SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OVI-388
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 15-year-old male (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 15, 2024, at 3:35 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On September 15, 2024, at about 9:00 a.m., the Subject Official (SO), was engaged in speed enforcement while operating an unmarked cruiser. Travelling on Upper Wellington Street, he observed a 2019 Honda Accord travelling in the opposite direction. Its speed was 88 km/h in a posted 50 km/h zone. The SO conducted a U-turn and activated his emergency lights intending to stop the Honda Accord for a Highway Traffic Act (HTA) offence. The driver of the Honda Accord [the Complainant] accelerated to evade the SO. As he approached the intersection of Mohawk Road and Upper Wentworth Street, the traffic signal was red, and two vehicles were stopped in lanes one and two. The Complainant attempted to squeeze between the two vehicles but struck a 2008 Honda Civic, disabling his vehicle in the process. The SO arrived several seconds later and learned that the Honda Accord had been reported stolen several days prior. The Complainant was arrested and transported to the Mountain Station where he was to be processed on several Criminal Code and HTA charges. Upon arrival, the Complainant complained of a sore left shoulder, and was transported via Emergency Medical Services to the McMaster Children’s Hospital (MCH). At 12:40 p.m., the Complainant was discharged and transported to HPS Central Station to await a bail hearing. He had suffered a fractured left shoulder.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/16 at 8:30 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/16 at 9:30 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
15-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 16, 2024.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Not interviewed; declined
The civilian witness was interviewed on September 17, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The subject official was interviewed on October 28, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired over a stretch of roadway beginning on Upper Wellington Street, a distance north of Mohawk Road East, continuing south on Upper Wellington Street and east on Mohawk Road East, and concluding on Mohawk Road East at its intersection with Upper Wentworth Street, Hamilton.
Physical Evidence
The intersection of Mohawk Road East and Upper Wentworth Street was controlled by traffic lights. A collision involving two vehicles occurred in and around the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The SO’s police vehicle was not involved in the collision.
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser
During the SO’s pursuit of the Complainant, he reached a top speed of 137 km/h and maintained an average speed of 83 km/h. The SO travelled for 1.1 kilometres before the Complainant was involved in a collision on Upper Wentworth Street. The officer remained several car lengths behind the Complainant for the entirety of the pursuit.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Cruiser
On September 15, 2024, starting at about 8:59 a.m., the SO was captured travelling in lane one (closest to centre) of a four-lane road when a grey Honda Accord approached in the opposite direction moving noticeably faster than the surrounding traffic. The cruiser shifted into lane two as the Accord passed and performed a U-turn. After turning around, the cruiser accelerated after the Accord, following it in lane two. The Accord made a left turn onto Mohawk Road East on a green light, with oncoming traffic yielding. As the pursuit continued eastbound on Mohawk Road East, the Accord switched from lane two to lane one near an intersection where vehicles were stopped at a red light. The Accord attempted to pass between the left-turn lane and lane one, colliding with the rear driver’s side of a Honda Civic in lane one. The Civic [driven by CW #1] was pushed forward and to the right at an angle, ending up in front of a white truck in lane two. The Accord spun and stopped perpendicular to the Civic, with its front passenger side against the front driver’s side of the Civic.
Starting at about 9:00 a.m., the SO arrived and stopped, facing the passenger side of the Accord. Smoke was visible from the Accord. The SO ran to the driver’s side of the Accord and opened the door. Due to heavily tinted windows, the camera did not capture the interior. The SO reached into the Accord, and the driver [the Complainant] exited through the driver’s door. He was positioned against the driver’s side of the Accord by the SO. Bystanders approached him near his vehicle, appearing to check on his condition. The SO walked the Complainant to the rear of the Accord and out of camera view. The SO then returned with the Complainant and positioned him against the rear passenger side of the Accord. By this time, the Complainant’s hands were cuffed behind his back.
Starting at about 9:05 a.m., a marked police SUV arrived and parked behind the Accord with its emergency lights activated.
Video Footage - Upper Wentworth Street
On September 15, 2024, starting at about 9:01:33 a.m., a Honda Accord was captured approaching the intersection of Upper Wentworth Street and Mohawk Road East. The Accord [driven by the Complainant] travelled east on Mohawk Road East at a high rate of speed and collided with a Honda Civic [driven by CW #1], which was stopped for a red traffic light. The Complainant had attempted to drive between a car in the left-hand turn lane, and struck the rear driver’s side corner of CW #1’s vehicle, which was in the adjacent through-lane. The Accord spun to the right 90 degrees and came to rest inside the intersection, in a “T” position directly in front of CW #1’s Civic. As the Complainant’s vehicle made contact, an unmarked cruiser [driven by the SO] was visible approximately 30 metres behind. The cruiser’s emergency lights were activated.
Starting at about 9:01:38 a.m., the SO parked his cruiser directly behind the Complainant’s Accord and immediately moved to the driver’s door. He opened the door and extracted the Complainant. The Complainant was faced against the driver’s side of the Accord and handcuffed behind the back. The SO escorted the Complainant to the driver’s side of his vehicle and then the passenger side of the Accord.
HPS Communications Recordings
On September 15, 2024, at 9:02 a.m., the SO advised via radio that he had just witnessed a collision and requested the attendance of a sergeant. The SO did not appear to broadcast the pursuit until after it occurred.
At 9:05 a.m., the SO broadcast a licence plate for a Honda Accord that was possibly stolen. The dispatcher confirmed that the Honda Accord was stolen.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between September 19, 2024, and October 23, 2024:
- General Occurrence Report;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- ICC footage – the SO’s police cruiser;
- Global Positioning System data - the SO’s police cruiser;
- Notes – WO #1, WO #3, WO #2 and the SO;
- Written statement – the SO; and
- Communications recordings.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 17, 2024, and September 27, 2024:
- The Complainant’s medical records from MCH on September 17, 2024; and
- Video footage from Upper Wentworth Street.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.
In the morning of September 15, 2024, the SO was engaged in speed enforcement travelling north on Upper Wellington Street when he clocked a vehicle travelling south at 88 km/h. The speed limit in the area was 50 km/h. The SO activated his emergency equipment, completed a U-turn, and accelerated after the Accord intending to stop it for a traffic infraction.
The Complainant was operating the Accord - a stolen vehicle. Another male was a passenger in the vehicle. The Complainant immediately began to speed up to get away. Turning eastbound onto Mohawk Road East, the Complainant continued to drive at speed with the cruiser behind him. As he approached Upper Wentworth Street, the Complainant slowed and attempted to squeeze past two eastbound vehicles stopped for a red light. He struck the rear driver’s side of one of the vehicles and came to rest inside the intersection. The driver of the vehicle the Complainant had struck was uninjured.
The SO had pursued the Accord until the collision, a distance of about 1.1 kilometres. He stopped the cruiser at the scene, exited and removed the Complainant from the Accord, placing him under arrest.
The Complainant was eventually transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left clavicle.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director’s Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Hamilton on September 15, 2024. As the vehicle was being pursued by a HPS 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.
Having observed the Accord speeding, I am satisfied the SO was within his rights in deciding to stop the Complainant for a traffic infraction.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout the pursuit. The only issue of real concern was the officer’s top speed – upwards of 130 km/h – which he reached while eastbound on Mohawk Road East. The speed was dangerous but not a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in light of the overall circumstances, including the fact that there was very little pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the pursuit route, the officer gave warning of his presence by using his emergency equipment, and the roadways were dry and the weather was clear. It should also be noted that the SO had not identified the vehicle or its occupants before the collision, considerations that might have tilted in favour of discontinuing the pursuit had he made a positive identification, nor was he so close to the Accord that it could not have safely come to a stop ahead of the collision had the Complainant been so inclined.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.
Date: January 13, 2025
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]
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.