Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal 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.

Mandate engaged

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 serious injury sustained by a 34-year-old man on December 13, 2016 when he was struck by a tractor-trailer while being pursued on foot by an officer.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

On December 13, 2016 at 4:20 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s serious injury.

OPS reported that at 2:57 p.m., on December 13, 2016, OPS officers on foot patrol were investigating a group of individuals at King Edward and Rideau Streets when one of the men [later identified as the Complainant] fled on foot. The Subject Officer (SO) chased the Complainant on foot. The Complainant fled into traffic and was struck by a truck. The Complainant was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a broken leg.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0footnote 1

Complainant:

34-year-old male interviewed, his medical records were obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1  Interviewed

CW #2  Interviewed

CW #3  Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

Evidence

The Scene

The incident started behind an industrial/commercial building which houses, among other things, the Ottawa Boxing Club. This is located on the east side of King Edward Street approximately 75 metres north of the intersection with Rideau Street. The area of the loading docks, where the interaction occurred, is approximately 20 metres east of the roadway.

King Edward Street is a major north-south roadway composed of three lanes of traffic in each direction and a sidewalk for pedestrian traffic on each side of the roadway. The speed limit on the street is 50 km/h.

Physical Evidence

The Vehicle Involved

The vehicle which struck the Complainant was a tractor-trailer unit with a 45 foot trailer loaded with road salt. It was equipped with a GPS unit which recorded time, speed and location of the vehicle. The GPS data shows that the tractor-trailer had been eastbound on Rideau Street and stopped at the intersection with King Edward Street. The vehicle turned left and travelled northbound on King Edward Street, gaining speed to reach a maximum of 26 km/h before stopping at 2:57 p.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Traffic Camera

A traffic camera located at the intersection of Rideau and King Edward Streets captured the incident. The footage shows two pedestrians [now known to be CW #2 and CW #3] walking southbound on the east sidewalk. The tractor-trailer unit turned left, from eastbound Rideau Street onto northbound King Edward Street and travelled north in the centre of three lanes. A man [now known to be the Complainant] ran suddenly from between two buildings on the east side, travelling west, directly into the path of the tractor-trailer. At about the same time as the truck impacted the Complainant, a police officer [later identified as the SO] appeared, also from between the two buildings on the east side and ran westbound. The SO is slightly more than one traffic lane behind the Complainant. There was no contact between the SO and the Complainant during the time they were visible on the camera.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the OPS:

  • Computer Aided Dispatch
  • Civilian Witness List
  • Investigative Action Report – the WO
  • Notes of the WO
  • Person Hardcopy (past police involvement) – the Complainant
  • Photograph book of Scene Photos
  • Traffic Camera Recording
  • Witness Statements for CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3

Incident narrative

During the afternoon of December 13, 2016, the Complainant was with a group of men next to a heating/exhaust vent towards the rear of the parking area of the abandoned Department of National Defence property in Ottawa. The SO and WO were on foot patrol in the area, and because they smelt marijuana and observed one of the men smoking, decided to investigate the group. While the WO was arresting one man, the SO was speaking to the Complainant. For no apparent reason, the Complainant then ran across the parking lot towards King Street, pursued by the SO, and then the WO.

As the Complainant crossed the sidewalk along the east side of King Edward Street, he ran into CW #2, who was walking south toward Rideau Street with CW #3. CW #2 grabbed the Complainant by the arm, but the Complainant broke free and ran directly into the northbound lanes of King Edward Street. As the Complainant was entering lane two of the street, he was struck by a northbound tractor-trailer.

An ambulance was called and the Complainant was taken to the hospital. He sustained fractures to both the tibia and femur of the left leg.

Analysis and director’s decision

On December 13th, 2016, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the SO and the WO, who were on foot patrol at the time, came across a group of men that they believed may be consuming alcohol and/or drugs in a public place; specifically, one of the men was observed to be smoking what was believed to be a marijuana cigarette. The SO and the WO decided to stop and investigate these males, resulting in the seizure of a small amount of marijuana from one male, who was then cautioned and released. While the SO was speaking to another one of the men, that man, the Complainant, started to run off and both officers gave pursuit. The Complainant was observed by two independent witnesses to run towards them as they were walking on the sidewalk on King Edward Street. CW #2, one of the two civilians, made contact with the Complainant, but he continued to run. The Complainant was then observed by both civilian witnesses, as well as the two police officers, to run directly into the path of a tractor-trailer and was struck by the front bumper.

CW #1, the operator of the tractor-trailer, observed the Complainant run into his lane of traffic, directly in front of his truck, and he, CW #1, was unable to stop his vehicle before striking the Complainant. All the witnesses confirmed that both police officers were still some distance back when the Complainant ran into the road and was struck, and that neither officer was in physical contact with the Complainant at the time that he ran into the road, or immediately prior. The WO estimated that the SO was approximately 7.6 metres behind the Complainant, while he, the WO, was a further 7.6 metres behind the SO. On all of the evidence, there is no dispute that at no time did any police officer come into physical contact with the Complainant; consequently, it is clear that the Complainant made a conscious decision to run from police and voluntarily ran into a live lane of traffic where he was struck by a tractor-trailer.

The GPS data from the truck driven by CW #1 confirmed that he was driving at 26 km/h when he struck the Complainant, at 2:57 p.m., while driving northbound on King Edward Street.

The traffic camera at the intersection of Rideau and King Edward Streets confirmed the incident as outlined above; specifically, it showed the Complainant as he suddenly ran from between two buildings on the east side of the street, directly into the path of the tractor trailer, and was struck. It also confirmed that the SO was approximately the width of one lane of traffic behind the Complainant and that, at no time, was there any physical contact between the SO and the Complainant, leading up to the Complainant running into traffic and being struck and injured by the tractor-trailer.

On the basis of all of the evidence, it is clear that there was no direct contact between the Complainant and any police officer; that the Complainant consciously made the decision to flee from police; and that in doing so, he ran into a live lane of traffic and was struck and injured by a tractor-trailer. As there is no evidence that the SO in any way caused the injuries to the Complainant, there is no causal connection between the injuries to the Complainant and the SO and therefore no basis for the laying of charges.

Although it is true that had the SO not stopped and spoken to the Complainant in order to investigate what he believed was the illegal use of narcotics, the Complainant may not have run and ultimately been injured; the police, however, cannot be held accountable for the actions taken by persons who wish to evade them. At the time that officers initially stopped and spoke to the men in the parking lot, they had reasonable grounds to believe, both due to their visual observations as well as the odour of marijuana detected, that an offence contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was in progress and were duty bound to investigate. Once the Complainant ran from them, police were entitled to pursue in order to complete their lawful investigation. The choices made by the Complainant to flee from police, and then run into an active lane of traffic, were his own, and only he is responsible for the unfortunate results.

On this record, there is no causal connection between the actions of police and the injuries sustained by the Complainant; nor is there any basis for the laying of criminal charges.

Date: October 6, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit