side Road and Doll Sideroad. The officer continued east and through the intersection of Concession Road 14 and Doll Sideroad.
At 2:02 p.m., the SO was near Doll Sideroad and slowing to 100 km/h, and then to 42 km/h as he was east of a gravel road that ended where Concession Road 14 turned into a dirt access road. The SO was stationary 540 metres east of Doll Sideroad [about 20 metres west of the tree the Honda had struck].
Communications Recordings and CAD Report
On November 2, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., the SO broadcast that he was going to the hospital to drop off information and then return to the SSPS station.At 2:04 p.m., the SO told the dispatcher, “Show me at Doll Sideroad, ah, vehicle into a ditch.” The dispatcher said his location was at the end of Concession Road 14. The SO broadcast, “The vehicle took off on me, I turned around to follow it. I’m going to need paramedics and fire.” He added that two people were trapped.
WO #1 radioed the SO and asked if he was injured. The SO said he was not and, “I discontinued the following, but I guess he took off down this road here where it’s not paved, lost control in the snow, hit a tree.”
As heard on the audio and as shown on the CAD report, other emergency services were requested and dispatched, and other police officers responded and arrived at the scene. WO #2 was first to arrive at 2:09 p.m.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the SSPS between November 8, 2023, and January 3, 2024:- MVC Report;
- CAD Report;
- Communications recordings;
- GPS data – the SO’s SSPS pick-up truck;
- Charge Summary;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #3; and
- Notes – WO #4.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 14 and 15, 2023:- Medical records for Complainant #2 from Brightshores Health System (BHS) Grey Bruce Hospital, Southampton;
- Medical records for Complainant #1 from BHS Grey Bruce Hospital, Southampton; and
- Medical records for Complainant #1 from London Health Sciences Centre Victoria Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and a civilian eyewitness, 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.
In the afternoon of November 2, 2023, the SO was on-duty and operating a police pick-up truck westbound on High Street from Carlisle Street when he noticed an oncoming vehicle with a damaged windshield. Deciding he would stop the vehicle – a Honda Civic – the SO executed a U-turn and began to follow it, activating his emergency lights.
Complainant #1, a prohibited driver, was operating the Honda. In the front passenger seat was Complainant #2. CW #1 was in the rear passenger side seat. On noticing the cruiser making a U-turn, Complainant #1 decided to accelerate. He turned south on Carlisle Street and then east onto Concession Road 14 where he reached speeds well over 100 km/h. Several hundred metres east of Doll Sideroad, the roadway became a farmer’s access road consisting of dirt and tamped-down grass. Complainant #1 lost control on the road, which was wet and slippery at the time, entered the northside ditch and slammed head-on into the trunk of a tree.
The SO arrived at the site of the collision well after it occurred. He too had reached speeds in excess of 100 km/h on Concession Road 14 attempting to catch up to the Honda, at one point travelling upwards of 150 km/h, before he decided to disengage and slow down a distance west of Doll Sideroad. The officer continued eastbound, came upon the collision site, and radioed for assistance.
Complainant #1 was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a scalp laceration, pulmonary hemorrhage of the right lung, and a broken nose. Complainant #2 suffered a fractured left femur.
In the afternoon of November 2, 2023, the SO was on-duty and operating a police pick-up truck westbound on High Street from Carlisle Street when he noticed an oncoming vehicle with a damaged windshield. Deciding he would stop the vehicle – a Honda Civic – the SO executed a U-turn and began to follow it, activating his emergency lights.
Complainant #1, a prohibited driver, was operating the Honda. In the front passenger seat was Complainant #2. CW #1 was in the rear passenger side seat. On noticing the cruiser making a U-turn, Complainant #1 decided to accelerate. He turned south on Carlisle Street and then east onto Concession Road 14 where he reached speeds well over 100 km/h. Several hundred metres east of Doll Sideroad, the roadway became a farmer’s access road consisting of dirt and tamped-down grass. Complainant #1 lost control on the road, which was wet and slippery at the time, entered the northside ditch and slammed head-on into the trunk of a tree.
The SO arrived at the site of the collision well after it occurred. He too had reached speeds in excess of 100 km/h on Concession Road 14 attempting to catch up to the Honda, at one point travelling upwards of 150 km/h, before he decided to disengage and slow down a distance west of Doll Sideroad. The officer continued eastbound, came upon the collision site, and radioed for assistance.
Complainant #1 was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a scalp laceration, pulmonary hemorrhage of the right lung, and a broken nose. Complainant #2 suffered a fractured left femur.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm
320.13 (2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.
Analysis and Director's Decision
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Saugeen Shores on November 2, 2023. As the vehicle in which they were occupants had been pursued by a SSPS officer moments before the collision, 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 offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is 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. In my view, there was not.
The SO was within his rights in seeking to stop the Honda Complainant #1 was driving. He had noticed damage to the windshield and was entitled to investigate whether there were grounds to issue a ticket under the Highway Traffic Act.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the Honda. Though the officer reached significant speeds on Concession Road 14, he did so over a relatively short distance and with his emergency lights activated on a road with little traffic. Once it was clear he was not going to catch the Honda, the SO wisely deactivated his emergency lights and discontinued pursuit. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the SO played a causal role in the collision. Aside from being the impetus for Complainant #1’s dangerous driving, he was well back of the Honda when it entered a ditch and struck a tree. Thereafter, the SO acted promptly to render aid and secure medical assistance for the Honda’s occupants.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 1, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is 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. In my view, there was not.
The SO was within his rights in seeking to stop the Honda Complainant #1 was driving. He had noticed damage to the windshield and was entitled to investigate whether there were grounds to issue a ticket under the Highway Traffic Act.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the Honda. Though the officer reached significant speeds on Concession Road 14, he did so over a relatively short distance and with his emergency lights activated on a road with little traffic. Once it was clear he was not going to catch the Honda, the SO wisely deactivated his emergency lights and discontinued pursuit. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the SO played a causal role in the collision. Aside from being the impetus for Complainant #1’s dangerous driving, he was well back of the Honda when it entered a ditch and struck a tree. Thereafter, the SO acted promptly to render aid and secure medical assistance for the Honda’s occupants.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 1, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.