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:

• 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 Personal 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.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• 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.

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 54-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 7, 2023, at 11:45 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 7, 2023, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a LPS officer was operating a marked LPS cruiser on William Street in London. While making a turn to go eastbound on York Street, the LPS cruiser collided with a cyclist travelling northbound on William Street. The cyclist was identified as the Complainant. The Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) - Victoria Campus, and diagnosed with a fractured nose and orbital bone. He had been released from the hospital and sent home.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/12/08 at 12:50 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/12/08 at 3:08 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

54-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on December 13, 2023.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right; written statement received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between January 2 and 29, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of William Street and York Street, London.

Physical Evidence

On December 8, 2023, at 3:15 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene and met with WO #5. WO #5 had been assigned to complete the collision investigation. WO #5 briefed the investigator as to what he had marked on the roadways with traffic cones. WO #5 had already begun to plot the scene using Total Station equipment.

William Street travelled predominantly in a north/south direction. It was a paved two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes added at the intersection. York Street travelled predominantly in an east/west direction. York Street was a paved four lane roadway with left-turn lanes added at the intersection. Both roadway surfaces were in good condition and dry. Pavement markings were visible. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights in all directions that appeared to be functioning properly.

The involved LPS cruiser had reportedly been moved to a parking lot on the southeast corner of the intersection. It was a marked Dodge Charger and equipped with emergency lights and siren. There was evidence of minor collision damage to the driver’s side front corner that consisted of black scuff marks.

In the east crosswalk of William Street was a pool of suspected blood which had been marked by WO #5. At the northeast corner, on the sidewalk, was a red 18-speed bicycle. The handlebars were not bent but had been turned almost 90° at the yolk, and the chain had been dislodged from the sprocket.

At 4:24 a.m., the scene was photographed by the SIU forensic investigator.

At 5:15 a.m., a swab from the pooled blood was collected.

At 5:40 a.m., the scene was released to WO #5.

Figure 1 – The scene of the collision

Figure 2 – Front driver’s side corner of the SO’s cruiser

Forensic Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation

The investigator did not attend the collision scene during the SIU scene investigation.

The investigator reviewed the photographs and general report of the SIU forensic investigator. The investigator viewed a short video clip which appeared to have been recorded by a person who had been on York Street just east of William Street when the collision occurred. The investigator reviewed the Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR) and other notes and reports of WO #5 who attended the scene, examined and interpreted physical evidence at the scene, and examined the SO’s police cruiser. The Global Positioning System (GPS) data from the SO’s LPS cruiser and the statement she provided to the SIU were also reviewed.

Area of Impact

WO #5 identified the area of impact between the SO’s police cruiser and the Complainant’s bicycle as being within the pedestrian crosswalk on the east side of the intersection. WO #5 measured the area of impact to be about eight metres south of the north curb of York Street. He measured York Street to be just over 12 metres in width, which would indicate the area of impact was just south of the centre of York Street, about even with eastbound lane #1 (numbered from the centre outwards).

Physical Evidence on the Road

A small pool of blood was found on the roadway where the Complainant had been ejected from his bicycle and landed on the ground. The blood was near the area of impact. There were drops of blood leading to the northeast corner of the intersection where the Complainant was reported to have been assisted to. There were no tire or other marks found in the area of impact. Due to the reportedly low-speed nature of the collision, this was not surprising. There were also no pre-impact tire marks from the SO’s police cruiser or the Complainant’s bicycle. Again, this was not surprising due to the low-speed nature of the collision.

The SO’s Police Cruiser

The SO’s LPS cruiser was examined in a parking lot on the southeast corner of the intersection by the SIU forensic investigator, as well as by WO #5, where it had been moved to by the SO after the collision. Both investigators described some very minor damage to the front push bumper of the LPS cruiser consistent with the cruiser having struck the Complainant’s bicycle. There was no damage to the LPS cruiser itself including to the front hood where one might have anticipated there to be damage had the SO’s speed not been at a low rate, and the Complainant landed on the LPS cruiser.

GPS from the SO’s Police Cruiser

The LPS cruiser operated by the SO was equipped with a GPS receiver which provided data that included the time, location, and rate of speed of the vehicle.

Starting at 4:33 p.m., December 7, 2023, the data indicated that the SO departed LPS Headquarters. She drove approximately 75 metres southbound on William Street and was briefly stationary at King Street. She then accelerated to at least 36 km/h, about 30 metres south of King Street, and continued southbound on William Street about 150 metres to York Street where the police cruiser became stationary. The police cruiser remained stationary at William Street and York Street for the remainder of the reported time.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Report

No data pertaining to this collision had been recorded.

Mechanical Inspection

The SO’s LPS cruiser was inspected by a LPS technician the following day. No issues were noted.

The Complainant’s Bicycle

No significant damage was noted on the Complainant’s bicycle. This was consistent with the impact having occurred at a low rate of speed.

MVCR

The MVCR, written by WO #5, provided the approximate speed of the SO’s LPS cruiser when the collision occurred as 20 km/h, and the reported approximate speed of the Complainant’s bicycle was 7 km/h. The MVCR identified the SO’s apparent driver action as “improper turn”.

The MVCR identified the Complainant’s apparent driver action as “unknown”.

