SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OVI-262

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 19, 2024, at 2:42 p.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU and reported he had suffered an injury in a vehicle collision involving the Peel Regional Police (PRP).

According to the Complainant, he was riding a friend’s Suzuki GSX-R600 motorcycle on Lakeshore Road on the afternoon of June 11, 2024 [the date was, in fact, June 10, 2024]. While in the vicinity of Cawthra Road in Mississauga, he was involved in a collision with a PRP vehicle. Paramedics were called to the scene, but the Complainant declined treatment. He was later taken to hospital by a relative where it was determined he had sustained a fractured scapula.

The Complainant was charged with the offence of dangerous driving, and issued two Provincial Offence Notices for Highway Traffic Act (HTA) offences.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/20 at 8:52 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/20 at 11:02 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 21, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 29, 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

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

WO #4 Not interviewed; interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on July 9, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the westbound lanes of Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga, just east of the roadway’s intersection with Lagoon Street/Hampton Crescent.

Physical Evidence

The SIU did not attend the scene of this incident, as it was not initially reported to the SIU.

The scene of the incident was recorded on BWC recordings and in photographs recorded by WO #2 and WO #1. The Complainant also provided scene photographs he took as he was being driven from the scene.

The incident occurred in the area of the Cavenshore Shopping Centre, a shopping mall located on the north side of Lakeshore Road East. On the west end of the plaza was an exit road – Lagoon Street - from the plaza onto Lakeshore Road East.

On the south side of the intersection at Lagoon Street, Hampton Crescent ran north and south from Lakeshore Road East. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights.

Lakeshore Road was level with good sightlines in the area.

The Complainant told the SIU he had departed the Port Credit Athletic gym immediately prior to the collision. That gym was located at the rear of the plaza, at its west end.

There was a McDonald’s Restaurant located in the Cavenshore Shopping Centre, at 601 Lakeshore Road East. On the south side of Lakeshore Road, at 600 Lakeshore Road East, across from the McDonald’s restaurant, there was an Osmow’s Shawarma restaurant.

In the photographs received by the SIU, a blue and white Suzuki GSX-R600 motorcycle was resting on its right side on the north sidewalk of Lakeshore Road East, in the area of a bus shelter east of the intersection at Lagoon Street. A PRP Marine Unit pick-up truck was stopped in a northeasterly orientation in the westbound lanes of Lakeshore Road East. When examined by the SIU on June 24, 2024, no contact damage was identified on the PRP Marine Unit truck.

The Suzuki GSX-R600 motorcycle had scrapes to the lower sections on the right side. There was also scraping damage to the left mirror of the motorcycle and scrapes to various surfaces on the left side of the motorcycle. Scuffing observed on the left side of the front cowling and on the inside of the left mirror was consistent with the mirror having been folded in and contacting the cowling.

Expert Evidence

SIU Reconstruction - Braking Analysis Report

To reconstruct the movement of the two vehicles, the speed of the police vehicle and motorcycle needed to be ascertained. Video footage from 550 Lakeshore Road East (Rincon de Espana) was used to do this. In the video, both vehicles are seen approaching one another. The police vehicle initially turns right from Hampton Crescent to travel eastbound in the eastbound passing lane of Lakeshore Road East while the motorcycle is travelling westbound in the westbound lane of Lakeshore Boulevard. Reference points (concrete utility poles) in the foreground and background were used to estimate the position of the two vehicles at specific times. The distance travelled by each vehicle between these times allowed for a calculation of their approximate speeds.

The calculations show that the police truck was travelling just over 30 km/h as it travelled eastbound after turning right. The police turned their roof lights on at the end of the right turn. When the police truck was about 25 metres east of the intersection with Hampton Crescent (about two seconds after turning on the roof lights), the driver steered abruptly to the left. The police truck crossed in a diagonal orientation across the westbound lanes, coming to rest straddling the westbound curb lane and passing lane.

During this time, the motorcycle was travelling westbound. The motorcycle accelerated up to just over 50 km/h as it passed by the police truck. Just under one second after passing the police truck, the motorcycle capsized and fell on its right side, sliding along the sidewalk.

The following table highlights the times and positions of the police vehicle and motorcycle.

Time Police Position Motorcycle Position
t = 0s Police truck is in-line with the east stop line at Hampton Crescent Located roughly 90 metres from the intersection travelling westbound and accelerating
t = 2.0s Truck has moved about 18 metres east and driver is just starting to steer to the left Located about 75 metres from the intersection and about 50 metres from the truck, and is accelerating
t = 3.0s Truck starts to cross the centreline and enter the westbound lanes Motorcycle is 30 metres from the truck, is still accelerating and travelling about 40 km/h
t = 4.0s Truck is fully in the westbound lanes, diagonal to the lane direction Motorcycle is about 12 metres from the truck and travelling 50 km/h
t = 5.0s Truck is stopped straddling the westbound lanes Motorcycle passes the front of the truck and is about to capsize

The analysis considered the hypothetical situation where the motorcyclist attempted to brake to a stop instead of steering around the front end of the truck.

The officer starts to turn left in front of the motorcycle when the motorcycle is about 50 metres away. This is roughly three seconds before the two vehicles pass by each other. The front left corner of the truck begins to cross the centreline about 0.5 seconds after the initiation of the steer, when the vehicles are about ten metres closer (that is, 40 metres away from each other). Once it becomes clear that the truck is being steered left is when one would expect a rider in the Complainant’s position to make an avoidance decision.

It takes time for a driver to decide on an appropriate avoidance. This is typically referred to as a driver’s perception-response time. Research shows that most drivers, alerted to a potential hazard, will begin to respond about one second after the hazard becomes visible. Assuming the left turn of the police vehicle is where the hazard starts, one would expect the Complainant to begin braking about one second after the left turn becomes visible. This means the vehicles were about 40 metres apart when the left turning police truck was first visible as a hazard, and the vehicles were about 20 metres apart at the end of the motorcycle rider’s perception-response time and when braking could begin.

A motorcycle with an experienced rider can safely brake at a deceleration rate of 0.6g. At a speed of 40-50 km/h, a motorcycle needs about 11-16 metres to come to a full stop. Since the Complainant had about 20 metres to stop, there was enough distance for him to safely brake and avoid colliding with the police truck.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - 550 Lakeshore Road East

This camera was located at 550 Lakeshore Road East, on the southwest corner of the intersection at Hampton Crescent.

The video recording time-stamp listed the recording start time as June 10, 2024, at 3:43:27 p.m. A motorcycle was captured travelling eastbound on Lakeshore Road East, east of the intersection. A PRP Marine Unit pick-up truck was not visible at that point. The motorcycle continued eastbound in the curb lane, but a billboard blocked a view of it briefly.

At three seconds of elapsed time, the PRP Marine Unit truck appeared, travelling northbound on Hampton Crescent. The truck turned right onto eastbound Lakeshore Road.

At seven seconds of elapsed time, the motorcycle rider conducted a U-turn.

At nine seconds of elapsed time, the emergency lights of the PRP vehicle activated, and the motorcycle was by then travelling westbound in the westbound curb lane. The motorcycle was behind a dark minivan, also travelling westbound in the curb lane. The motorcyclist moved closer to the curb.

At 12 seconds of elapsed time, as the westbound minivan passed by the PRP truck, the PRP truck turned left and travelled on a northeast angle towards the motorcycle. A lamp post and the dark minivan blocked the view of the motorcycle as it passed the front of the pick-up truck, rendering indiscernible whether the PRP vehicle struck the motorcycle.

At 13 seconds of elapsed time, the motorcycle appeared on the passenger side of the westbound minivan close to the curb. The motorcycle was vertical briefly, but then went over onto its right side and slid along the sidewalk.

At 17 seconds of elapsed time, the PRP officers in the pick-up truck exited the vehicle and approached the motorcyclist, the Complainant.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Recordings

The BWC recordings from WO #1 and the SO, the officers involved in the incident, started at 3:45 p.m., after the Complainant was covered in a blanket while lying on the sidewalk. None of the incident was captured on BWC. Several utterances of note, however, were recorded on the footage.

At 3:48 p.m., while the Complainant was lying on the sidewalk, the SO asked him why he went through the red light. The Complainant asked, “What red light?” and the SO responded, “The one right here.” The Complainant denied he disobeyed a red traffic light. WO #1 challenged him, “Right at Hampton. You did, right in front of us.” The SO said, “You went through the red and then you did a U-turn right in front of us.” WO #1 then continued, “And you came up on this curb here. We can see exactly where you skidded up onto the curb.”

At 3:49 p.m., a female bystander, the CW, approached WO #1 and reported, “I saw him lose control of his bike. He was riding and all of a sudden boom, onto the curb. So I didn’t see you guys, so I just saw him on the curb and I thought, ‘Oh my gosh, 911.’” WO #1 responded, “Yah, we watched him go, too.”

At 3:52 p.m., the Complainant, looking towards the Marine Unit truck, asked the SO, “Why’d this guy hit me?” The SO responded nobody hit him. The SO said, “You wiped out because I think you were trying to get away from us.” The Complainant responded, “Really? That’s pretty stupid, eh?”

At 3:54 p.m., the SO approached WO #2 and told her, “He came through, he was here, red light, he bumped up past all the red cars, stopped, and then went through the red light and went this way [eastbound] and we were going to pull him over, and then he did a U-turn, saw us, sped up, then he hit the curb and then just, phew.”

At 4:09 p.m., after WO #1 formally arrested the Complainant and read him his rights to counsel, WO #1 asked if the Complainant had any questions. The Complainant responded, “I don’t have questions. I’m an idiot, you know what I mean? Like, fuck, you cut me off, hit me, it is what it is.” WO #1 responded, “Well, we definitely didn’t do that.” The Complainant commented, “Whatever.”

At 4:11 p.m., while another police officer, PRP Officer #1, stood with the Complainant and WO #2 walked over to the nearby McDonald’s to obtain water for the Complainant, the Complainant telephoned his wife and reported to her, “Hi, I just got hit on my bike.” He then said to her, “By the cops.” He further stated, "Yah, I just got hit by my bike (sic) by a cop. Guy didn’t stop." PRP Officer #1 cautioned the Complainant several times that his statements were being recorded and could be used as evidence.

At 4:19 p.m., the Complainant commented to PRP Officer #1, “If I could have got away, I would have got away.” He further stated, “Yah if I could have got away from him, I would have. I was going. We can all see this.”

At 4:26 p.m., a bystander the Complainant recognized approached and the Complainant said to the man, whom he addressed by name, “I tried to take off and then they, they hit me.”

At 4:27 p.m., PRP Officer #1 commented that the Complainant had a story he could tell years down the road. The Complainant responded, "You know what’s funny, this is the first time I’ve been caught. And this guy [pointing to Marine Unit truck] he had no fear. I don’t think he was right running into me, but whatever."

At 4:32 p.m., the Complainant commented to the SO, “I’ve been riding dirty for six years.” The SO asked what that meant, and the Complainant responded, “No licence, no bike licence.”

The Complainant then commented, "And only two times I’ve been attempted (sic) to get stopped. This is the third time. Three strikes and you’re fucking out."

Video Footage - McDonald’s Restaurant Drive-Through

On June 10, 2024, at 3:38:27 p.m., the camera in the drive-through lane at the McDonald’s restaurant at 601 Lakeshore Road East recorded an eastbound motorcyclist executing a U-turn, in front of the Osmow’s Shawarma restaurant across the street at 600 Lakeshore Road East. The motorcyclist was wearing a dark helmet, a white shirt, and dark pants, consistent with the clothing worn by the Complainant at the time of the incident. The motorcyclist then travelled westbound out of the image.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between June 21, 2024, and July 8, 2024:

  • Police communications recordings;
  • Photographs taken at scene by WO #1;
  • Photograph taken at scene by WO #2;
  • BWC recording from PRP Officer #2;
  • BWC recording from PRP Officer #1;
  • BWC recording from WO #2;
  • BWC recording from WO #1;
  • BWC recording from the SO;
  • Incident Details Report;
  • Incident History Report;
  • Occurrence Report;
  • Person Details Report; and
  • Notebook entries of WO #1, WO #2, and WO #3.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 10, 2024, and July 3, 2024:

  • Medical records received from the Complainant;
  • Photographs of the scene from the Complainant;
  • Photographs of the Complainant during his hospitalization;
  • Photographs of the HTA Notice of Offence tickets issued to the Complainant;
  • A copy of the Undertaking issued to the Complainant;
  • Screenshots of two call history records for telephone calls the Complainant received from the SO on June 10, 2024;
  • Video recordings from the drive-through lane of a McDonald’s restaurant located at 601 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga;
  • Video recordings from a store at 550 Lakeshore Road East; and
  • Medical records received from Mississauga General Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and 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 afternoon of June 10, 2024, the Complainant was operating a motorcycle without a licence. He had turned left from Lagoon Street onto Lakeshore Road East and travelled east a short distance before executing a U-turn to travel west. Seconds later, as a pick-up truck cut across the westbound lanes in front of him, the Complainant attempted to swerve right around it. As he passed the front of the vehicle, the Complainant’s vehicle capsized, and he was thrown from the motorcycle.

The SO was driving the pick-up truck – a police vehicle. WO #1 was in the front passenger seat. While stopped facing north on Hampton Crescent south of Lakeshore Road East, they had observed the Complainant making his left turn onto the roadway against a red light. Deciding they would stop him to issue a ticket, the SO had turned right onto Lakeshore Road East, travelled east a short distance, and turned northeast across the westbound lanes of traffic ahead of the Complainant.

The Complainant was arrested at the scene for dangerous driving, issued two traffic tickets, and released. At hospital later that day, he was diagnosed with a fractured right scapular neck and body.

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 an incident with a PRP vehicle on June 10, 2024. The SIU was notified of the matter and initiated an investigation naming the driver of the police vehicle – 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 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 motorcycle crash. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the SO’s decision to stop the Complainant for a red light infraction was a lawful and reasonable one. The evidence establishes that the Complainant made his left turn onto Lakeshore Road East against a red light.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law through the series of events culminating in the motorcycle crash. There are essentially two live issues for consideration impacting whether the SO’s conduct represented a marked departure from the level of care of a reasonable person: did the SO intentionally drive into the motorcycle to bring it to a stop and, if not, did the officer leave the Complainant enough time and space so that a collision was not inevitable once he turned into the westbound lanes. The evidence suggests the first question must be answered in the negative. The Complainant asserts that the SO deliberately struck him with the pick-up truck. However, evidence from a civilian eyewitness and WO #1 suggests otherwise. The video and forensic evidence is not dispositive, but weighs in favour of the pick-up truck having come to a stop before any contact with the motorcycle would have been made. With respect to the second question, a reconstruction of the incident suggests that the Complainant had a reasonable opportunity to safely bring his motorcycle to a stop ahead of the pick-up truck once the truck started to turn into the westbound lanes. On this record, while one might question the wisdom of the maneuver performed by the SO, particularly against a motorcyclist, the evidence does not reasonably establish the officer departed markedly from a reasonable standard of care when he undertook to execute it.

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

Date: October 17, 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 findings of fact 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]

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.