SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OVI-336

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 50-year-old woman (the Complainant).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 11, 2024, at 9:26 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 11, 2024, at 5:16 p.m., the Complainant, apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA), was being transported by YRP officers to the Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH). The transporting officer, Officer #1, was travelling eastbound on Highway 7 near Markham Road, Markham, following another marked police vehicle, operated by Officer #2. A civilian vehicle travelling westbound on Highway 7 crossed over the centre line and collided into the rear driver’s side of Officer #1’s police vehicle. Officer #1 and the Complainant were transported to MSH, where Officer #1 was released with minor injuries. The Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured nose and ribs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/11 at 9:58 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/12 at 12:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

50-year-old female; declined interview

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on August 12, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Highway 7 between Markham Road and Wooten Way, Markham.

Physical Evidence

The collision occurred in the eastbound passing lane of Highway 7 at 6181 Highway 7. The roadway in the area was asphalt paved and included two lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound. As one travelled eastbound, there was a long gradual uphill grade.

Two vehicles were on scene.

The first vehicle was a fully marked YRP police vehicle, YRP Unit #1, which was a 2020 Ford Explorer. It was located on the south side of the roadway in a driveway at a cemetery located at 6181 Highway 7. YRP Unit #1 faced north and had extensive damage to the rear driver’s side quarter panel.

The second vehicle was a 2024 Cadillac XTS. It was located on the north side of the road west of the cruiser. It was facing west and had extensive damage to its front end.

General scene photographs were taken, and measurements were taken with the Leica 360 scanner.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - YRP Unit #1

At 5:14:06 p.m., the cruiser travelled eastbound on Highway 7, and approached Markham Road, with a registered speed of 53 km/h.

At 5:14:22 p.m., the cruiser travelled eastbound on Highway 7, at Markham Road, with a registered speed of 52 km/h.

At 5:15:10 p.m., the cruiser travelled eastbound on Highway 7, east of Markham Road, with a registered speed of 30 km/h.

At 5:15:26 p.m., the cruiser was stopped at 6181 Highway 7, Markham.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data - 2024 Cadillac XT5

At 5 seconds before impact, the Cadillac travelled at 57 km/h.

At 4 seconds before impact, the Cadillac travelled at 58 km/h.

At 3 seconds before impact, the Cadillac travelled at 59 km/h.

At 2 seconds before impact, the Cadillac travelled at 59 km/h.

At 0.5 seconds before impact, the Cadillac travelled at 60 km/h.

CDR Data - YRP Unit #1

At 5 seconds before impact, the cruiser travelled at 50 km/h.

At 4 seconds before impact, the cruiser travelled at 49 km/h.

At 3 seconds before impact, the cruiser travelled at 47 km/h.

At 2 seconds before impact, the cruiser travelled at 46 km/h.

At 1 second before impact, the cruiser vehicle travelled at 36 km/h.

At impact, the cruiser travelled at 30 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage - YRP Unit #2

The video started on August 11, 2024, and was 19:12 minutes in length.

YRP Unit #2, a fully marked YRP police vehicle, travelled along a four-lane roadway [now known to be eastbound on Highway 7]. The road had two lanes each way with a solid yellow line in the middle.

The weather was clear and sunny, and traffic was moderate with a speed limit of 60 km/h.

At 5:15:09 p.m., as the cruiser passed a cemetery on both sides of the road [now known to be in the area of 6181 Highway 7, Markham], a Cadillac SUV travelled westbound in Officer #2’s lane westbound. Officer #2 had to take evasive action, and drove into the eastbound curb lane to avoid a collision.

ICCS Footage - YRP Unit #1 - Front View

The video was 19:47 minutes in length, and started at 5:14:41 p.m.

YRP Unit #1, a fully marked YRP police vehicle, travelled along a four-lane roadway [now known to be eastbound on Highway 7]. The roadway had two lanes each way with a solid yellow line in the middle. The cruiser travelled behind another YRP police vehicle [YRP Unit #2].

At 5:15:09 p.m., as YRP Unit #1 passed a cemetery, YRP Unit #2 veered to the right to avoid a collision with a Cadillac SUV. The Cadillac was westbound in the eastbound passing lane. The Cadillac nearly struck the front driver’s side of YRP Unit #1. YRP Officer #1 suddenly turned and stopped facing northbound across the road. [It is now known that the front left side of the Cadillac stuck the left rear driver’s side of YRP Unit #1, which caused it to turn.]

ICCS Footage - YRP Unit #1 - Rear Seat View

The video was 23:43 minutes in length, and started at 5:10:45 p.m.

A woman – the Complainant – sat behind the driver’s seat handcuffed to the front.

At 5:15:10 p.m., the Complainant was jolted out of her seat, and thrown across the back seat. She ended up lying face down on the back seat facing the passenger door. The Complainant appeared to be in pain.

Dash Cam Video - Civilian Vehicle

The video was 25 seconds in length; it was neither date nor time-stamped.

The footage started with the driver in conversation with a passenger as the vehicle they were in travelled along a four-lane roadway (two lanes each way). A white SUV was westbound in front of them. At ten seconds into the video, the Cadillac started to go over the centre line. At 12 seconds into the video, the Cadillac almost collided with an eastbound fully marked YRP SUV [now known to be YRP Unit #2]. At 13 seconds into the video, the front driver’s side of the Cadillac collided with the left rear quarter panel of an eastbound fully marked YRP SUV [now known to be YRP Unit #1].

Police Communications Recordings

At 5:11 p.m., August 11, 2024, Officer #1 advised dispatch that the Complainant had been apprehended under the MHA and would be transported to MSH.

At 5:15 p.m., YRP communications received an automatic message from On-Star communications that there had been a motor vehicle collision involving Officer #1’s police vehicle. The dispatcher advised she would call Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Complainant had back pain and YRP Officer #1 was injured. YRP Officer #2 advised that the involved vehicle was a white Cadillac.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the YRP between August 12, 2024, and August 14, 2024:

  • Communications recordings;
  • Dashcam footage – civilian vehicle;
  • ICCS footage;
  • GPS data - YRP Unit #1;
  • Call History;
  • Check Welfare Report;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Reports;
  • Procedure - Persons in Crisis;
  • YRP Driver Training Record - Officer #1; and
  • YRP Civilian Witness List.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained Ambulance Calls Reports from York Region EMS on August 14, 2024.

Incident Narrative

The events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of August 11, 2024, the Complainant, having been apprehended by YRP under the Mental Health Act, was in the backseat of a cruiser operated by Officer #1. The officer was eastbound on Highway 7 transporting the Complainant to MSH for examination. Directly ahead of her in the passing lane was another YRP cruiser operated by Officer #2. At a point east of Markham Road, in the area of the cemetery at 6181 Highway 7, a westbound Cadillac SUV drifted into the eastbound passing lane. Officer #2 veered to the right to avoid a collision. Officer #1 also took evasive action as the Cadillac headed towards her cruiser, but was unable to avoid a collision. The Cadillac struck the rear driver’s side of her vehicle.

The CW was the driver of the Cadillac SUV.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after the collision and diagnosed with multiple left-sided rib fractures and a broken nose.

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 a motor vehicle collision in Markham on August 11, 2024. As the vehicle in which she was a passenger was a YRP police cruiser, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any YRP officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

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 Officer #1 operated her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. There was not.

Officer #1 was in the execution of her duties transporting a prisoner to hospital when, through no fault of her own, she was involved in a collision. The officer was proceeding safely at moderate speed when the Cadillac suddenly appeared in her lane. Though she tried, Officer #1 was left with no time or space to avoid impact. On this record, it is apparent that the officer did not transgress 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 24, 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.