Traffic Signal Light

As per video footage of the incident, the traffic signal lights were red for east/west traffic on York Street from the moment the video started. The traffic in westbound lane #1 on York Street was stopped at the stop line at the intersection ahead of the person who recorded the video. The person who recorded the video appeared to have been coming to a stop behind the vehicles ahead. The red colour of the east/west traffic lights would be consistent with the traffic lights for the entire intersection being in the all-red phase as they changed from green for York Street to green for William Street, or with already being green for the north/south traffic on William Street when the video commenced.

About five seconds after the collision, the person who recorded the video zoomed out briefly. The traffic signal light for William Street was green.

Calculations from the Dashboard Camera Video

The Complainant rode his bicycle from the south side of the intersection to the area of impact in about 2.5 seconds. This distance on Google Maps appeared to be about six metres. Assuming the Complainant rode his bicycle at a constant rate of speed, the Complainant travelled at about 9 km/h. The SO’s LPS cruiser became visible on the video about one second after the video started and as she entered the intersection on the north side driving southbound on William Street. She appeared to turn left at a constant rate of speed. As per a measurement from Google Maps, she drove about 12 metres in about 1.5 seconds which calculated to a rate of speed of about 28 km/h.

Findings

The Complainant rode his bicycle northbound on William Street at York Street. On the video, he appeared to have been riding northbound next to the east curb as he entered the intersection. He did not appear to be far enough to the east to have been riding his bicycle on the sidewalk. The traffic light for William Street was green. The Complainant was clearly visible. The Complainant steered slightly to his right and crossed the eastbound lanes of York Street riding his bicycle in the pedestrian crosswalk on the east side of the intersection. The Complainant was perpendicular across eastbound lane #2 when the SO entered the intersection and started to turn left towards eastbound lane #1. The Complainant was perpendicular to eastbound lane #1 and was struck by the front of the SO’s LPS cruiser as it crossed over the pedestrian crosswalk as if to turn into eastbound lane #1 on York Street. The Complainant was ejected from his bicycle. His head struck the ground which caused an injury. The SO stopped immediately.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Dashboard Camera Video Footage

The dashboard camera video was 24 seconds in length. The vehicle that captured the footage was westbound on York Street in the second lane from the north curb. The traffic light was red for York Street, and the Complainant was on the southeast corner of the intersection on his bicycle. The Complainant began to cross York Street as traffic in lane one of York Street approached the stop line. As the Complainant passed over the dotted white line for eastbound traffic on York Street, a marked LPS cruiser came southbound on William Street and entered the intersection, making a left turn.

As the front tire of the Complainant’s bicycle reached the yellow centre line (camera view obstructed by traffic) of York Street, the LPS cruiser struck the bicycle just behind the pedals near the back tire. The Complainant went over the handlebars and landed on the roadway in front of westbound traffic.

The dashboard camera view changed and captured the Complainant lying on the centre line by the front driver’s door of the LPS cruiser. The LPS officer – the SO – had to move the LPS cruiser slightly forward to open her door. The Complainant rolled onto his right side. Blood was captured above his left eye.

The LPS cruiser struck the Complainant approximately two seconds after he began to cross York Street.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from LPS between December 19, 2023, and February 21, 2024:

• Scene photographs;
• Scene measurements and diagrams;
• GPS and CDR data from subject official’s cruiser;
• Collision reconstruction report and supporting material;
• MVCR;
• Computer-aided Dispatch R
• Officer Notes and Statement – WO #1;
• Officer Notes and Statement – WO #2;
• Officer Notes and Statement – WO #3;
• Officer Notes and Statement – WO #4;
• Officer Notes and Statement – WO #5;
• Written statement – the SO; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC – Victoria Campus, received January 2, 2024; and
• Dashboard camera video footage, received December 15, 2023.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes. She did produce a written statement.

In the afternoon of December 7, 2023, the Complainant was stationary on his bicycle facing a red light at York Street waiting to continue his travel north on William Street. When the light turned green, the Complainant rode his bicycle in the crosswalk. He had just about made it as far as the centre of York Street when his bicycle was struck by a vehicle. The Complainant was thrown from his bicycle onto the roadway.

The vehicle was a LPS cruiser being operated by the SO. The SO had been waiting in the southbound left-turn lane of William Street at a red light when she entered into the intersection as the light turned to green. The officer immediately exited her cruiser following the collision, radioed what had just occurred and tended to the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to hospital by ambulance and diagnosed with a fractured nose and left orbital bone.

Section 320.13(2), 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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a collision with a LPS cruiser on December 7, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 Complainant’s injuries.

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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

It is apparent that that the SO is to blame for the collision. The Complainant clearly had the right-of-way, and it was incumbent on the officer to yield to the cyclist and not embark on her left turn until it was safe to do so. She failed on both counts. Why she acted as she did is not entirely clear as the officer did not agree an interview with the SIU, as was her legal right. It would appear she simply did not see the Complainant even though he would have been clearly visible to her at the time.

Notwithstanding the SO’s indiscretion, I am not satisfied that the officer’s conduct amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances. The case law suggests that something more than an isolated or momentary lapse of care will ordinarily be required to attract criminal liability. In this case, other than the ill-advised left turn, there is no indication in the evidence of any other dangerous driving behaviour on the part of the SO in the time leading to the collision. The left-turn itself was performed at reasonable speed and would have been acceptable but for the Complainant’s presence in the crosswalk. On this record, it would appear that the conduct in question is the type of isolated lapse of attention that falls short of transgressing the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: April 5, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit