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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 27, 2024, at 9:32 p.m., the Aylmer Police Service (APS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

According to the APS, on May 27, 2024, at about 7:37 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was en route to a ‘family dispute’ call driving on Spruce Street when he saw a motorcycle travelling at a high rate of speed in front of him. He caught up to the motorcycle and followed it. When the motorcycle turned onto Elm Street, rolling through a stop sign, the SO turned on his cruiser’s emergency lights. At Beech Street, the SO decided the rider was not going to stop, so he turned off the emergency equipment. The APS did not know whether the SO stopped the cruiser before he continued driving along Elm Street. North of Beech Street, the SO saw dust and the rider. The rider dismounted the motorcycle and fled on foot for a distance. The SO and Witness Officer (WO) #1 gave chase, found the man in a wooded area, and arrested him. The man was identified as the Complainant. The Complainant appeared to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and injured. Paramedics were called and examined the Complainant. He was taken by ambulance to St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital where he remained non-lucid. The APS advised it would notify the SIU immediately if and when a serious injury was diagnosed.

On May 28, 2024, at 12:01 a.m., the APS called to advise the Complainant had been diagnosed with a broken metatarsal in his right foot.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/28 at 6:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/28 at 12:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

48-year-old male; declined interview

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 5, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on Talbot Street West, a distance west of Myrtle Street, continued east on Talbot Street West, then north on Myrtle Street, west on Spruce Street West, and north on Elm Street, and concluded in a farmer’s field north of the dead-end of Elm Street, Aylmer.

Forensic Evidence

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

At 7:30:08 p.m., the cruiser was stationary in the driveway of St. John’s Lutheran Church at 448 Talbot Street West.

At 7:33:33 p.m., the cruiser was mobile eastbound on Talbot Street West.

At 7:33:53 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 98 km/h and emergency lighting was active for a five-second period (posted speed limit 50 km/h).

At 7:34:20 p.m., the cruiser turned north on Myrtle Street, and its speed was 31 km/h (unposted 50 km/h area).

At 7:34:26 p.m., the cruiser was northbound at 82 km/h and its emergency lights were activated for a seven-second period.

At 7:34:37 p.m., the cruiser was northbound at 96 km/h.

At 7:34:47 p.m., the cruiser was westbound on Spruce Street West at 31 km/h (unposted 50 km/h area). The cruiser reached a top speed of 99 km/h on Spruce Street West.

At 7:35:07 p.m., the cruiser was northbound on Elm Street at 28 km/h.

At 7:35:20 p.m., the cruiser was northbound at Beech Street West at 77 km/h. The cruiser reached a top speed of 90 km/h on Elm Street.

At 7:36:02 p.m., the cruiser was stationary at the north end of Elm Street

.

At 7:43:02 p.m., the cruiser was southbound on Elm Street and subsequently travelled west on White Street (known to be operated by WO #1 at this time).

At 7:43:35 p.m., the cruiser was stationary at the west end of White Street.

At 7:43:06 p.m., the cruiser was stationary at the south end of the complex at Double-J Fabrication, 60 White Street (know to be the location of the arrest of the Complainant).

At 7:59:30 the cruiser was stationary at the north end of Elm Street.

The data indicate that no emergency lighting was activated on the cruiser as it travelled on Spruce or Elm Streets.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – 250 Elm Street

The cameras did not record continuously, but were motion-activated.

At 7:35:30 p.m., a motorcycle entered camera view and travelled north on Elm Street. The motorcycle exited camera view at 7:35:31 p.m.

At 7:35:45 p.m., a marked APS SUV, operated by the SO, entered camera view and travelled north on Elm Street. The SO did not have emergency lighting activated and appeared to travel at a slower rate of speed than the Complainant. The police vehicle exited camera view at 7:35:49 p.m.

Video Footage – 279 Elm Street – Camera 1

Starting at 7:36:51 p.m., a motorcycle, operated by the Complainant, entered the camera view and travelled north on Elm Street at a high rate of speed. The motorcycle left the camera view at approximately 7:36:59 p.m.

At 7:37:00 p.m., a marked APS SUV, operated by the SO, entered camera view and travelled north on Elm Street. The SO did not have emergency lighting activated and appeared to travel at a slower rate of speed than the Complainant. At 7:37:23 p.m., the SO exited camera view.

Video Footage – 279 Elm Street – Camera 2

At 7:36:58 p.m., the Complainant entered the camera view travelling north on Elm Street.

At 7:37:00 p.m., the Complainant appeared to lose control of his motorcycle. The Complainant was ejected from the motorcycle and landed in a field. The motorcycle appeared to flip twice, and it came to rest approximately three metres west of the Complainant.

At 7:37:05 p.m., the Complainant stood up and ran west through the field, appearing to fall to the ground in tall grass. The Complainant rose and continued to run west through an adjacent field.

At 7:37:21 p.m., the SO entered the camera view travelling north on Elm Street. The Complainant continued to run west through the field.

At 7:37:44 p.m., the Complainant disappeared near a stand of trees approximately 50 metres west of the SO. The SO drove north approximately 30 metres and stopped his police vehicle at the end of Elm Street. The officer walked north towards the field and the Complainant’s motorcycle.

At 7:39:45 p.m., an unmarked APS SUV operated by WO #1 travelled north on Elm Street and stopped beside the SO’s vehicle.

APS Communications Recordings

APS officer - the SO - advised dispatch via police radio of a single-vehicle motor vehicle collision at the end of Elm Street involving a motorcycle. The driver [known to be the Complainant] had fled on foot westbound through a field.

An APS unit [known to be WO #1] broadcast that he would assist.

WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was in custody. Police dispatch advised the “custody time” was 7:49 p.m.

Another APS unit [known to be WO #2] logged on via police radio and advised he would attend the location of the collision.

The SO requested that EMS attend his location.

WO #2 asked about the injury. The SO advised that the Complainant had scrapes to his leg but claimed to be uninjured.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the APS between May 29, 2024, and May 30, 2024.

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports;
• Communications recordings;
• GPS data;
• Notes and written statement - WO #1;
• Notes and written statement - WO #2; and
• Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on May 28, 2024:

• Video footage from a business located at 279 Elm Street, Aylmer; and
• Video footage from a business located at 250 Elm Street, Aylmer.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of May 27, 2024, the SO was on patrol operating a marked SUV when his attention was drawn to a motorcycle. From his vantage point stopped on the premises of 448 Talbot Street West, the officer had observed the vehicle travelling east at speed and weaving in and out of traffic. Deciding to stop it for traffic infractions, the SO maneuvered onto the roadway, activated his emergency equipment and accelerated after the motorcycle.

The motorcycle was being operated by the Complainant. The Complainant picked up his speed and turned left to travel north on Myrtle Street. He then turned westbound onto Spruce Street West, and right onto northbound Elm Street. About a kilometre north of Spruce Street West, Elm Street ended in a dead-end, past which was a farmer’s field. The Complainant entered the farmer’s field, lost control of the motorcycle and was jettisoned from the vehicle.

The SO had caught up to the motorcycle on Myrtle Street, at which point the officer had turned on his emergency lights again to signal the Complainant to pull over. The Complainant accelerated instead. The SO continued to give chase but ultimately reduced his speed to disengage on Elm Street. Moments later, he observed the motorcycle in the distance as it crashed into the farmer’s field.

The Complainant ran away from the crash site and hid underneath a recreational vehicle located a short distance away on the grounds of a business on White Street. He was soon located and taken into custody.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured right foot.

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 on May 27, 2024. As the vehicle he was operating was being pursued by an APS cruiser 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 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 had lawful cause to want to stop the motorcycle. The officer had observed it being operated erratically on Talbot Street West.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through the duration of the pursuit. It would appear that the officer made judicious use of his emergency equipment on Talbot Street West as he navigated around traffic to catch up to the Complainant. Though he achieved significant speeds during the engagement, there is no indication in the evidence that traffic in the vicinity of the pursuit was placed at undue risk. Last, once on Elm Street, the SO had seen enough to know that the motorcycle would not stop for him, at which point he wisely decided to discontinue his active engagement and slow down. Indeed, the video footage indicates that the SO was a fair distance behind the motorcycle as it sped northwards on Elm Street and crashed into the field.

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

Date: September 24, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit