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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 17, 2024, at 6:13 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on March 17, 2024, at around 1:10 a.m., the Complainant was observed by Witness Official (WO) #1 [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] exiting the Delhi District German Home and entering his parked vehicle. Believing that the Complainant was impaired, the officer attempted to stop the vehicle. The Complainant failed to stop and sped away at a high rate of speed. The officer discontinued his efforts, and pulled over and stopped. Approximately five minutes later, there was a single-vehicle motor vehicle collision near James Street and Bell Street involving the Complainant. The Complainant was arrested, transported to Norfolk General Hospital, and later transferred to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH). He sustained a brain bleed but was expected to make a full recovery.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/17 at 6:24 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/17 at 8:14 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 17, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 4, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on April 10, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began in the parking lot of 443 James Street, continued northbound on James Street, through the Canadian Tire parking lot at 308 James Street, and onto westbound Church Street West, and ended at the site of a motor vehicle collision in Delhi Quance Park located at the end of Church Street West, Delhi.

James Street was a four-lane asphalt roadway with two lanes for each of northbound and southbound vehicular traffic. The area was predominately commercial. Church Street West was a two-lane asphalt roadway with one lane for each of westbound and eastbound traffic. The area was a mix of residential and commercial.

Pictured below is the bend in Church Street West that the Complainant failed to negotiate, resulting in him driving onto the grass at Delhi Quance Park.

Figure 1 – Path of travel of the Complainant’s vehicle from Church Street West onto the grass

The path the Complainant drove through the park consisted of a steep decline before flattening out to grade level.

Figure 2 - The path the Complainant drove through Delhi Quance Park.

On April 5, 2024, a SIU investigator recorded the following measurements using a vehicle odometer:

• The approximate distance between the Delhi District German Home, 443 James Street, to the Canadian Tire parking lot, where the SO activated the vehicle emergency lighting of his cruiser, was .4 kilometres.
• The approximate distance between the Canadian Tire parking lot, where the SO activated the vehicle’s emergency lighting, to Church Street West and Main Street, where he discontinued pursuit and stopped, was .4 kilometres.
• The approximate distance between Church Street West, where the SO was stopped, to Church Street West, where the Complainant failed to negotiate the curve in the road and travelled down a steep hillside into Delhi Quance Park, was .2 kilometres.
• The approximate total distance from the start of the pursuit at the Delhi District German Home to Delhi Quance Park, where the Complainant left the road, was one kilometre.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

At around 1:10:55 a.m., March 17, 2024, the cruiser exited the Delhi District German Home parking lot at 25 km/h.

At around 1:11:00 a.m., the cruiser was northbound on James Street at 68 km/h.

At around 1:11:04 a.m., the cruiser was northbound on James Street at 99 km/h.

At around 1:11:14 a.m., the cruiser was northbound on James Street at 33 km/h [now known to be slowing to turn into the Canadian Tire parking lot].

At around 1:11:29 a.m., the cruiser was westbound on Church Street West at 32 km/h [now known to have exited the Canadian Tire parking lot].

Starting at around at 1:12:05 a.m., the cruiser was stopped on Church Street West at Main Street.

At around 1:16:31 a.m., the cruiser was westbound on Church Street West at 10 km/h [now known to have received permission from the Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) to resume patrol].

Starting at around 1:17:16 a.m., the cruiser was stopped at Delhi Quance Park [now known to be where the Complainant struck a tree].

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Recordings – The SO’s Cruiser

Starting at 1:10:54 a.m., March 17, 2024, the SO exited the parking lot of the Delhi District German Home and turned right (north) onto James Street. In the distance ahead, the taillights of the Complainant’s vehicle could be seen. The Complainant turned left into the Canadian Tire parking lot at 308 James Street.

Starting at 1:11:17 a.m., the SO followed the Complainant left into Canadian Tire and activated the cruiser’s emergency roof lights. The Complainant appeared to drive at an excessive rate of speed through the parking lot and over a curb before exiting and turning left onto Church Street West. The SO followed.

Starting at 1:11:39 a.m., the Complainant failed to stop for a stop sign at the intersection of Church Street West and Main Street, and continued westbound.

Starting at 1:11:42 a.m., the SO pulled to the side of Church Street West, west of Main Street, and stopped.

ICC Recordings – WO #1’s Cruiser

Starting at 1:10:55 a.m., WO #1 was northbound on James Street by the Delhi District German Home. The Complainant and the SO were ahead of WO #1 and also travelling north on James Street.

As the SO turned left into Canadian Tire, the cruiser’s emergency roof lights were activated. WO #1 continued northbound on James Street.

Starting at 1:11:25 a.m., WO #1 turned left (west) onto Main Street and then right (north) on Church Street West.

Starting at 1:12:04 a.m., WO #1 stopped at Church Street West and Main Street, where the SO was also stopped.

Radio Communications Recordings

Starting at 1:10:50 a.m., March 17, 2024, the SO advised the PCC that the Complainant had disobeyed several stop signs after leaving the German Hall. He had not pursued the vehicle for public safety reasons and was stopped at the side of the road. The SO provided a description of the Complainant and the vehicle he was driving.

Starting at 1:14:51 a.m., the PCC advised that the SO could resume regular patrol. The SO reported he had not gotten close enough to obtain a licence plate number, and that the Complainant should be stopped for impaired driving.

WO #1 was westbound on Church Street West and had located the Complainant’s vehicle at the back of the Tobacco Museum [now known to be 200 Talbot Road]. The vehicle had travelled down a hill and crashed into a tree.

Starting at 1:19:16 a.m., the Complainant was said to have a big laceration on his face. Fire and ambulance services were requested. The Complainant got out of the vehicle and was arrested for impaired driving.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 17, 2024, and April 10, 2024:

• Names and roles of involved police officers;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Arrest Report;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Video footage – collision scene;
• ICC video;
• GPS data from the SO’s and WO #1’s police vehicles;
• Communications recordings;
• Scene photographs;
• Duty book notes – WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, WO #4 and the SO; and
• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 12, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH.

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

In the early morning of March 17, 2024, the SO was operating a marked cruiser and stopped across from the Delhi District German Home where festivities were ongoing to mark St. Patrick’s Day. With the SO in a separate cruiser was WO #1. The officers were keeping an eye on the place to ensure the peace was maintained. At about 1:10 a.m., they observed a patron exit the establishment and, unsteady on his feet, walk to and enter his vehicle. When the patron started his vehicle, the officers attempted to block the vehicle’s path but were too late. It accelerated out of the parking lot travelling north on James Street.

The patron was the Complainant. The Complainant continued at speed on James Street before turning left into the Canadian Tire parking lot at 308 James Street, about 400 metres north of the Delhi District German Home. He exited the north end of the parking lot onto westbound Church Street West, disregarded the stop sign at Main Street and approached a bend in the road west of Mill Street. That is where he lost control of his vehicle, entered onto the field of the Delhi Quance Park, and crashed into a tree.

The SO had pursued the Complainant northbound on James Street, into and out of the Canadian Tire parking lot, and onto Church Street West. On seeing the Complainant fail to stop at Main Street, the officer pulled to the side of the road and discontinued pursuit. Shortly thereafter, he resumed his travel westward on Church Street West and came across the Complainant’s crashed vehicle.

The fire service and paramedics were called to the scene. The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with an acute subarachnoid hemorrhage.

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 motor vehicle collision in Delhi on March 17, 2024. As OPP officers had briefly pursued the Complainant’s vehicle prior to 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 Complainant’s injury.

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 attempting to stop the Complainant. He had seen the Complainant stumbling as he approached his vehicle and had cause to suspect that the Complainant was impaired by alcohol.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s safety, through their engagement. The officer did reach significant speeds on James Street, topping out at about 100 km/h, but there is no indication of other motorists having been directly imperiled by the SO’s driving. In fact, no other traffic was on the roadway at the time. Upon observing the Complainant speed past a stop sign on Church Street West at Main Street, the SO wisely concluded that the risk to public safety was not worth a continuation of the pursuit, and he disengaged. All told, the officer had travelled about 800 metres in under a minute before discontinuing, never getting very near the Complainant’s vehicle.

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

Date: July 15, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit