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 49-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 3, 2024, at 6:19 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, at 2:35 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) attempted to stop a vehicle for speeding. The vehicle fled at high speed and the SO pulled over to the side of the road. The SO was shortly advised by a motorist that there had been a motor vehicle collision (MVC) up ahead. The SO went to the scene of the MVC, located at Talbot Line and Iona Road, Port Stanley [now known to be Southwold]. The SO found the same vehicle that had fled from him involved in the collision. The Complainant was transported to London Health Sciences Centre-Victoria Hospital (LHSC-VH) by St. Thomas Medavie Emergency Medical Services (EMS), where he was diagnosed with an upper spine injury causing partial paralysis to his arms and leg. He also had lacerations to his forehead.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/03 at 6:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/03 at 9:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 25, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 4 and 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on March 28, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #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 between March 8, 2024, and April 3, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a stretch of Talbot Line beginning a distance west of Iona Road and ending on Talbot Line about 500 metres west of Houghton Road, Southwold.

Physical Evidence

On March 3, 2024, at 10:05 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene of the collision, located in the north side ditch of Talbot Line about 500 metres west of Houghton Road, Southwold.

The OPP Collision Reconstruction Unit led by WO #4 was on scene and conducted an accident reconstruction investigation.

GMC Savana at the scene">

Vehicle 1 - Complainant’s GMC Savana at the scene

SIU photography began at 10:14 p.m., capturing the involved vehicles within the confines of the scene. Vehicle 1 - a GMC Savana - was oriented west in the north ditch of Talbot Line approximately 30 metres west of a private driveway. There was collision damage to all exterior surfaces of this vehicle. Tire markings on the roadway and north shoulder suggested the vehicle had lost control and entered the ditch. There was no evidence of collision damage caused by contact with another vehicle.

Vehicle 2 was an OPP Unit, a Chevrolet Tahoe. This was a marked police vehicle, which displayed graphics adopted by the OPP. Emergency lighting and siren were checked and found to be operational. Vehicle 2 was oriented west and stopped on the north shoulder in close proximity to Vehicle 1. There was no collision damage suggesting contact with another vehicle.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - OPP Cruiser - March 3, 2024

At 2:31:06 p.m., the cruiser was westbound on Talbot Line, west of Iona Road, travelling at 19 km/h.

At 2:31:13 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on Talbot Line, west of Iona Road, travelling at 61 km/h.

At 2:31:40 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on Talbot Line, west of Iona Road, travelling at 182 km/h.

At 2:32:20 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on Talbot Line, approaching Iona Road, travelling at 115 km/h.

At 2:32:20 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on Talbot Line, west of Iona Road, travelling at 102 km/h.

At 2:33:11 p.m., the cruiser stopped on Talbot Line.

At 2:41:41 p.m., the cruiser stopped again on Talbot Line.

Airbag Control Module (ACM) Data – GMC Savana

At five seconds before impact, the van travelled at 77.2 km/h.

At four seconds before impact, the van travelled at 80 km/h.

At three seconds before impact, the van travelled at 104 km/h.

At two seconds before impact, the van travelled at 98 km/h.

At one second before impact, the van travelled at 127 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage - OPP Cruiser – Video 1

On March 3, 2024, the video opened with a view of the cruiser travelling on a country road in flat farmland [now known from to be westbound on Talbot Line, from Iona Road, Southwold]. At 2:30:38 p.m., a white van [now known to be a white GMC Savana] was captured travelling eastbound and passing the police vehicle.

At 2:31:02 p.m., the SO made a U-turn about 2.3 kilometres west of the intersection of Talbot Line and Iona Road.

At 2:31:27 p.m., the soundtrack on the video recording kicked-in and the cruiser’s emergency lights were activated. The SO continued eastbound with the GMC van barely in sight. The SO passed another eastbound vehicle at 2:31:46 p.m. and, for a short period of time, drove on the wrong side of the road. At the intersection of Iona Road, which was governed by a traffic light, the SO slowed and then proceeded through the intersection through a red light. The SO then accelerated, which was evident by the sound of the engine, as he continued eastbound. A white dot could be seen in the distance at the crest of a hill; it could not be determined with certainty whether it was the GMC van or a westbound vehicle. Three civilian vehicles travelled westbound and passed the SO.

At 2:32:36 p.m., the SO pulled over to the north side of the roadway and stopped about one kilometre east of the Iona Road intersection and approximately 550 metres west of the scene of the collision on the other side of a hill. The collision was not captured on video.

ICCS Footage - OPP Cruiser – Video 2

At 2:39 p.m., March 3, 2024, the cruiser started from a stopped position and travelled eastbound on Talbot Line.

At 2:40:21 p.m., the SO stopped his police vehicle on the south shoulder, facing eastbound on Talbot Line. Visible in the north side ditch was a white GMC van facing westbound.

At 2:40:45 p.m., the SO advised dispatch that he had located the vehicle. The SO advised that a passenger was on a cell phone, and he did not know where the driver was. He advised his location was on Talbot Line, west of Houghton Road. The SO moved forward and made a U-turn. At 2:41:15 p.m., he stopped on the north shoulder behind the van. A volunteer firefighter (jacket identification) stopped his vehicle and checked inside the driver’s door of the van. The SO checked out the Ontario licence plate via the police radio. The SO approached the van and spoke to the volunteer firefighter. A second police officer [now known to be WO #1] arrived. The dispatcher advised that the vehicle was registered to the Complainant, and he was subject to a driving suspension for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. The SO asked the dispatcher to call for an ambulance.

At 2:44:43 p.m., the SO asked for Fire Services and explained that someone was trapped. When asked by dispatch, the SO advised that the driver [now known to be the Complainant] was trapped behind the driver’s seat.

At 3:07 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the back of the van on a stretcher.

OPP Communications Recordings

On March 3, 2024, at 2:34:13 p.m., the SO radioed that he had a ‘Fail to Stop’ incident east of Iona Road, on Talbot Line, involving a white van. The SO advised he was waved down by someone telling him that there was a vehicle collision down the road. The SO explained that he had pulled over just east of Iona Road and had disengaged. The dispatcher asked the direction of the van and the SO stated that he had lost sight of the van, which was eastbound on Talbot Line, east of Iona Road. The SO advised he could not see the collision.

At one minute, 23 seconds into the recording, an OPP communications sergeant advised he was on the air and monitoring the call. The SO gave his kilometre reading and advised that he had disengaged and turned off his lights because he had lost sight of the van. The OPP communications sergeant asked if it was just a ‘Fail to Stop’ incident, and not a pursuit. The SO replied, “10-4 for speed.” He stated he had made a U-turn and initiated a stop, but the vehicle would not stop so he disengaged, after which he was approached by a passerby indicating there was a collision up ahead. The OPP communications sergeant approved the SO travelling to the collision scene.

At three minutes, 18 seconds into the recording, the SO reported he had located the vehicle. There was a passenger from the van on a cell phone, and he could not see the driver. The collision was on Talbot Line just west of Houghton Road.

At four minutes, 30 seconds into the recording, the SO requested EMS and Fire Services and advised that the driver was trapped. The dispatcher asked about injuries and the SO advised that the person behind the steering wheel was conversing but trapped.

The radio communications continued with broadcasts about scene maintenance and traffic point designations.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between March 4, 2024, and March 22, 2024:

• ACM data - GMC Savana;
• ACM data – OPP Tahoe;
• GPS data - OPP Tahoe;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3
• Notes - WO #4;
• Notes - the SO;
• General Report;
• OPP Tahoe Vehicle Examination;
• GMC Van Examination;
• Event Details Report;
• MVC Report;
• OPP communications recordings; and
• OPP ICCS footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on March 29, 2024:

• Ambulance call report from the St. Thomas Medavie EMS; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from LHSC-VH.

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

In the afternoon of March 3, 2024, while performing speed enforcement travelling west in his cruiser on Talbot Line, the SO clocked an eastbound vehicle at 110 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. The officer performed a U-turn, activated his emergency lights and accelerated to catch up to the van. His intention was to stop the van and issue a speeding ticket to the driver.

The van continued to accelerate away from the officer, travelling through a red light at Talbot Line’s intersection with Iona Road. It continued at speed for a distance before the driver lost control of the vehicle and crashed into the northbound ditch of Talbot Line, approximately 1.5 kilometres east of Iona Road.

The SO continued to accelerate as he made his way towards the Iona Road intersection, briefly reaching a top speed of 182 km/h. He slowed as he approached the intersection and crossed it against a red light, after which he continued for another kilometre before pulling over to the side of the road and stopping.

The SO was on the radio when a westbound motorist stopped, approached the officer and indicated that a collision had occurred up ahead. Receiving permission from a supervisor, the SO travelled to the site of the collision where he confirmed that the van he had been chasing had crashed into the ditch. The officer radioed for assistance.

The Complainant, trapped in the van, was eventually extricated from the wreckage and transported to hospital. He was diagnosed with spinal fractures and resultant paralysis.

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.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red Light Exemption

144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on March 3, 2024. As the van in which he was an occupant had briefly been pursued by an OPP officer before the crash, 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 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 his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was in the execution of his lawful duties when he decided to stop the van for a speeding infraction. The officer was performing speed enforcement on the roadways and had measured the speed of the van on Talbot Line well in excess of the 80 km/h limit.

With respect to the manner in which the SO comported himself as he pursued the van, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The officer’s speed was high, at times, extremely high, but some speed was necessary if he was going to make up ground on the van that had sped past him in the opposite direction. Moreover, the officer’s top speed was short-lived, motorists in the vicinity were given notice of the cruiser via its emergency lights, and there is no evidence of third-party drivers having to take evasive action to avoid the cruiser. The SO’s decision to travel through a red light without stopping is also subject to scrutiny. Pursuant to sections 144(18) and (20) of the Highway Traffic Act, the officer ought to have come to a stop before proceeding through the intersection. That said, the officer did slow and appeared to ensure there was no traffic in play before he safely entered and then exited the intersection. Importantly, there is no suggestion that the SO unduly pushed the van. Indeed, he was never very close to the van during the active engagement and had, prudently, disengaged before the collision occurred.

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

Date: June 28, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit