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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 29, 2024, at 10:35 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier in the evening, two OPP officers from the Mississauga OPP Detachment were patrolling eastbound on Highway 407 when they observed a dark-coloured Honda Civic that had been reported stolen. The officers followed the Honda Civic for a time, and watched as it exited the highway in the vicinity of Airport Road. A decision was made to stop the Honda Civic at the top of the exit ramp, where it was approaching a red traffic signal. The officers activated their emergency lights, but the Honda Civic moved to the right and crossed over lanes of traffic on Airport Road before colliding with a civilian vehicle. The driver of the civilian vehicle was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured wrist and hand injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/29 at 11:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/30 at 1:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Reconstructionists assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

33-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on January 31, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 17, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on January 30, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the Highway 407 eastbound off-ramp onto Airport Road, Brampton.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU investigators arrived at the scene at 1:15 a.m. on January 30, 2024.

Highway 407 is generally oriented in an eastbound-westbound manner, although in the area of the collision it is briefly oriented in a north-south orientation. Airport Road is oriented in a northwest-southeast orientation. For simplicity, in this report Highway 407 will be referenced as being oriented in an east-west orientation, while Airport Road will be deemed to be oriented in a north-south orientation.

The Highway 407 exit ramp meets Airport Road on the west side of Airport Road. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. Northbound and southbound traffic is separated at both sides of the intersection by a concrete median. The intersection is illuminated by artificial lighting. The speed limit on Airport Road is posted as 80 km/h.

The collision occurred in the northbound lanes of Airport Road, just south of the intersection. The collision occurred at night.

Tire markings noted at the scene were consistent with the Honda Civic operated by Witness #1 turning right on the exit ramp and crossing the traffic median, before colliding with the Complainant’s vehicle in the middle northbound lane of Airport Road.

Figure 1 – Scene of the collision

Figure 2 – The collision between the Complainant’s and Witness #1’s vehicles

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s and the WO’s Cruisers

GPS data for the police vehicles operated by the SO and the WO were reviewed. The data indicated the officers departed the Mississauga OPP Detachment and drove west of the detachment.

At 6:55 p.m., the SO and the WO entered Highway 407 at Mississauga Road and travelled eastbound. They accelerated to 140 km/h. Just west of the Highway 410 overpass, the WO’s GPS data indicated his speed was 150 km/h. The SO’s speed in the area was 147 km/h.

In the area of Bramalea Road, the SO and the WO slowed to 94 km/h and 91 km/h, respectively. As they approached the exit ramp to Airport Road, both police officers were travelling at 116 km/h, and they accelerated to 124 km/h on the exit ramp.

Both police officers slowed as they approached the intersection and were travelling at between 80 and 90 km/h as they were arriving at the intersection. Both officers came to a stop after entering the intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

On January 29, 2024, at 7:00 p.m., the ICCS in the SO’s vehicle recorded him travelling eastbound on Highway 407 in Lane 1 (the left-most lane). There was a dark Honda Civic travelling in Lane 3 with no rear lights on.

At 7:00:59 p.m., the Honda signalled a lane change to Lane 4.

At 7:01:05 p.m., the Honda exited onto the exit ramp for Airport Road. The SO also moved over to the exit ramp for Airport Road. The SO was initially behind the Honda, but he then pulled along the driver’s side of the vehicle.

At 7:01:21 p.m., the Honda signalled a right turn onto Airport Road, while the SO stayed in Lane 2. The traffic light at Airport Road was red. The SO activated his emergency lights.

At 7:01:26 p.m., the Honda turned right onto Airport Road, crossed over all southbound lanes, and mounted the median separating the southbound from the northbound lanes of Airport Road.

At 7:01:27 p.m., the Honda collided with a vehicle in Lane 2 of the northbound Airport Road lanes.

At 7:01:31 p.m., a marked OPP SUV [the WO] stopped in the southbound lanes of Airport Road beside the traffic median.

At 7:01:32 p.m., the SO exited his police cruiser and ran towards the collision.

At 7:02:00 p.m., the driver of the involved Honda Civic was removed from the vehicle and arrested.

ICCS Footage – The WO’s Cruiser

On January 29, 2024, at 6:56 p.m., the ICCS in the WO’s vehicle documented him travelling on Highway 407, in Lane 2. A dispatcher asked whether the York Regional Police were aware that they (the SO and the WO) were on their way. The WO moved into Lane 1, behind the SO.

At 6:59:28 p.m., the SO’s brake lights activated, and he slowed in the area of Bramalea Road.

At 6:59:51 p.m., a Honda Civic, rear lights not illuminated, moved from Lane 1 to Lane 2. The SO drove past the Honda and again applied his brakes. The WO stayed behind the Honda.

At 7:00:00 p.m., as the WO came up along the driver side of the Honda, the driver of the Honda signalled a lane change and abruptly moved into Lane 3, cutting off another motorist travelling in that lane. There were no lights operating on the Honda.

At 7:00:12 p.m., the WO was in Lane 1 behind the Honda. The SO was further ahead in Lane 1. The Honda driver applied his brakes.

At 7:00:34 p.m., the SO slowed in Lane 1 as they passed under the Torbram Road overpass. The SO radioed the WO that the Honda with no lights was stolen. The Honda passed the SO.

At 7:00:42 p.m., the WO moved into Lane 3, behind the Honda. The SO was in Lane 1. The WO asked the SO to let him know his intentions. The SO told the dispatcher they were eastbound on Highway 407 at Airport Road and a Honda Civic was travelling in Lane 3 at 100 km/h with no lights on. He provided the licence plate number.

At 7:01:00 p.m., the Honda moved into Lane 4, and the SO moved into Lane 4. The Honda was on the exit ramp for Airport Road. The SO also moved to the exit ramp for Airport Road.

At 7:01:09 p.m., the Honda moved to the curb lane, while the SO was in Lane 1, and the WO was behind the Honda. The SO then moved to Lane 2 of the ramp.

At 7:01:17 p.m., the SO reported over the radio that he saw the driver of the Honda wearing a black mask. The SO advised they would try to initiate a traffic stop at the traffic light.

At 7:01:21 p.m., the WO asked for a ‘Code 10-3’ (restricted radio communications). As the Honda approached Airport Road, the traffic light was red. The SO activated his emergency lights.

At 7:01:22 p.m., the WO activated his emergency lights.

At 7:01:24 p.m., the Honda signalled and turned right to travel southbound on Airport Road.

At 7:01:25 p.m., the Honda crossed the southbound lanes, mounted the traffic median, and continued into the northbound lanes. It then collided with a vehicle travelling northbound in Lane 2 of the northbound lanes.

At 7:01:36 p.m., the WO drove onto the southbound lanes of Airport Road and stopped. He exited his vehicle and yelled, “Put your hands up!”

At 7:02:56 p.m., an officer advised the dispatcher that the vehicle had taken off from them and crashed into oncoming traffic, and there was one male in custody. The driver of the Honda that the SO and the WO attempted to stop was removed from his vehicle and arrested.

Radio Communications Recordings

The OPP radio communications recordings were reviewed. The radio transmissions documented the SO reporting a Honda Civic travelling 100 km/h in Lane 3 of Highway 407 with no lights operating. Following the collision, requests were made to the communications centre to contact 407 ETR to request a copy of any video recordings of the incident.

Video Footage – 407 ETR

Traffic camera footage received from 407 ETR were recorded by a camera mounted on a light pole on the southwest corner of the intersection, and a camera on the gantry above the exit ramp. The recordings were consistent with the events recorded in the police ICCS recordings.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the OPP between January 30, 2024, and February 17, 2024:

• Duty notes of the SO;
• Duty notes of the WO;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Training records for the SO;
• GPS data for the vehicles operated by the SO and the WO;
• A list of OPP members assigned to investigate the incident (January 31, 2024);
• A statement the OPP obtained from the Complainant;
• Communications recordings; and
• ICCS recordings from the SO’s and the WO’s cruisers

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the 407 ETR corporation on February 8, 2024:

• A video recording from a traffic light pole; and
• A video recording from the toll gate over the eastbound Airport Road exit ramp.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of January 29, 2024, while travelling eastbound on Highway 407 towards Newmarket where they were to take custody of a prisoner from York Regional Police, the SO and the WO came across a Honda Civic. The Civic, also proceeding eastbound, was travelling well below the speed limit without its taillights on. The SO checked the Honda’s licence plate and learned that the vehicle had been reported stolen. He decided they would attempt to stop the Honda.

The Honda was being operated by Witness #1. Aware of the police presence around him, Witness #1 maneuvered rightward, eventually making his way onto the Airport Road off-ramp.

The SO and the WO, the former leading the way, followed the Honda onto the off-ramp. Their intention was to perform a tandem stop in which they would position their cruisers ahead of, and behind, the Honda. The SO accelerated on the off-ramp to get ahead of the Honda, which had maneuvered into the right-most lane, but was unable to do so. As the Honda reached the Airport Road intersection, it turned right to travel southbound through a red light. Unable to remain in the southbound lanes because of its speed, the Honda jumped the centre median into the northbound lanes of travel where it struck another Honda Civic head-on.

The SO’s cruiser was alongside the driver’s side of the Honda as they approached the red light at the Airport Road intersection. Unable to get ahead of the Honda, the cruiser came to a screeching stop past the red light in the intersection. The WO’s cruiser came to a controlled stop just past the red light in the southbound lanes of Airport Road. The officers exited their vehicles and took Witness #1 into custody.

The driver of the Honda Civic who had been struck – the Complainant – was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right wrist.

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 when his vehicle was struck by another vehicle in Brampton on January 29, 2024. As the vehicle that had struck the Complainant’s vehicle was fleeing from police at the time, 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 when, coming upon a vehicle without taillights and reported stolen, he decided to attempt to stop it.

With respect to his manner of driving during his engagement with the Honda Civic, I am unable to reasonably concluded that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Up until the end of that engagement, there was nothing of concern in the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser. His decision to accelerate on the off-ramp in a failed attempt to get ahead of the Honda is subject to scrutiny. The officer ought to have been more mindful of the red light facing him, which, because of his speed, he travelled right through risking an accident with southbound traffic. That lone indiscretion, however, was not sufficient to render his driving a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances.

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

Date: May 22, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit