SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OVI-315

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 67-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 18, 2024, at 11:01 a.m., the Complainant contacted the SIU to report her involvement in a motor vehicle collision with a London Police Service (LPS) cruiser on June 15, 2024. At 11:21 a.m., the SIU returned the Complainant’s call and learned that the Complainant and her husband [the Civilian Witness (CW)] had been transported to the London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Hospital (LHSCVH) following the collision, where she was diagnosed with a fractured sternum. The Complainant was asked to forward medical records to confirm that her injury fell within the SIU’s mandate.

On July 18, 2024, at 11:55 a.m., the SIU contacted LPS. LPS confirmed the collision but indicated the LPS were not aware of the Complainant’ injury as she had not reported it to the police service.

On July 19, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., the SIU received the Complainant’s medical records. They indicated she had sustained a fractured sternum from a collision on June 15, 2024.

On July 22, 2024, at 7:40 a.m., the SIU contacted LPS. LPS reported that the Subject Official (SO) had been travelling to an emergency call for service when he collided with the CW and the Complainant’s pick-up truck at the intersection of Hamilton Road and Highbury Avenue, London.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/22 at 8:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/22 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

67-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 25, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 25, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Hamilton Road and Highbury Avenue, London.

Physical Evidence

Highbury Avenue travelled in a north and south direction with Hamilton Road intersecting east and west. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights.

The collision occurred in the southeast quadrant of the intersection.

There was a total of two motor vehicles involved.

Ford F150

This vehicle was positioned in the northeast corner of the intersection. There was considerable collision damage to the front driver side area.

LPS - Ford Explorer

This vehicle was a marked police vehicle displaying graphics adopted by the LPS. After the collision, this vehicle was oriented east in the intersection. There was considerable collision damage to the front end.

Figure 1 – Google Earth view of the intersection of Hamilton Road [east/west] and Highbury Road [north/south]

Figure 1 – Google Earth view of the intersection of Hamilton Road [east/west] and Highbury Road [north/south]

Figure 2 – The collision scene [source: LPS]

Figure 2 – The collision scene [source: LPS]

Forensic Evidence

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

The SO’s cruiser was tracked through its GPS.

At 11:11 a.m., June 15, 2024, the cruiser was stationary at the LPS station.

At 11:14 a.m., the SO exited the station and drove southbound on Adelaide Street North, reaching speeds up to 94 km/h. The speed limit was 50 km/h. He continued eastbound on Hamilton Road, accelerating to 95 km/h, and approached the intersection of Hamilton Road and Highbury Avenue North at 85 km/h. The area was governed by a posted 60 km/h speed limit. As he neared the intersection, the SO was recorded driving in the westbound lanes at 54 km/h. By the time he entered the intersection, his speed had reduced to 16 km/h and then to 5 km/h.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data - LPS Cruiser

Five seconds before impact, the SO applied the brakes and reduced his speed to 5 km/h. Just over four seconds before impact, he released the brakes and accelerated to 38 km/h, which was the speed at the point of impact. The data indicated that he was steering from the westbound to the eastbound lanes as he entered the intersection.

CDR Data – The CW and Complainant’s Ford F150 Pick-up Truck

Five seconds before the collision, the CW travelled at 66 km/h. He applied the brakes and reduced his speed to 59 km/h. In the final seconds before the collision, he briefly accelerated, then slowed to 48 km/h as the anti-lock brakes engaged. The data suggested the CW was driving normally but had to react quickly to the SO’s unexpected movement into his lane.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

LPS Communications Recordings – 911

On June 15, 2024, at 11:18 a.m., a 911 call was made to LPS reporting a collision between a black truck and a police SUV cruiser at the intersection of Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road, London. The caller stated that the black truck had gone through the light and struck the police cruiser, which was en route to a call.

The 911 caller contacted LPS to inform them she had been at the intersection at the time of the collision and had dash camera footage that might be relevant.[3]

LPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 15, 2024, at 11:18 a.m., the SO called for an ambulance after being involved in a motor vehicle collision at Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road. He reported injuries to himself. Shortly after, Officer #1 informed the dispatcher they would attend the scene.

Civilian Dash Camera Footage

The dashcam captured a collision on June 15, 2024, at 11:17 a.m., at the intersection of Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road, London.

The footage began with a view travelling eastbound on Hamilton Road approaching the intersection with Highbury Avenue, where traffic was heavy.

At 11:17:33 a.m., the vehicle containing the dash camera slowed in the right turning lane behind two other vehicles that were stopped at the red light. In the background, the sound of a police cruiser’s siren could be faintly heard.

At 11:17:45 a.m., a dark-coloured sedan turned left from the northbound lanes of Highbury Avenue to westbound Hamilton Road. At that moment, the SO’s cruiser entered the field of view. His cruiser’s emergency lights were activated as he approached the intersection, which still displayed a red traffic light for eastbound traffic.

At 11:17:47 a.m., the CW’s Ford F-150 pick-up truck entered the field of view, travelling northbound in the middle lane of Highbury Avenue. A flatbed truck in the left turn lane momentarily obstructed the CW’s view as he approached the intersection. The SO entered and continued through the intersection.

At 11:17:51 a.m., the front of the SO’s cruiser collided with the driver side front quarter panel of the Ford F-150. The impact was significant, sending debris flying and causing smoke to rise from the vehicles.

The collision forced the SO’s cruiser to rotate approximately 45 degrees counterclockwise and come to rest facing north on Highbury Avenue, with severe damage to the front end. The CW’s Ford F-150 was pushed towards a hydro pole near the northeast corner of the intersection, adjacent to a Starbucks, with visible damage to the driver side quarter panel.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS on July 23, 2024:

  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report / Event Chronology;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Civilian dash camera footage;
  • Ministry of Transportation of Ontario – Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • CDR data – F150 pick-up truck;
  • LPS Cruiser – CDR data;
  • LPS Cruiser – GPS data;
  • Statement of the SO; and
  • Forensic Identification Services photographs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on July 25, 2024:

  • Complainant’s medical records from LHSCVH; and
  • Photographs from the CW.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU.

In the morning of June 15, 2024, the Complainant was a passenger in a pick-up truck operated by her husband, the CW. They were travelling north on Highbury Avenue and had entered the intersection at Hamilton Road when their pick-up’s front driver side was struck by an eastward police cruiser.

The SO was driving the cruiser. With his emergency lights and siren on, he had been travelling east on Hamilton Road en route to an emergency call for service involving a suicidal female. As traffic was backed up at the Highbury Avenue intersection, stopped for a red light, the SO maneuvered into the westbound lanes and slowly approached the intersection. He had almost come to a complete stop before he entered the intersection, steering southward to re-enter the eastbound lanes of traffic. Approaching the centre of the intersection, the SO began to accelerate across the northbound lanes of traffic and collided with the Complainant’s pick-up truck.

The vehicles came to a stop in the intersection. First responders arrived to assist.

The Complainant was diagnosed at hospital later that day with a fractured sternum.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red Light Exemption

144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a collision with a LPS cruiser on June 15, 2024. Weeks later, the Complainant notified the SIU of the incident, at which time an investigation was initiated. 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 execution of his duties in the moments culminating in the collision. Dispatched to an emergency call, the officer was within his rights in travelling to the scene at speed, as long as he did so safely.

I am also satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law with respect to the manner in which he operated the cruiser. The live issue in this case is whether the SO exercised due care as he approached and entered the intersection. It is clear that the officer did not come to a full stop at the red light, as he was required to do pursuant to section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act. Thereafter, while the SO appears on the video footage to have entered the intersection slowly and carefully, he failed to ensure that northbound traffic on Highbury Avenue had come to a complete stop before he began his acceleration. That want of care, in my view, contributed significantly to the collision that occurred with the Complainant’s pick-up, which was proceeding lawfully through the intersection on a green light. That said, the officer’s indiscretion was not of a magnitude to amount to marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. While the SO did not stop completely for the red light, he had come to a crawl and only proceeded into the intersection when it was apparent that southbound traffic had come to a stop. He then continued to make his way slowly across the intersection, his emergency lights and siren on, and would have seen traffic in at least two of the northbound lanes stopped. He should have continued to advance slowly to ensure that all northbound traffic had stopped before resuming his acceleration. His failure to do so, however, amounted to a momentary lapse in judgment of the type that the law makes clear will rarely attract criminal liability.

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

The issue of non-notification of this incident to the SIU will be referred to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency for their review.

Date: November 15, 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]
  • 3) This evidence was obtained by SIU and reviewed. [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.