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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 26, 2024, at 8:55 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 26, 2024, at about 12:10 a.m., two officers in a LPS cruiser were travelling eastbound on Southdale Road East on their way to a call for service. They observed a white sedan going eastbound but driving in the westbound lanes at a high rate of speed. The officers began to follow the sedan, which turned southbound onto Adelaide Street South and then eastbound onto Osgoode Drive. The officers activated the roof lights to stop the sedan, but it sped off. The officers pulled over, broadcast their location, and turned around to attend their original call for service. It was later learned that the sedan had continued along Osgoode Drive and ended up losing control on a sharp bend in the road, leaving the roadway and striking a tree near a residential address on Osgoode Drive. A neighbour heard the collision and went outside to find a man laying on the ground with injuries. Emergency Medical Services responded, and the man was taken to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) Victoria Hospital. LPS attended and processed the collision. The service initially believed that because the officers did not engage in a pursuit and pulled over, the incident was not reportable to the SIU. When the LPS liaison officer learned about the incident the next morning, he contacted the SIU.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/26 at 10:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/26 at 12:09 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 2, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 27, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 2, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on Southdale Road East, a distance east of Adelaide Street South, continued south on Adelaide Street South and east on Osgoode Drive, and concluded on Osgoode Drive in the area of 583 Osgoode Drive, London.

Physical Evidence

On March 26, 2024, shortly after noon, SIU arrived at the LPS main station to view and photograph the LPS SUV involved in the events under investigation. The SUV was not equipped with an in-car camera, and the Global Positioning System for the SUV was not functioning.

One small area of dark smudged transfer was noted on the front right corner of the vehicle. This location had a small “damage reported” sticker affixed and was believed to be from an unrelated incident. No other damage or indications of recent contact were observed to the police vehicle. The emergency lighting was tested and found to be operating properly.

Osgoode Drive, east of Adelaide Street South, had a large southward curve. Snowdon Crescent intersected Osgoode Drive twice, and then Harding Crescent did the same, both being cul-de-sacs. The site of a motor vehicle collision was located on Osgoode Drive about 30 metres past the second intersection of Harding Crescent.

The impact location was the northeast side of a tree located on the front boulevard of an address on Osgoode Drive. At the impact site, bark had been stripped off the trunk from the ground to a height of 0.461 metres.

Weather reports indicated it was about -2 degrees Celsius, with damp roads, at the time of the incident.

At 1:50 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the tow facility to examine a white Honda Civic. The vehicle had sustained extensive front end damage, with a large indentation impact damage to the front right side of the radiator crushing inward and folding the hood back. The windshield had sustained impact damage and had cracks running through it from the lower right centre. The right front suspension and wheel assembly was bent outward. Both front airbags had been deployed, the driver’s door glass was shattered, and the driver’s door showed damage both externally and internally. The driver’s seatbelt was unfastened. The damage appeared consistent with a head-on collision into the tree at the impact site.

Photographs were taken to document the condition of the vehicle and damage observed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Recording – Home Doorbell Camera

At 12:39 a.m., on March 26, 2024, a Google Nest doorbell camera captured a video recording depicting an empty Osgoode Drive, lit by streetlights, with no pedestrian or vehicle traffic. A white Civic was then seen travelling southbound at a high rate of speed with no headlights on. The Civic skidded sideways and struck a tree on the grass boulevard, causing front end damage. Parts from the Civic flew off as the vehicle spun violently and ejected the Complainant from the driver’s side window. Sparks flew from underneath the Civic as smoke billowed from it. The Civic spun around four times before coming to a rest at the edge of a residential property. Parts from the Civic were strewn on the roadway. There were no other vehicles travelling on the roadway at the time, and no emergency lighting was observed.

The Complainant sat up, moaned in pain, and yelled for help. The CW approached the Complainant, who wanted an ambulance and stated his leg was broken. The CW was seen talking on his cellular telephone, but what was said was inaudible.

At four minutes and 57 seconds from the time the Civic came into view, a LPS SUV approached the scene with emergency lighting activated. The SO and the WO exited their police vehicle and approached the CW and the Complainant.

Video Footage – Esso – 769 Southdale Road East

At 12:38 a.m., March 26, 2024, a white Honda Civic with its headlights off was captured travelling eastbound on Southdale Road East by the pump cameras. Twelve seconds later, a LPS SUV was seen travelling eastbound with no emergency lighting activated.

The recording also picked up the Civic on Adelaide Street, followed 14 seconds later by the LPS SUV.

Communications Recordings / Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 12:39 a.m.,[3] on March 26, 2024, the SO reported that a white Volkswagen had just taken off from her at Osgoode Drive and Snowdon Crescent. The Volkswagen had no lights on and was being driven at a high rate of speed in the oncoming lane. The broadcast was made to alert other officers in the area. LPS dispatch broadcast that a white Volkswagen had taken off from police and was last seen southbound on Osgoode Drive towards Adelaide Street South. No licence plate marker had been obtained.

At 12:43 a.m., the CW called 911 to report that he heard a person [now known to be the Complainant] screaming for an ambulance. A white Honda Civic had struck a tree in front of a residential address on Osgoode Drive. The Complainant said his leg was broken, and he was in pain.

At 12:44 a.m., the SO and the WO arrived at the scene.

At 12:47 a.m., LPS dispatch was alerted that an Uber driver had parked his white Civic in front of a Subway restaurant. He went into the store to pick up an order and had left the keys in the Civic. When he came out, the Civic had been stolen. He could not recall his licence plate number. LPS dispatch announced that the white Honda Civic had been reported stolen.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between March 27, 2024, and April 9, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• CAD Report;
• Video from Esso gas station;
• Cellphone Video Recorded by the Complainant;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Prosecution Summary;
• Notes - the SO; and
• Notes - the WO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 27, 2024, and April 29, 2024:

• Civilian video recording from Google Nest doorbell camera; and
• LHSC medical records for the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

In the morning of March 26, 2024, the SO, in the company of the WO, was operating a LPS marked SUV eastbound on Southdale Road East on her way to a call for service when her attention was drawn to a white Honda Civic. The vehicle was also travelling eastbound, but on the westbound side of the road. It did not have its headlights operating.

Deciding to stop it for traffic infractions, the SO followed the Civic as it turned southbound onto Adelaide Street South. The Civic accelerated away from the officer and was turning the corner onto eastbound Osgoode Drive, a short distance from Southdale Road East, when the officer turned onto Adelaide Street South. The cruiser’s emergency lights were activated as the SO turned onto Osgoode Drive. By this time, the Civic was approaching a southward bend in the road, upwards of 200 metres ahead of the cruiser. It was no longer in sight when the SO rounded the bend, prompting the officer to pull over and turn off the emergency equipment. The WO radioed what had occurred and the officers resumed their travel towards their original destination.

The Complainant was driving the Civic. He lost control of the vehicle while southbound on Osgoode Drive and struck a tree. The time was about 12:39 a.m.

Moments later, the SO and the WO heard a radio broadcast regarding the collision. They made their way to the scene.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured femur and jaw, and a bilateral pulmonary contusion that caused bleeding and swelling.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in London on March 26, 2024. As the vehicle he was operating had briefly been pursued by a LPS 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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was within her rights when, having observed a motorist driving on the opposite side of the road without his vehicle’s headlights on, she decided to stop the driver for traffic offences.

The SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her brief engagement with the Honda Civic. There is no evidence of other motorists in the vicinity having been imperiled by the officer’s driving, including the Complainant. In fact, it would appear that the Complainant was not even aware of the SO’s cruiser, which was never very close to the Civic. Shortly after her decision to pursue the vehicle, the SO, reasonably, decided to discontinue and pull over, deactivating the cruiser’s emergency lights. The Civic was accelerating in a residential area at the time and there was no real prospect of stopping it without unnecessarily risking public safety.

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

Date: July 24, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit