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 25-year-old man (the Complainant).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 13, 2024, at 12:50 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the PRP, on July 12, 2024, at 12:39 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was conducting traffic enforcement when he saw a vehicle speeding. The SO pulled out and tried to catch-up to the vehicle. Before he could do so, the vehicle crashed at the Airport Road and Highway 407 off-ramp. The driver, the Complainant, was taken to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and diagnosed with three fractures to the back.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/13 at 1:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/13 at 2:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 13, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 16, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on July 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on the eastbound lanes of Highway 407, a distance west of Highway 410, continued eastward on Highway 407 until the Airport Road off-ramp, and concluded on the east side of Airport Road, a short distance south of Highway 407, Brampton.

The Highway 407 off-ramp at Airport Road was controlled by traffic lights for traffic coming off the off-ramp and for traffic in both directions on Airport Road.

The posted speed limit for Highway 407 was 100 km/h, and 60 km/h for the off-ramp at Airport Road.

The Complainant’s vehicle came to a stop near a grass median that ran between Airport Road and the on-ramp to the Highway 407 eastbound.

SIU forensic investigators attended the scene, took photographs, and completed a scale scene diagram.

Scene Diagram

Figure 1 – The scene, including the line markings indicating the path of travel of the Complainant’s vehicle

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic investigators examined and photographed the Complainant’s black Mercedes Benz vehicle and the SO’s ‘ghost’ marked PRP vehicle. The Complainant’s vehicle was damaged extensively. There was no damage to the SO’s vehicle. There was no evidence to suggest that either vehicle had collided with one another.

Figure 2 – The Mercedes Benz driven by the Complainant

Figure 3 – The SO’s vehicle

Forensic Evidence

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

At 12:30 p.m., July 12, 2024, the SO was stationary on Highway 407.

At 12:34 p.m., the cruiser started to travel eastward. It reached a top speed of 212 km/h.

At 12:36 p.m., the cruiser slowed to 38 km/h and came to a stop at the intersection of the highway off-ramp and Airport Road.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

The recording commenced at 12:35:48 p.m., July 12, 2024, and captured the SO in the driver’s seat of his cruiser. The cruiser speedometer showed him travelling 211 km/h. The SO entered the Airport Road off-ramp, and the speedometer showed the vehicle quickly decelerated to under 50 km/h as he approached the traffic lights on Airport Road.

At 12:37:17 p.m., the audio track of the footage kicked-in. The Complainant’s vehicle was captured on its passenger side, on the eastbound on-ramp to Highway 407. The Complainant climbed out from the vehicle and, after some commands from the SO, climbed to the ground. The SO handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back and escorted him up a small hill to his cruiser. The Complainant hopped as he walked. The SO told the Complainant he was under arrest for stunt driving.

The SO requested that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attend. The Complainant told the SO his ankle was broken and his back was sore.

At 1:01:49 p.m., EMS arrived and assessed the Complainant.

At 1:15:05 p.m., paramedics advised the SO that the Complainant’s back might be broken, and they would take him to EGH.

Video Footage – 407 ETR

407 ETR provided SIU investigators with six camera recordings of Highway 407 and the Airport Road off-ramp. The cameras were positioned at the interchanges of Highway 410, Dixie Road, Bramalea Road and Airport Road. The recordings were date and time-stamped.

At 12:34:40 p.m., June 12, 2024, the Complainant drove past the Highway 410 camera faster than all other vehicles. This camera was positioned before the SO’s stationary location. The Complainant was approaching the SO’s location, and the traffic was moderate.

At 12:35:30 p.m., the Complainant drove past the Dixie Road off and on-ramps. He weaved from the centre third lane to the centre lane, between traffic. The SO’s cruiser appeared to be 200 to 300 metres behind the Complainant and travelling at about the same speed.

At 12:36:05 p.m., the vehicles passed the Bramalea Road interchange with the SO still several hundred metres behind the Complainant. The Complainant slowed and took the Airport Road exit. The SO narrowed the gap to about 60 to 70 metres. The traffic light was green for the Complainant and the SO. The Complainant attempted to turn right at the intersection; however, he took the corner too fast, slid sideways, rolled over on the grass verge, and came to a stop on the highway on-ramp.

Communication Recordings

The SO reported a motor vehicle collision with one male in custody. He advised that the occupants were out of the vehicle with unknown injuries. The Complainant was said to be in custody for stunt driving.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from PRP between July 15, 2024, and July 16, 2024:

• BWC footage - the SO;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• GPS data; and
• Person Details Report – the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 15, 2024, and July 16, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from EGH; and
• Video footage from 407 ETR.

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

In the early afternoon of July 12, 2024, the SO was stationary on the shoulder of the eastbound lanes of Highway 407, near the Highway 410 interchange, when he clocked an eastbound vehicle travelling at 160 km/h. The officer was performing traffic enforcement at the time and decided to stop the vehicle – a Mercedes Benz – for ‘stunt driving’. He pulled into the eastbound lanes of the highway and accelerated in an effort to close the gap with the Mercedes Benz.

The Complainant was driving the speeding vehicle. In the front passenger seat was the CW. Seemingly aware of the police cruiser behind him, the Complainant accelerated and weaved in and out of traffic to get away. At the Airport Road interchange, about six kilometres from Highway 407, the Complainant took the off-ramp at speed. He attempted to turn right onto Airport Road, lost control of the vehicle, and crashed on the east side of the road.

The SO had accelerated to upwards of 200 km/h attempting to catch-up to the Mercedes Benz, but was never able to get closer than some 200 to 300 metres from the vehicle before the Airport Road interchange. He was about 60 to 70 metres back of the Mercedes Benz, having decelerated at the off-ramp, just before the collision.

The Complainant was arrested without incident at the scene and taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured back and right ankle.

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 12, 2024. As his vehicle was being pursued by a PRP officer 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 SO was engaged in the exercise of his duty when he decided to stop the Complainant for stunt driving. Having measured the Complainant’s speed at 160 km/h, he was within his right in moving to stop the Mercedes Benz for the traffic infraction.

I am also satisfied that the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. It is clear that the officer reached incredible speeds himself – more than 200 km/h – during the pursuit. That speed, in my view, constituted a significant risk to public safety on the highway. That said, I am not persuaded that the SO’s speed departed markedly from the standard of care in the circumstances. Given the Complainant’s speed, the officer was going to have to accelerate significantly if he had any hope of catching up to the Mercedes Benz. And he did so, it would appear, without directly imperiling third-party motorists or forcing other traffic to have to take evasive action. It is also important to note that the officer was never very close to the Mercedes Benz such that it could be said he unduly pushed the Complainant or prevented him from altering course, had he been so inclined.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for moving forward with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: November 8, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit