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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 14, 2024, at 7:21 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, at 4:51 p.m., a PRP officer tried to stop a motorcycle driven by the Complainant. The Complainant attempted to flee, and his motorcycle struck the driver’s side of the police cruiser. He then fled on foot but was apprehended after a short distance. The Complainant was taken to Credit Valley Hospital (CVH) and diagnosed with a fractured right collar bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/14 at 7:44 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/14 at 8:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 14, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 17, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 22, 2024.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

Witness Official #1 was interviewed on July 20, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on Matheson Boulevard West in the area of McLaughlin Road, and continued east on Matheson Boulevard West until about 135 Matheson Boulevard West, Mississauga.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Matheson Boulevard West in the area of interest was an east-west, four-lane roadway with a centre turn lane.

In the area of 135 Matheson Boulevard West, contact and scrape marks were found on the road surface near the lane paintings separating the two eastbound lanes. They continued towards the south curb, where a motorcycle was present. Three pieces of plastic with fasteners attached were found on the road in the eastbound curb lane. These matched the body molding panel for the cruiser.

Figure 1 - Scene of motor vehicle collision

The Complainant operated a yellow 2008 Suzuki GSX-R motorcycle. It was un-plated and located facing east on its left side. The motorcycle was behind (west of) the cruiser. The motorcycle had scrapes and impact damage on both sides, consistent with road contact. A black plastic body panel was stuck on the right side of the motorcycle. The molding appeared to match the panel missing from the cruiser.

Figure 2 - Motorcycle with black plastic body panel stuck on its side

The SO was operating a marked Ford Explorer SUV. The cruiser was stopped facing east in the eastbound curb lane of Matheson Boulevard West. Damage was visible to the driver side rear door. A body molding panel was missing from the lower portion of the driver side rear door.

Figure 3 - Close-up of damage to the police vehicle

Forensic Evidence

Global-positioning System (GPS) Data - The SO’s Police Cruiser

The SO travelled northbound on McLaughlin Road, and then eastbound on Matheson Boulevard West. He accelerated on Matheson Boulevard West to a top speed of 159 km/h. The speed limit was 60 km/h.

The SO travelled through two intersections equipped with traffic signals.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On June 14, 2024, at 4:53 p.m., the SO ran to the end of a parking lot adjacent to a large green space. He entered the green space, made a radio transmission, and then returned to the parking lot, visibly out of breath.

At 4:55 p.m., the SO walked through the parking lot and around a building [later identified as 5600 Cancross Court].

At 4:56 p.m., a marked cruiser with two officers approached the parking lot. The SO informed them that he had seen a man [the Complainant] running around the building and into some bushes. The SO was unsure of his direction.

The SO recounted over the radio that the Complainant had passed him and fled on a motorcycle, which had no licence plate. The SO attempted to pursue but lost sight of him as the motorcycle sped away.

At 5:00 p.m., the SO said that a motorcycle collided with his cruiser, causing the bike to slide, after which the Complainant got up and ran away.

At 5:07 p.m., additional officers arrived, including a dog handler. The SO detailed the incident, pointing to where the motorcycle collided with his cruiser.

At 5:10 p.m., the SO used a cell phone map to direct the dog handler to the location where the Complainant had run. The SO noted that the motorcycle had contacted his cruiser’s rear driver side fender.

BWC Footage - WO #2, PRP Officer #1, PRP Officer #2, and WO #1

On June 14, 2024, at 5:04 p.m., WO #2 ran through a field followed by WO #1. They located the Complainant, who was kneeling with his hands raised. WO #2 ordered the Complainant to the ground and arrested him. The Complainant complained of back pain and asked to go to the hospital, mentioning that he had been hit by a car. As WO #2 and WO #1 assisted the Complainant, he told them his collarbone and leg hurt, and that he fled because he was scared. He stated that his motorcycle, which was registered but not insured, had been involved in a collision.

At 5:07 p.m., paramedics were called, and the Complainant’s wife arrived. WO #1 explained the situation and prevented her from approaching the Complainant.

At 5:53 p.m., the Complainant was placed inside an ambulance, accompanied by PRP Officer #2, who repositioned his handcuffs to the front.

PRP Communications Recordings

On June 14, 2024, at 4:51 p.m., the SO reported a collision involving an eastbound motorcycle. The SO advised via police radio that the collision occurred at Matheson Boulevard West, near Hurontario Street.

By 4:52 p.m., the SO reported the motorcyclist [the Complainant] fled on foot. The SO ran after the Complainant, who headed west past 5600 Cancross Court and into an adjacent green space. The Complainant was described as wearing a helmet, a motorcycle jacket, and grey pants. It was reported that the Complainant had crashed into the side of the SO’s cruiser. The motorcycle was also noted to be un-plated. The SO relayed over his radio that the driver [the Complainant] had crashed into his cruiser and fallen to the road, after which he got up and fled on foot.

At 4:59 p.m., a civilian witness [the CW] advised she had seen the Complainant running southbound through a green space.

At 5:01 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 arrived in the area to the west.

At 5:04 p.m., the Complainant was arrested in a nearby field.

At 5:05 p.m., WO #1 had the Complainant in custody and was preparing to escort him through the woods towards McLaughlin Road.

At 5:09 p.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant might have a broken collarbone and requested paramedics.

At 5:21 p.m., WO #1 reported that he was exiting onto McLaughlin Road, north of Ceremonial Drive.

At 5:37 p.m., WO #2 confirmed that the Complainant was the registered owner of the motorcycle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between June 22, 2024, and July 3, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and the SO;
• GPS data - the SO’s Cruiser;
• BWC footage - the SO, PRP Officer #3, WO #2, PRP Officer #1 and PRP Officer #2, and WO #1; and
• Photograph.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on June 21, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from CVH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of June 14, 2024, the Complainant was operating a motorcycle eastbound on Matheson Boulevard West when his vehicle came to the attention of the SO. The Complainant was operating the motorcycle without a licence plate. Realizing the officer was behind him, the Complainant accelerated and continued eastbound.

The SO had just turned onto Matheson Boulevard West from McLaughlin Road when he noticed the Complainant. Deciding to stop him for a traffic infraction, the officer accelerated eastward, reaching a top speed of about 160 km/h. The roadway was governed by a 60 km/h speed limit. Having caught up to the motorcycle a distance west of Hurontario Street, the SO slowed and pulled alongside the Complainant in the curb lane. Shortly thereafter, the vehicles collided. The Complainant was thrown from his vehicle, which came to rest behind the cruiser in the curb lane.

The Complainant fled from the scene on foot. He was eventually located close to the scene and arrested.

At hospital following the arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured collarbone.

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 with a PRP cruiser on June 14, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The driver of the cruiser – 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 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 when he decided to stop the Complainant for not having a licence plate on his vehicle – a Highway Traffic Act infraction.

The manner in which the SO drove after the Complainant, while open to legitimate scrutiny, fell short of constituting a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. There is a body of evidence suggesting that the SO, having pulled parallel with the Complainant, intentionally turned into his motorcycle causing the collision. The Complainant is said to have struck front driver side door of the cruiser in this rendition of events. The SO denies he did so, claiming the Complainant struck his vehicle when he drifted into the rear driver side of the cruiser. The forensic evidence lends credence to the SO’s account of the events. There was no damage to the driver door, but damage was evident in the area of the rear driver side door. The SO’s speed – more than two-and-a-half times the 60 km/h speed limit at its height – was dangerous. Arguably, considerations of public safety ought to have counselled the officer against that speed. On the other hand, the road was in good condition, the area was predominantly commercial in nature, the weather was clear and dry, the officer was operating his emergency lights, the excessive speed occurred over a relatively short distance, and there was no evidence of any third-party having been directly imperiled by the SO’s driving. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s conduct transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: October 10, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit