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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 22, 2024, at 6:25 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the NRPS, on August 22, 2024, at 3:13 p.m., a white van fled the scene of a hit and run accident in St. Catharines. At 3:44 p.m., a 911 caller reported an impaired driver in Thorold. The caller indicated that the driver of a van had thrown a beer can out the window. The van matched the description of the vehicle involved in the hit and run accident. NRPS officers were dispatched. At 4:04 p.m., it was reported that a man - the Complainant - had been arrested. At 4:09 p.m., a request was made for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as the Complainant had a cut to his knee. At 4:19 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant had escaped from the cruiser he had been seated in. Officers chased the Complainant on foot to the area of Ormond Street, and into an arena parking lot at 70 Front Street North. At that time, the Complainant looked back to see where the officers were and ran into a cruiser, striking his head on the vehicle. At 4:21 p.m., the Complainant was reportedly in custody again and another request was made for EMS, as the Complainant was bleeding from his head and foot. Upon arrest, he was found to have part of the second toe of his left foot missing and his other toes were mangled. The Complainant was transported by EMS to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH), where he was examined for a foot injury and rib fractures, and was undergoing a Computed Tomography scan to assess for head injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/22 at 7:17 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/22 at 8:52 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 22, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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 4, 2024.

Investigative Delay

There was a delay in completing the investigation because of investigator caseload pressures.

Delay was also incurred because of workload pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the parking lot of the Thorold Community Arena, 70 Front Street North.

Physical Evidence

On August 22, 2024, at 8:52 p.m., SIU arrived at the Thorold Community Arena. The parking lot at the north side of the arena had been taped off and was secured by a NRPS officer. The lot was located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Front Street North and St. David Street East. There were entrances to the lot from the north side off St. David Street East and from the southwest corner off Front Street North.

In the lot, facing southeast, was SO #1’s marked NRPS Ford Explorer SUV. The cruiser had recent damage to the left side, at the front, around the wheel well. There was a prominent dent to the left front quarter-panel, and the wheel well molding clips were out of alignment at the leading edge. There were contact marks at the dented area, as well as up on the front left hood where there were scuffs to the paint. The dented area was above and behind the front left wheel well. Scuff marks to the paint were visible above and in front of the dent, and dirt transfer was visible around and within the dented area. A small impact area was observed at the lower left corner of the windshield where it had been cracked. On the front left tire, within the treads, was an area of staining that appeared to be blood. There was what appeared to be scuff marks to the contact surface and outer edge of the tire in the same location. This area was near the upper forward portion of the tire where the vehicle was located, nearly three-quarters of a rotation forward from contact with the ground. A swab was collected of the staining.

Additional small areas of contact staining were found on the parking lot surface from near the rear left wheel of SO #1’s vehicle and continued at roughly even distances back across the parking lot and down the sidewalk of St. David Street East. The trail of staining was traced back along St. David Street East, south down the west side of Ormond Street North and into a parking lot of the property bordering the arena lot.

Digital images were captured to document the incident location, area, and path of the staining. Additional images were taken to show the location of the initial arrest, which was measured to be 215.7 metres from the incident location.

Additionally, there were areas of staining inside the rear prisoner compartment of SO #1’s vehicle. The rear prisoner compartment of the cruiser was enclosed at the rear by a cage with Plexiglas affixed, and a metal and Plexiglas barrier at the front. In the upper centre section was an access window with a sliding panel.

Figure 1 – Damage to the front driver’s side of SO #1’s vehicle

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - SO #1’s Cruiser

The recorded data indicated that SO #1’s cruiser was at 0 km/h near where the white van was located in a parking lot at 4:18:50 p.m. The cruiser reached 40.7 km/h as it travelled at 4:18:59 p.m. The cruiser was back at 0 km/h in the parking lot of the arena at 4:19:09 p.m., where it remained stationary.

The total elapsed time between the three GPS locations was 19 seconds, start to finish.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data

The CDR Report was reviewed. It indicated that no events were recorded in relation to SO #1’s cruiser.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NRPS Communications Recordings – 911

On August 22, 2024, at 3:12 p.m., a woman called 911 to report that a pedestrian had been struck by a white van near an address provided in St. Catharines, and that the van had fled.

At 3:44 p.m., another woman called 911 to report a white van was “all over the road” on Welland Canal Parkway, and that the driver had thrown a beer can out the window. The caller had lost sight of the van.

NRPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On August 22, 2024, at 3:15 p.m., the recording began with a broadcast by dispatch concerning a “hit and run” in St. Catharines, and a description of the van responsible – a white van.

At 3:49 p.m., SO #1 was dispatched to a possible impaired driver on Welland Canal Parkway and provided the information given by the second female 911 caller. SO #1 reported that he had located the van responsible for the hit and run motor vehicle collision. It was abandoned in a gravel parking lot in the area of Ormond Street North and St. David Street East.

At 4:06 p.m., SO #1 advised dispatch that the Complainant was in custody. He reported that the Complainant had a cut to his right knee, and requested EMS.

At 4:19 p.m., WO #3 advised dispatch, “Code 5 our guy has escaped the back of SO #1’s car.”

At 4:21 p.m., SO #1 advised dispatch that they had the Complainant back in custody and again requested EMS. WO #1 reported that the Complainant was bleeding from the head and foot, and they needed EMS ASAP.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between August 27, 2024, and September 6, 2024:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Occurrence Reports
• Notes – SO #1, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• All data from the involved police vehicle, including GPS and CDR

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HGH on September 26, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon, SO #1 was investigating a ‘hit and run’ incident in St. Catharines when he located the vehicle that had fled the scene in the front lot of a property in the area of Ormond Street North and St. David Street East, Thorold. With WO #1, the officer approached a building on the property and knocked on the door. They were greeted by the Complainant. The Complainant stepped outside and was immediately handcuffed to the back by SO #1.

Additional officers began arriving at the scene as the Complainant was escorted to, and placed in, the rear of SO #1’s cruiser, among them, SO #2 and her coach officer, WO #2. After a period of time, SO #2 noticed that the Complainant was outside the cruiser, his arms now handcuffed in front, and running from the scene. She and WO #2 took chase on foot, and SO #1 followed in his cruiser.

The Complainant had managed to slide through an opening in the partition that separated the front and rear compartments of SO #1’s cruiser, after which he exited via the front driver’s door. He ran through the streets before turning into the parking lot of the Thorold Community Arena. The Complainant had travelled a distance south into the parking lot when he collided with the front driver’s side of SO #1’s cruiser and fell to the ground.

SO #1 had overtaken SO #2 and WO #2 as the parties were turning into the parking lot, steering to the west of the Complainant. Once past the Complainant, the officer turned southeast and came to an abrupt stop about the time that his cruiser and the Complainant collided.

SO #2 was the first to reach the Complainant. She took control of him as he tried to hobble away and kept him on the ground.

The Complainant suffered multiple fractures of the left foot in the collision, and a partial amputation of the second left toe. During subsequent surgery, the tip of the third left toe also had to be amputated.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

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 the course of his arrest by NRPS officers on August 22, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody for having left the scene of a motor vehicle collision given the information at their disposal regarding the description of the subject van and its licence plate.

With respect to SO #2, I am satisfied she used no more force than was necessary to effect the Complainant’s arrest. This consisted of taking the Complainant to the ground and keeping him pinned there after the collision with the cruiser. Having fled from police, and attempted to get away after the vehicular impact, a takedown made sense as it would bring the flight to an end and position the officers to better manage any additional resistance by the Complainant.

As far as SO #1 is concerned, the live issue is whether he intentionally drove his cruiser into the Complainant. There is an account of events in the evidence in which that is exactly what happened. If true, the force was arguably excessive and could attract an assault-based charge. The account, however, must be approached with caution due to frailties that render it insufficiently reliable. The account is also at odds with that proffered by SO #1 in his notes, supported by the account of WO #2, to the effect that it was not the officer’s intention to strike the Complainant. His plan was to stop his cruiser ahead of the Complainant as he ran southward in the parking lot, and that the collision was the result of the Complainant failing to see the vehicle and colliding with it. On this record, there being no reason to believe the incriminating interpretation of the events in question is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the officers’, and some reason to doubt it, the evidence does not give rise to a reasonable finding that the Complainant was deliberately struck by the cruiser.

The question turns to whether SO #1’s conduct attracts criminal liability based on substandard driving. In this regard, 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 SO #1 operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The use of a motor vehicle to pursue a fleeing suspect on foot is always a risky endeavour. The collision involving the Complainant and the cruiser is an illustration of the ways in which those risks can materialize in serious injury. That said, I am satisfied that the risk was a calculated one in this case. For most of the pursuit, SO #1 was well back of the Complainant. It was only in the more confined space of the parking lot that the two came together. The officer was also operating his cruiser at moderate and slow speeds in the moments leading to the collision, allowing for greater control of the vehicle. Lastly, the evidence suggests that the collision was in some measure the result of distraction on the part of the Complainant, who was focused on SO #2 and WO #2 behind him, and had missed seeing the cruiser. For these reasons, whether the officer was attempting to block the Complainant or merely stop his cruiser so he could exit and assist in the Complainant’s apprehension, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1 transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

In the result, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit