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 injuries of a 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 8, 2024, at 12:38 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At about 11:45 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was driving on County Road 48 when he pulled over to turn around and initiate a traffic stop of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. Losing sight of the vehicle, the SO turned from County Road 48 onto Belmont Road. By the time he did so, the fleeing vehicle drove over a hill, launched into the Havelock Transformer Station, colliding with a hydro pole, and continued into a fence. The driver of the fleeing vehicle, the Complainant, complained of what appeared to be a broken wrist. An ambulance was called, and the Complainant was taken to Northumberland Hills Hospital where he was diagnosed with a broken or dislocated right wrist, an injury to a right toe and pre-existing rib injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/08 at 1:13 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/08 at 1:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 8, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 11 and 16, 2024.

Subject Official

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

The Scene

The events in question began on County Road 48, a distance west of 6^th Line, travelled east on County Road 48 and then north on 6^th Line, and concluded on and around 6^th Line upwards of a kilometre north of County Road 48, Peterborough County.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

6^th Line aligned in a north-south direction and intersected County Road 48, which aligned in an east-west direction.

At 4:55 p.m., on July 8, 2024, SIU forensic investigators attended and examined the scene. The posted speed limit for 6^th Line in the area was 60 km/h. The area of 6^th Line and County Road 48 was rural and the road gradient varied. The roads were asphalt paved. 6^th Line was two-laned and divided by a single yellow line. It had a gravel shoulder in the area of the collision.

Figure 1 - Google Earth aerial view of the scene, with arrows added. The blue arrow indicates a Hydro One transformer station. The red arrow indicates County Road 48 at the intersection with 6th Line.

Figure 2 – Path of travel of the Complainant’s vehicle from 6^th Line into the transformer station

SIU forensic investigators photographed the scene, and examined the Complainant’s red Honda and the SO’s marked OPP Ford sedan cruiser. There was no damage to the SO’s cruiser. The Complainant’s Honda was damaged extensively. There was no evidence to suggest the vehicles had contacted each other.

Figure 3 – The SO’s OPP cruiser

Figure 4 – The Complainant’s vehicle

Forensic Evidence

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

The OPP provided SIU investigators with the GPS data from the Ford cruiser operated by the SO. The data indicated that the SO travelled west on County Road 48 at a speed of about 75 km/h. He then did a U-turn and travelled east, reaching a speed of 140 km/h before he turned onto northbound 6^th Line. While northbound, the SO reached a speed of 141 km/h on 6^th Line, prior to slowing and coming to a stop next to the Hydro One transformer station.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

The exterior camera footage began on July 8, 2024, at 11:17:57 a.m.

The cruiser travelled eastbound on County Road 48 and turned north onto 6^th Line. Shortly after making the turn, the Complainant’s vehicle was observed approximately 200 metres ahead. Due to road gradients, the Complainant’s vehicle disappeared from view. The Complainant’s vehicle was observed again at the crest of a hill, after which it disappeared from view over the hill.

Ten seconds after the Complainant’s vehicle disappeared over the hill, the SO crested the same hill. Overhead electricity wires flashed and swayed. Extensive damage to a Hydro One pole, trees and fencing was seen on the west side of the road. The Complainant’s vehicle had come to a stop within the boundary of a Hydro One transformer station. The SO stopped his cruiser and told the Complainant to stay still. The Complainant begged not to be taken to jail. The SO advised the dispatcher that the Complainant had tried to get away and lost control of his vehicle going over the hill. The SO requested paramedics as the Complainant complained of a broken wrist and broken ribs.

At 11:23 a.m., the Complainant was seated in the rear seat of the SO’s cruiser, appearing in obvious pain. He told the SO that he was on probation and was probably going to jail. The Complainant said, “I should have just pulled over when I saw you.” The SO moved them away from the downed power lines and reported the failed stop to his dispatcher. He advised the dispatcher that he had his emergency lights activated and could just make out the rear of the Complainant’s vehicle in the distance as it went over the crest of the hill at about 110 km/h. Paramedics arrived at 11:43 a.m.

Police Radio Communications

At 11:18:56 a.m., June 8, 2024, the SO reported that a vehicle had taken off on him, and he had lost sight of it over a hill. He subsequently noted that the vehicle had gone into a transformer station. The SO advised it was not a pursuit; rather, he had turned around and tried to get into position.

One minute into the recording, the SO requested paramedics and advised that a male was in custody. He provided the Complainant’s particulars. The SO indicated that the Complainant told him he was travelling at 110 km/h over the hill and had lost control, breaking a rib and wrist.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between July 9, 2024, and September 12, 2024:

• ICC footage – the SO’s cruiser;
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Collision Investigation Report;
• Scene photographs; and
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 25, 2024, and June 28, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Campbellford Memorial Hospital.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian 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 morning of July 8, 2024, the SO was travelling west on County Road 48 when his automated licence plate reader picked up an eastward vehicle - a Honda Civic - with an unregistered licence plate. The officer turned to travel east, activated his emergency lights, and accelerated after the Honda, turning left to travel north on 6^th Line.

The Complainant was operating the Honda. While north on 6^th Line, he accelerated to a speed upwards of 100 km. The speed limit was 60 km/h. About a kilometre north of County Road 48, the Complainant lost control of the Honda. The vehicle travelled across the southbound lane and struck a hydro pole before crashing into the perimeter fence of a power station.

The SO arrived at the site of the collision and arrested the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with factures of the spine and sternum.

Section 320.13(2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13 (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 July 8, 2024. As the vehicle he was operating was being pursued 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 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 officer was within his rights in deciding to stop the Honda. It was being operated with licence plates that were not registered.

In the minute or so that the SO chased after the Honda, I am satisfied that he comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. While the officer achieved significant speeds on County Road 48 and 6^th Line – about 140 km/h – traffic was sparse at the time and none of the vehicles he passed had to take evasive action because of the cruiser. The risks inherent in the officer’s speed were further mitigated by the use of the cruiser’s emergency lights, the rural nature of the route, clear and dry environmental conditions, and the significant distance between the cruiser and the Honda (about half-a-kilometre at the tail end of the engagement when the Honda lost control and crashed).

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

Date: November 4, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit