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 injury of a 29-year-old woman (Complainant #1) and a 23-year-old man (Complainant #2).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 12, 2024, at 7:56 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to Complainant #1.

According to the PRP, on January 12, 2024, at 6:15 p.m., the Subject Official (the SO)’s cruiser collided with Complainant #1, a pedestrian, at the intersection of Central Park Drive and Hilldale Crescent, Brampton. Complainant #1 was being transported to hospital with life-threatening injuries. The intersection had been secured.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/12 at 8:24 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/12 at 10:22 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):

Complainant #1 29-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 23-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between January 13 and 23, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 22 and 29, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the intersection of Central Park Drive and Hilldale Crescent, Brampton.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Central Park Drive was aligned in a general east-west direction, north of, and parallel to, Queen Street East. At the westerly end of Central Park Drive, the road curved 90-degrees to the south where it intersected with Queen Street East. The events in question occurred in the area of the bend at the intersection with Hilldale Crescent.

A park was situated along the east/south side of the road and a residential area was situated on the west/north side of the road. Hilldale Crescent formed a T-intersection at the west side of Central Park Drive.

The intersection was controlled by a stop sign for eastbound Hilldale Crescent traffic turning onto Central Park Drive. There were no controls for Central Park Drive traffic. The intersection had pedestrian crossing markings on Hilldale Crescent to aid pedestrians crossing Hilldale Crescent along the west/north side of Central Park Drive. There were no traffic controls for Central Park Drive vehicle traffic and no pedestrian crossing aids or markings for pedestrians crossing Central Park Drive.

SIU investigators noted the sunset on January 12, 2024, was at 5:04 p.m. and streetlights were positioned along the east side of Central Park Drive, which provided artificial lighting.

SIU forensic investigators examined the scene and took photographs. Two shoes that belonged to Complainant #1 were located on the roadway, in the northbound lane.

Forensic Evidence

Global-positioning System (GPS) Data

The PRP provided SIU investigators with the GPS data associated with the involved police vehicle (see below).

Expert Evidence

A SIU collision reconstruction investigator reviewed the GPS data and arrived at the following findings.

Starting at 6:13 p.m., January 12, 2024, the SO’s cruiser was stationary at the intersection of Peel Centre Drive and Central Park Drive. The SO proceeded to travel northbound on Central Park Drive. As per Google Maps, Central Park Drive had a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. The officer drove at about 60 km/h, accelerating to a maximum speed of 67 km/h between Queen Street East and Hanover Road.

At about 6:14 p.m., the SO slowed to approximately 50 km/h, northbound on Central Park Drive between Hanover Road and Howden Boulevard. He then increased his speed to about 58 km/h between Howden Boulevard and Hilldale Crescent.

The final data point prior to the collision was captured just before the collision, in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Central Park Drive and Hilldale Crescent, at which time the SO’s speed was about 59 km/h. The police cruiser then became stationary in the northbound lanes just north of the intersection.

As per measurements derived from Google Earth, the SO had travelled about 900 metres from Peel Centre Drive at Central Park Drive to the collision location. He drove this distance in about 90 seconds, attaining a maximum recorded speed of 67 km/h on Central Park Drive between Queen Street East and Hanover Road.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

PRP provided SIU with BWC recordings from five undesignated officers (UO), UO #1, UO #2, UO #3, UO #4 and UO #5. The following is a summary of the combined footage.

UO #1 arrived on Central Park Drive at 6:16 p.m. Complainant #1 was lying unconscious on the road and CW #1 was providing her medical assistance. The SO said he saw them at the last second as they cut in front of him on a bicycle. He believed he “clipped” a bicycle. UO #1 spoke to CW #2, who indicated he had observed the pedestrians [now known to be Complainant #2 and Complainant #1] “running across the street all willy-nilly”. UO #1 requested that a police officer search for the bicycle. Complainant #2 confirmed there was no bike involved. He said they were crossing the road and the vehicle hit Complainant #1 on her right side, causing her to fly several feet to where she came to rest.

At 6:33 p.m., Complainant #1 was placed into an ambulance and Complainant #2 was driven to hospital in a police vehicle.

PRP Communications Recordings

At 6:15 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance. He reported that a female [now known to be Complainant #1] had run in front of his vehicle and was struck.

At 6:17 p.m., the SO reported that a nurse [now known to be CW #1] had arrived and said Complainant #1 was having a seizure. He again requested an ambulance to be urgently dispatched.

At 6:19 p.m., the SO reported Complainant #1 was in the ambulance.

Dashcam Footage – CW #1

CW #1 provided SIU with his vehicle’s dashcam footage from January 12, 2024.

At 6:13 p.m., CW #1’s camera captured the view in front of his vehicle as he travelled northbound on Central Park Drive. A fully marked PRP vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] travelled past CW #1 in the right lane, as he was stopped at a red light behind a line of vehicles. The traffic light changed to green, allowing the SO to overtake the line of vehicles.

About 2:03 minutes later, as CW #1’s vehicle approached the intersection of Hilldale Crescent, the SO’s police vehicle was seen pulled over to the side of the road with the emergency lights illuminated. A bag was in the bike lane and two shoes were on the roadway. The SO exited the police vehicle and Complainant #1 was lying on the ground near the curb with Complainant #2 kneeling next to her.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between January 17, 2024, and February 15, 2024:

• PRP communications recordings;
• PRP computer-aided dispatch report;
• PRP General Occurrence;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• BWC footage;
• Video footage from City of Brampton;
• Civilian Witness List; and
• GPS data.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 22 and 23, 2024:

• Medical records – Complainant #1;
• Medical records – Complainant #2; and
• Dashcam video footage from CW #1.

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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of January 12, 2024, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were on foot travelling eastbound on Hilldale Crescent approaching Central Park Drive. They crossed into the roadway in tandem and had passed the centre median when a police vehicle, approaching from the south, struck Complainant #1. She and Complainant #2 tumbled to the ground.

The SO was operating the police cruiser. He brought his cruiser to a stop after the collision and exited to render assistance.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported to hospital. Complainant #1 had suffered a brain bleed and a spine fracture. Complainant #2 sustained a broken right foot.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(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.

On January 12, 2024, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle in Brampton. As the vehicle was a PRP cruiser, 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.

It is unclear why it was that the SO’s cruiser struck Complainant #1. There is some evidence that Complainant #1 had crossed the street before she ran back into the roadway and was struck by the cruiser; however, this fact is disputed by another eyewitness. Even assuming this did not occur, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. At most, the evidence is suggestive of a momentary lapse of attention, something which the case law makes clear will generally not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. In this regard, it should be noted that the SO’s speed, which was only modestly above the 50 km/h speed limit at the time, does not appear to have contributed to the collision. Nor is there any indication in the evidence of any prior inattentive or dangerous driving behaviour en route to the collision.

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

Date: May 10, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit