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 17-year-oldyouth (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 14, 2024, 8:43 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the NRPS, at 4:52 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was eastbound on Thorold Stone Road when he observed a vehicle with Ontario dealer licence plates travelling westbound with three young occupants. The SO completed a U-turn without using his lights or siren with the intent of stopping the vehicle. The vehicle fled and lost control on Stanley Avenue, colliding with a tree. The driver fled on foot and was not located. He had since been identified as Civilian Witness (CW) #2. The female in the front passenger seat was identified as CW #1. She was uninjured and being held at the NRPS central holding cells in Niagara Falls. The female in the rear passenger seat was identified as the Complainant She had been taken to the Greater Niagara General Hospital (GNGH) and diagnosed with several fractured vertebrae.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/14 at 9:06 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/14 at 10:46 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 14, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 14, 2024, and September 18, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on October 18, 2024.

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 on September 16, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on Thorold Stone Road, a distance west of Stanley Avenue, continued east on Thorold Stone Road and then north on Stanley Avenue, and concluded on and around Stanley Avenue about 500 metres north of Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

The weather conditions were clear, and the roads were dry, in and around the time of the events in question,.

There was an accident scene on a grassed area east of Stanley Avenue about 500 meters from the intersection of Stanley Avenue and Thorold Stone Road. There was a path in the area to the east of the roadway used by service maintenance vehicles. There was a chain-link fence marking the outer perimeter of the Ontario Power Canal.

Thorold Stone Road was a four-lane roadway (two eastbound and two westbound), with commercial and retail businesses on each side. The speed limit was posted at 50 km/h.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On August 14, 2024, a SIU forensic investigator conducted a walk-through of the scene from the intersection at Thorold Stone Road and Stanley Avenue north along Stanley Avenue to the final resting place of a crashed vehicle. There were no indications of impacts, contacts or road markings found until the westward bend in the road south of 3659 Stanley Avenue, an industrial building containing a brewery and self-storage facility. The bend in the road was marked along the outer curve with reflective yellow and black chevron markers indicating the direction of the road. Partway through the curve, parallel marks on the edge and shoulder of the road indicated the path where the vehicle left the roadway.

Figure 1 - The curve where the Complainant’s vehicle left the roadway

The marks continued across the grassed area into a depression where the ground was torn up between the parallel markings. At this point, the ground rose back up to where an access maintenance path travelled. It appeared that the front of the vehicle dug in clearing off the grass and dirt as the vehicle began to ascend the far side of the ditch. Markings on the grass to the west side of the path and on the paved path itself indicated tire marks from the vehicle as it continued along in a northerly direction. The marks appeared in a wave pattern, curving west and east, with tire marks crossing over the path as the vehicle began to rotate. The rear end appeared to have slid to the east, off the east side of the path.

Figure 2 - The maintenance path the Complainant’s vehicle travelled along

The vehicle came to rest on the grass area between the path and a chain-link fence that bordered the Hydro Canal to the east.

Figure 3 - The vehicle located on a grassy area off the road.

On August 15, 2024, at 12:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator continued the examination of the collision site. Coloured markers were placed to indicate the location of debris (blue markers), the path of the left side of the vehicle (orange markers), and the path of the right side of the vehicle (green markers). Further images were taken to document the path of travel as well as the condition of the vehicles.

A second vehicle was at the location. It was parked on the maintenance path, to the south and west of the crashed vehicle. The vehicle was a blue Ford unmarked police vehicle, with a 360-degree lighting package and a mobile radar system installed, facing forward and rearward. An AXON camera system was installed in the front windshield of the vehicle. It was inactive at the time. There were no contact marks on the Ford vehicle.

Forensic Evidence

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

The SO drove at speeds of about 60 km/h on Thorold Stone Road east of Dorchester Road. He accelerated to 73 km/h west of Portage Road, then slowed through the traffic light-controlled intersection. He continued eastbound and accelerated to 83 km/h, and then 90 km/h between Portage Road and Stanley Avenue. At the traffic light-controlled intersection of Thorold Stone Road and Stanley Avenue, the SO slowed to 12 km/h. He then turned left and drove northbound on Stanley Avenue. The SO accelerated to a maximum recorded speed of 88 km/h after a curve to his right about 250 metres north of Thorold Stone Road, after which he slowed to 13 km/h at a curve to his left.

The SO continued and drove off the road and along a paved pathway on the east side of the road where the Infiniti operated by CW #2 was known to have travelled. The SO drove at recorded speeds of 21 km/h, 19 km/h and 28 km/h for about 85 metres before coming to a stop and remaining stationary.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Stanley Storage

On August 14, 2024, at 4:48:41 p.m., a vehicle was captured travelling at high speed in a northerly direction and spinning out of control. It rotated 360 degrees on the east side of 3659 Stanley Avenue, Niagara Falls. It travelled through a grass area and paved walkway, creating a plume of dirt and dust. The vehicle stopped against a chain-link fence.

At 4:48:54 p.m., a figure - CW #2 - exited the driver’s door. He scaled the chain-link fence, climbed over the top, and dropped about 3.6 metres (12 feet) on the other side. Another figure (CW #1) exited the front passenger-side door and stood beside the vehicle.

At 4:49:01 p.m., an unmarked NRPS vehicle (driven by the SO) approached from the same direction with interior emergency lights activated. He parked near the front driver’s side as CW #2 fled on foot to the north alongside the fence.

At 4:49:09 p.m., the SO exited his NRPS cruiser and approached CW #1. She appeared to raise her arms and was positioned near the passenger side of the vehicle with the SO nearby.

At 4:49:56 p.m., the SO walked north along the fence out of view, returning less than 30 seconds later.

At 4:50:20 p.m., a marked NRPS vehicle passed the scene as it travelled north on Stanley Avenue.

At 4:50:33 p.m., two additional marked NRPS vehicles arrived at the scene.

At 5:01:00 p.m., the video concluded.

NRPS Communication Recordings

On August 14, 2024, at 4:52 p.m., the SO broadcast that a vehicle had taken off on him, north of Thorold Stone Road on Stanley Avenue. The SO said that a male (CW #2) had fled on foot eastbound and over a fence into an Ontario Hydro field. He further broadcast that two females (the Complainant and CW #1) were still inside the crashed vehicle and that the vehicle had a lot of damage.

At 4:59 p.m., the SO reported that both females were complaining of pain to their back and in a lot of pain.

At 5:05 p.m., the SO reported that there was a gun in the vehicle.

At 5:15 p.m., the dispatcher broadcast that the Hamilton Police Service had advised that the vehicle, a 2015 Infiniti, had been stolen while the owner was pumping gas at a Petro Canada on August 13, 2024. The vehicle had a dealer plate attached to it.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between August 15, 2024, and November 6, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report; and
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 15, 2024, and November 12, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from GNGH;
• Video footage – Canco Petroleum; and
• Video footage – Stanley Storage.

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

In the afternoon of August 14, 2024, CW #2 was operating a stolen Infiniti eastbound on Thorold Stone Road in Niagara Falls. There were two other young persons in the car at the time – the Complainant and CW #1. Shortly before Stanley Avenue, CW #2 picked up his speed. A police cruiser, its emergency lights activated, was behind him, and he accelerated to get away. CW #2 disregarded a red light at Stanley Avenue and made a left turn through the intersection. He continued to speed northbound on Stanley Avenue and soon lost control of the vehicle. It travelled east off the roadway and crashed into a grass ditch, approximately 500 metres north of Thorold Stone Road.

The SO, on patrol at the time, had noticed the Infiniti travelling in excess of the speed limit on Thorold Stone Road. He also found it strange that its occupants were smoking in a vehicle equipped with dealership plates, and decided to stop the Infiniti to investigate. The officer accelerated to catch up to the vehicle whereupon he activated his emergency lights and watched as the Infiniti sped off. By the time the SO turned onto Stanley Avenue, the Infiniti was several hundred metres away. He continued north, observed the Infiniti leave the roadway, and came upon the crash site.

CW #2 had extricated himself from the Infiniti and fled. The two passengers remained at the scene, one of them – the Complainant – indicating she could not feel her limbs.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with broken ribs and spinal fractures.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a car crash in Niagara Falls on August 14, 2024. As the vehicle in which she was a passenger had briefly been pursued before the collision, 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in seeking to stop the Infiniti. He had observed the vehicle speeding and was entitled to investigate an apparent traffic infraction.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through his brief engagement with the Infiniti. The officer travelled at reasonable speeds, made use of his emergency equipment, stopped at the red light before making a safe left turn onto northbound Stanley Avenue, and was well back of the Infiniti when it lost control and crashed. On this record, there is no question of any want of care on the part of the SO contributing to the collision.

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

Date: December 12, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit