Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Subject Officer name(s);
• Witness Officer name(s);
• Civilian Witness name(s);
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the deaths of a 36-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 62-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU

On July 7, 2019, at 2:32 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the following.

The OPP reported that on July 7, 2019, at 12:00 p.m., a woman called the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) to report that Complainant #1 had sexually assaulted her in a hotel. When the police officers arrived at the hotel, Complainant #1 had already left.

An OPS officer saw the vehicle Complainant #1 was driving on Highway (Hwy) 417. An OPS cruiser and an OPP cruiser attempted a rolling block of the vehicle, but they were unsuccessful, and the vehicle continued. The pursuit was terminated by the OPP.

A third OPP officer, who was travelling in the same direction as Complainant #1, came across a multi-vehicle collision on Hwy 417, near Panmure Road. The OPP confirmed that the vehicle Complainant #1 was driving was involved in the collision.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were both found to be deceased, while two other civilians were severely injured. 

The Scene

The collision was located in the westbound lanes of Hwy 417, which is a two lane highway, about two kilometres west of Panmure Road. There were six civilian vehicles involved in the collision: a Honda Civic, a Ford Focus, a Mazda 3, a Dodge Durango, a Toyota Corolla, and a Mazda 3.



Figure 1- Scene of the fatal collision involving six vehicles on Highway 417.

With the assistance of 14 independent civilian witnesses, who corroborated the evidence of the subject officer and three witness officers, along with the 911 call logs, the police communications recordings, and the GPS data from the police vehicles, the following facts were established.

At approximately 12:45 p.m. on July 7, 2019, the SO spotted Complainant #1’s motor vehicle driving westbound on Hwy 417 west of March Road. The SO began to follow the vehicle at a distance and without the aid of his emergency lighting system or siren. WO #2, of the OPP, who was also in the area, coordinated with the SO to stop Complainant #1’s vehicle by use of a “rolling block”. This maneuver, however, was pre-empted when Complainant #1 exited the highway prior to reaching WO #2’s location, which was just west of the Kinburn Side Road.

At 12:54 p.m., Complainant #1 exited the highway by way of the Kinburn Side Road off ramp, with the SO following. The SO then turned on his emergency lighting system with the intent of pulling alongside Complainant #1’s vehicle and directing him to pull over. Complainant #1, however, took evasive measures to avoid the SO pulling alongside his vehicle, and the SO backed off. Complainant #1 sped up, failing to stop at a stop sign, and travelled south on the Kinburn Side Road with the SO in pursuit, now with lights and sirens activated. The SO contacted his dispatcher and advised that he was in a vehicular pursuit. Complainant #1 re-entered Highway 417 and drove in the eastbound lanes, accelerating away from the SO, who continued to pursue the vehicle with lights and sirens.

At 12:57 p.m., the SO, after pursuing Complainant #1’s motor vehicle for about 1.6 kilometres, pulled over to the south shoulder of Hwy 417 eastbound and stopped. The officer was recorded as reporting to the dispatcher that he had terminated the pursuit and the Honda was no longer in view. The GPS data from the SO’s police vehicle confirmed that he remained stationary at that location until 12:59 p.m.

After the SO had terminated the pursuit, however, Complainant #1 continued to travel eastbound on Hwy 417, following which he was observed to turn into the centre median and then begin to accelerate travelling eastbound in the westbound lanes of traffic at speeds estimated as high as 180 km/h. At a point about 1.2 kilometres west of Panmure Road, and some four kilometres east of where the SO had brought his vehicle to a stop, Complainant #1’s Honda drove directly at two motor vehicles driving westbound in the westbound lanes and collided with those two vehicles head-on. The Honda was observed to neither slow, alter its position, or make any attempt to avoid the head-on collision.

There were no police vehicles observed in the area of the westbound lanes of traffic on Hwy 417, immediately preceding or at the time of the collision.

Section 128(13)(b), Highway Traffic Act – Police vehicles and speeding

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

On July 7, 2019, following a police-issued notification to be on the lookout for a male person, Complainant #1, who had allegedly sexually assaulted a child, following which he had threatened to kill himself by driving his vehicle into another motor vehicle, the SO of the OPS spotted Complainant #1’s motor vehicle, a black Honda, and engaged in a police pursuit on the 417 Highway in the Ottawa area. Shortly thereafter, Complainant #1’s motor vehicle crashed head-on into two motor vehicles, killing the driver of one (Complainant #2) and seriously injuring the driver and passenger of another. Complainant #1 also died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.

The offence that arises for consideration in this case is that of dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence is predicated on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. I am satisfied on balance that the manner in which the SO operated his police vehicle fell within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. At a speed upwards of 157 km/h, the top speed reached by the SO during his aborted pursuit, the officer was traveling well over the speed limit. That said, it bears reiterating that the officer quickly pulled to the shoulder and terminated the pursuit, when it became clear to him that Complainant #1 was not going to stop for the officer. The SO’s velocity is also mitigated to an extent by section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act, which, while it does not provide an officer free rein to exceed the speed limit without regard to public safety considerations, allows an officer to speed where he or she is in the lawful performance of duty. The SO was clearly in the exercise of his duty at the time. The same be said of the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time. These were favourable – the weather was clear, and the roads were dry with at most moderate vehicular traffic – and would not have exacerbated the inherent risks associated with the SO’s speed. Furthermore, it should be noted that there is no indication that the SO ever actually endangered, by the manner of his driving, any third-party motorists on Hwy 417. In fact, as soon as the SO determined that his pursuit may well have been “pushing” Complainant #1, he immediately terminated and pulled to the shoulder. Unfortunately, the fact that the SO abandoned his efforts and allowed Complainant #1 to flee, did not alter Complainant #1’s apparent goal of killing himself by intentionally causing a head-on collision with other motor vehicles, as evidenced by his deliberate action of entering into the westbound lanes of traffic and driving head-on into oncoming traffic.

In the final analysis, in the context of the SO’s short-lived engagement in this matter, notable for his brief pursuit of the Honda at high speeds which was quickly terminated when the SO determined that it was unsafe to continue, I have no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer either caused or contributed to the collision in question, or otherwise drove dangerously in violation of the Criminal Code.


Date: March 23, 2020

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit