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 injury of a 13-year-old male (“Complainant #1”) and a 17-year-old male (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 13, 2024, at 8:05 a.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 12, 2024, at 10:37 p.m., the SO [driver] and WO #1 [passenger] attempted to stop a BMW – travelling 120 km/h northbound on Thornton Road in Whitby – for speeding. The SO called-in a ‘fail to stop’ and then pulled over to stop. The BMW continued and appeared to turn west onto Winchester Road. After about one minute, the SO continued to Winchester Road and found that the BMW had collided with a Nissan Rogue. The driver of the BMW fled the scene leaving four passengers, two of whom required hospitalization [a 17-year-old with a fractured pelvis and a 13-year-old with a possible brain bleed]. The driver was later apprehended by the DRPS Police Service Dog (PSD) Unit and received dog bites. The two occupants of the Nissan Rogue were assessed by paramedics and released.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/13 at 8:59 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/13 at 10:04 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):

Complainant #1 13-year-old male; not interviewed; declined

Complainant #2 17-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 was interviewed on August 26, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 13 and 20, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 16 and 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning at the roundabout intersection of Conlin Road and Thornton Road North, and continuing north on Thornton Road North until the intersection of Thornton Road North and Winchester Road West, Oshawa.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Thornton Road North was a two-lane roadway, running north and south, with one lane for northbound traffic and the other for southbound traffic. The road was made of asphalt. A single solid yellow line ran down the centre, marking opposing lanes. White fog lines bordered the road north of the Winchester Road West intersection. Both directions had dedicated left-turn lanes at the intersection. The road was bordered by a paved shoulder, followed by gravel and a grassy ditch. The speed limit on Thornton Road was 60 km/h. The intersection at Winchester Road West was controlled by traffic lights.

A BMW was found at rest in the west ditch of Thornton Road North, facing south, approximately 36 metres north of the intersection. Damage to the vehicle was primarily on the passenger side, especially the doors, with additional impact on both the front and rear bumpers. The front bumper panel was loose, while the rear bumper cover was completely detached and shifted slightly to the passenger side. The passenger side of the windshield was also shattered. The vehicle’s markings in the shoulder and grass ditch suggested it had moved northward into the ditch after the collision. Both front and curtain airbags had deployed.

A Nissan Rogue was positioned on the north shoulder of Winchester Road West, just west of the intersection, leaning into the ditch. It had extensive front-end damage, and all front and curtain airbags were deployed.

The cruiser operated by the SO was a marked Ford Explorer. The cruiser was examined, and no evidence of physical contact with another vehicle was located.

Figure 1 – The SO’s cruiser

Figure 2 – The scene of the collision, with the Nissan Rogue visible on the northwest corner of the intersection

Forensic Evidence

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

During the SO’s pursuit of CW #5, he reached a top speed of 112 km/h and maintained an average speed of 69 km/h. The SO travelled for 1.1 kilometres, before disengaging and stopping at the side of the road. The SO remained there for exactly one minute before continuing with his emergency equipment off. The remainder of the SO’s travels remained within the posted speed limit.

Figure 3 – Google Earth aerial view 1 with the GPS speeds of the SO’s cruiser added

Figure 4 – Google Earth aerial view 2 with the GPS speeds of the SO’s cruiser added

Figure 5 – Google Earth aerial view 3 with the GPS speeds of the SO’s cruiser added

Figure 6 – Google Earth aerial view 4 with the GPS speeds of the SO’s cruiser added

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

DRPS Radio Communications

On August 12, 2024, at 10:36:18 p.m., WO #1 informed dispatch that a vehicle, later identified as a BMW, had evaded an attempted stop. He clarified that he was not in pursuit as the BMW had continued northbound on Thornton Road before turning west onto Winchester Road.

Shortly after, at 10:37:20 p.m., the dispatcher alerted WO #2 that the BMW was approaching his location. WO #2 confirmed he had received the update.

At 10:38:35 p.m., WO #1 reported that the BMW had lost control just north of Winchester Road, crashed, and was in a ditch. He requested additional units at the scene. Moments later, at 10:38:51 p.m., he requested an ambulance.

By 10:39:24 p.m., WO #2 informed dispatch that there were multiple injuries.

At 10:40:13 p.m., WO #1 confirmed there were two vehicles involved in the collision. The other vehicle, identified as a Nissan Rogue driven by CW #3, had no reported injuries among its occupants.

By 10:42:57 p.m., WO #1 updated dispatch, indicating that the BMW passengers reported the driver, identified as CW #5, had fled the scene on foot, and they were unsure if he had been injured.

At 10:43:31 p.m., dispatch called for a PSD unit to assist in locating CW #5. The unit confirmed they were en route, and road closures were implemented.

At 10:47:29 p.m., an officer requested a drone operator for additional search support.

At 10:50:45 p.m., there was a request for more units, noting that the BMW’s occupants were uncooperative, refusing to provide their identities. The occupants were to be detained or arrested for investigative purposes.

At 11:02:33 p.m., WO #1 reported that he was accompanying Complainant #1 and CW #6 in an ambulance to Lakeridge Health Oshawa.

At 11:29:30 p.m., the PSD reported finding a firearm in the ditch and, at 11:30:34 p.m., a shoe nearby.

At 11:32:40 p.m., the drone operator informed PSD of a heat signature detected in the southwest corner of a field, guiding them towards it.

At 11:35:17 p.m., the PSD reported “contact” and, by 11:37:18 p.m., an officer confirmed one person [CW #5] was in custody.

A request was made at 11:37:36 p.m. for EMS due to a dog bite sustained during the apprehension. Shortly after, at 11:37:57 p.m., a second firearm, identified as a Glock .40, was discovered.

On August 13, 2024, at 7:09:42 a.m., an officer reported that Complainant #2 had sustained a broken pelvis, along with contusions to his lungs, liver and heart, and would be transferred to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre for further care.

DRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1, the SO and WO #2

The footage captured events in the aftermath of the collision.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the DRPS between August 27, 2024, and October 23, 2024:

• GPS data – the SO’s police vehicle;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2, and WO #3;
• DRPS Reconstructionist Report; and
• BWC footage –

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained Complainant #2’s medical records from Lakeridge Hospital and Sunnybrook Hospital between September 12 and 26, 2024.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 12, 2024, the SO was on-duty travelling east on Conlin Road en route to a call for service. WO #1 was his passenger. As the SO approached and then entered the roundabout at the Thornton Road North intersection, he was cut off by a BMW from the south. Deciding to stop the BMW for a traffic infraction, the SO followed the vehicle as it exited the roundabout and continued north on Thornton Road North.

Along with the driver and two other passengers, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were in the BMW. Realizing that the police were behind them, the driver accelerated to get away. As the BMW approached the Winchester Road West intersection, about 2.15 kilometres from Conlin Road, it disregarded a red light and collided with a westbound vehicle. Complainant #2 suffered multiple fractures in the collision. Complainant #1 was admitted to hospital for unascertained but, presumably, serious injuries.

The westbound vehicle – a Nissan Rogue - was being operated CW #3. CW #1 was also in the vehicle. Neither were seriously injured.

The SO and WO #1 were the first officers to arrive at the scene of the collision, about a minute after it occurred. The SO had briefly accelerated after the BMW when it failed to stop, briefly reaching a top speed of 112 km/h on Thornton Road North, before discontinuing and pulling to the side a kilometre south of Winchester Road West. A minute later, the officer resumed his travels in the direction of the BMW, came upon the crash site, and, with his partner, rendered assistance to the crash victims.

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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Oshawa on August 12, 2024. As their vehicle had briefly been pursued by a DRPS cruiser before the collision, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The driver of the cruiser – 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 had cause to stop the BMW for a traffic infraction. The evidence indicates that the BMW entered the roundabout in a reckless fashion, failing to yield to the cruiser and almost colliding with it.

The evidence further establishes that the officer comported himself with due care and regard for public safety during his brief engagement with the BMW. His top speed of 112 km/h was high but not surprising given the need to catch up to a speeding vehicle. It also occurred over a brief period during which there is no suggestion of any third-party motorists having been placed at risk by the cruiser’s speed. As soon as the SO had ascertained the licence plate of the BMW, he wisely called off the pursuit and disengaged. Indeed, he was approximately one kilometre south of the scene of the collision when it occurred.

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

Date: December 11, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit