SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OVI-174
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
Information Restrictions
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.
Mandate Engaged
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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On April 21, 2024, at 4:39 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
At 10:46 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a Ford Explorer with automated licence plate recognition (ALPR) technology when he saw a Hyundai Santa Fe in the area of Beach Road and Gage Avenue North being operated in a suspicious manner. He tried to stop the vehicle, but it accelerated away. The SO did not pursue. The officer reviewed the ALPR data and ascertained the licence plate marker, learning the registered owner was a suspended driver. He attended the registered owner’s home address in the area of Edgemont Street with Witness Official (WO) #1, who was in another marked SUV. The Santa Fe subsequently arrived with two men in it. WO #1 pulled in behind the Santa Fe just as the driver, now known to be the Complainant, exited the vehicle. When the Complainant saw WO #1, he re-entered the vehicle, reversed, and drove into WO #1’s cruiser. The Complainant then drove forward as the SO pulled in front of the Santa Fe to block it. The Santa Fe struck the SO’s SUV and the air bags deployed in both vehicles. The passenger, now known to be CW #1, fled and was later arrested by WO #2. CW #1 was taken to the Hamilton General Hospital, where a gash above his left eye was sutured. The Complainant was taken to Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) Juravinski Hospital where he was diagnosed with a small fracture of the wing tip of the 7th vertebra.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/21 at 4:45 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/21 at 5:51 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on April 21, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 21 and 23, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on May 17, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on April 24, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in the area of Edgemont Street, Hamilton.
Physical Evidence
On April 21, 2024, SIU forensic investigators attended the area of Edgemont Street, Hamilton. The weather was clear and cool, and the roads were dry. The roadway was paved with one lane in each direction. Parking was permitted on the west side of the roadway. The posted speed limit was 40 km/h.
Three vehicles were at the scene and examined.
There was a 2022 Ford Explorer, black and white with HPS markings and “Police Supervisor” displayed. This vehicle had collision damage to the front right corner. The vehicle’s emergency lighting, siren, and horn were checked and found to function as designed. The vehicle was equipped with an in-car camera (ICC).
Figure 1 - HPS vehicle with collision damage to the front passenger side
There was a 2015 Hyundai Santa Fe SUV, black in colour. Both the driver front air bag and front passenger air bag had deployed, as did both side air bags. The vehicle had extensive collision damage to the front left as well as collision damage to the left rear.
Figure 2 - The Hyundai Santa Fe SUV with collision damage to the front driver side
Figure 3 The Hyundai Santa Fe SUV with collision damage to the rear driver side
There was another 2022 Ford Explorer, black and white with HPS markings. This vehicle was in contact with the front left corner of the Santa Fe. The front driver’s steering wheel and knee air bags had deployed. The cruiser had collision damage to the front left corner. There was a star-shaped crack to the windshield driver side. This cruiser was also equipped with an ICC system. The vehicle’s emergency lighting, siren, and horn were checked and found to function as designed.
Figure 4 – The HPS vehicle with collision damage to the front driver side
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
ICC Footage – WO #1
Starting from about 10:44 a.m., April 21, 2024, WO #1 travelled towards Edgemont Street. About 55 seconds later, WO #1 made a right turn onto Edgemont Street and stopped behind a parked black Santa Fe. The driver’s door opened and was immediately closed. As WO #1 stopped behind the Santa Fe, the reverse lights of the Santa Fe were activated. WO #1 turned on his emergency lighting.[3] At 10:45:31 a.m., the Santa Fe reversed into WO #1’s police vehicle. About ten residences ahead, a set of headlights could be seen travelling towards WO #1.
As the Santa Fe travelled around the parked Honda in front of it, the SO positioned his police vehicle on an angle, blocking the Complainant’s lane of traffic. The Complainant moved to the right, and the SO activated his emergency lighting. At 10:45:35 a.m., the Complainant drove into the left front corner of the SO’s SUV, which appeared to have just stopped. The impact caused the SO’s left front tire and the Complainant’s left front tire to come up off the roadway.
Twelve seconds later, WO #1 made his way to the scene of the motor vehicle collision. The Complainant came out of the driver’s door and went to the ground as WO #1 arrived. WO #1 kneeled by the Complainant’s back and handcuffed him with his hands behind his back. WO #1 stood up and made a radio communication.
At 10:46:22 a.m., WO #1 opened the SO’s front passenger door, and then ran around to assist the SO who remained in his police SUV. Twenty-two seconds later, CW #1 exited the Santa Fe and ran down the sidewalk. WO #1 pursued him on foot briefly. The SO got out of his SUV and stood on the passenger side as the Complainant moved into a seated position. WO #1 made his way back to the collision scene and assisted in positioning the Complainant on his right side.
At 10:49 a.m., a third police officer arrived followed by a fourth.
At 10:52 a.m., a man was allowed to move the parked vehicle in front of WO #1’s SUV.
At 10:57 a.m., emergency medical services (EMS) arrived and, at 11:06 a.m., a second ambulance arrived.
At 11:07 a.m., the Complainant walked to the second ambulance, which departed ten minutes later.
ICC Footage - The SO
At 10:45:33 a.m., April 21, 2024, the SO drove up Edgemont Street. Emergency lighting on WO #1’s SUV was activated and could be seen in the distance. A Santa Fe travelled southbound from the west curb of Edgemont Street. The Santa Fe maneuvered around a parked Honda SUV on the west curb and accelerated southbound towards the SO. Two seconds later, the Santa Fe drove into the SO’s SUV and the air bags deployed.
The Complainant opened the driver’s door of the Santa Fe and WO #1 ran down the street to take the Complainant into custody. Shortly after, CW #1 exited the passenger side of the Santa Fe and ran northbound on the sidewalk. WO #1 ran after CW #1 while the SO remained with the Complainant, who was on the ground.
WO #1 returned to the site of the collision to deal with both the Complainant and the SO until other police officers and EMS arrived.
Police Communications Recordings[4]
On April 21, 2024, the SO broadcast that a Hyundai Santa Fe was driving at a high rate of speed on Beach Road. The SO indicated his speed was 50 km/h and he was not in pursuit of the Santa Fe. Because of distance, the SO was unable to make any observations of the driver or licence plate. Shortly after, he broadcast that he had checked the ALPR and obtained the licence plate. Dispatch responded that the licence plate returned to a female of an address in the area of Edgemont Street, and she was a prohibited driver for unpaid fines.
About two minutes later, the SO said, “There is a possible coming up the street.” About 30 seconds later, the SO request additional units. WO #1 broadcast that someone had been arrested, and then asked for EMS to attend the location.
WO #1 broadcast that someone was running away, and he was going to stay with the arrested party. About two minutes later, WO #2 had the fleeing man (CW #1) in custody and indicated CW #1 had a gash over his left eye.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between April 21, 2024, and April 24, 2024:
- ICC footage - the SO;
- ICC footage - WO #1;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - the SO;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Communications recordings;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Arrest Report;
- Global Positioning System data; and
- HPS Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 22, 2024:
- Medical records from the HHS Juravinski Hospital.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.
In the morning of April 21, 2024, while on patrol in a marked SUV, the SO observed a Hyundai Santa Fe being operated in an erratic manner on Barton Street East. He followed it for a period and watched as it disregarded stop signs and began to accelerate away from him. The officer disengaged and broadcast the vehicle’s direction of travel. Reviewing the data from his cruiser’s ALPR, the SO came to learn that the vehicle was registered to an address in the area of Edgemont Street.
With WO #1, the SO travelled to the address. WO #1 positioned his cruiser nearby and the SO came to a stop on Edgemont Street a distance south of the address. The plan was to wait for the Santa Fe to return to the address, at which time the officers would approach the vehicle to investigate its driver for the traffic infractions the SO had observed.
The Complainant was operating the Santa Fe. An acquaintance was with him in the front passenger seat. They made their way to the address and the Complainant brought the vehicle to a stop facing south against the west curb at the address. The Complainant and his companion were just about to exit the Santa Fe when the Complainant noticed a marked police SUV behind his vehicle. WO #1, having observed the Santa Fe travel past him, had followed the vehicle to the location. The Complainant immediately placed the Santa Fe into reverse gear, drove backwards into the police SUV, and then accelerated forward around another vehicle parked just in front of him.
On seeing what was happening, the SO drove northward on Edgemont Street intending to block the Santa Fe’s path of travel. As he neared the vehicle, he slowed and angled his cruiser into the southbound lane of travel. The Complainant, without slowing, attempted to drive around the cruiser’s passenger side. The maneuver failed and the Santa Fe’s front driver’s side struck the cruiser’s front driver’s side, bringing both vehicles to a stop.
WO #1 made his way to the scene of the collision and arrested the Complainant without incident. The Complainant’s passenger exited the Santa Fe and fled the area but was later located and arrested.
The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured neck.
The SO also sustained injuries in the collision.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest on April 21, 2024, in Hamilton. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 arrest and 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 seeking to stop the Santa Fe to take its driver into custody. He had observed the Santa Fe travel rearward into WO #1’s cruiser and had cause to believe that the Complainant was subject to arrest for dangerous driving.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety as he used his cruiser to block the Santa Fe’s path of travel. The use of a police cruiser to block a moving vehicle is always associated with a risk of collision. That risk, however, was a calculated one in this case – there were no pedestrians on the sidewalk at the time, nor third-party motorists on the road, and the Santa Fe had only just started to accelerate away from WO #1’s cruiser and was not travelling at dangerously high speed when the SO maneuvered in front of it. Finally, I note that there was some urgency in ensuring the Santa Fe did not escape. It had already been observed being operated in an erratic manner, and the odds were good that it would repeat this pattern if the Complainant managed to get away.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: August 19, 2024
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 3) Emergency lighting cannot be seen in the ICC footage of WO #1, but it was captured on the recording from the SO. It was activated as soon as WO #1 pulled in behind the Santa Fe. [Back to text]
- 4) No times provided on the communications recordings. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.