2020 ONSC 3784, 2020 ONSC 3784

CITATION : The Estate of Alexander Cross et al v. The Estate of Enrico Staniscia et al, 2020 ONSC 3784 Court File No : 17-72772 & related SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE : Court File No: 17-72772 THE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER CROSS, by his estate trustee MARCELYNE CROSS, MARCELYNE CROSS, DOMINIQUE ROMAIN, MAXIME ROMAIN and STEPHANE ROMAIN Plaintiffs/Moving Parties -and- THE ESTATE OF ENRICO STANISCIA, JENNIFER JUDGE, INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY, SALOMON GUTIERREZ, JOHN DOE 1, STEPHEN J. HODGSON, WENDY R.

MARCUCCIO, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5 and OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE Defendants/Respondents -and- RE : Court File No: 18-75982 MEGHAN DEMERS, SHANNON DEMERS and RYAN O’NEILL Plaintiffs/Moving Parties -and- THE ESTATE OF ENRICO STANISCIA by his Estate Administrator, John Doe, JENNIFER JUDGE, THE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER CROSS, by his estate trustee MARCELYNE CROSS, INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY, SALOMON GUTIERREZ, WENDY R. MARCUCCIO, STEPHEN J.

HODGSON, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5 and OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE Defendants/Respondents BEFORE: Master Fortier COUNSEL: David Hollingsworth and Philippe Michaud-Simard counsel for the plaintiffs/moving parties in action 17-72772. Lesly Joseph counsel for the plaintiffs/moving parties in action No: 18-75982. Domenico Polla, Counsel for the responding Non-Party Special Investigations Unit. HEARD: May 14, 2020 (in writing)

REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION 1 . T he plaintiffs in action Nos. 17-72772 and 18-75982 have each brought motions seeking production of documents from the Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”), a non-party, pursuant to rule 30.10 of Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990. Reg 194 . 2 . Both the moving parties and the responding non-party consent to have this motion heard in writing due to COVID-19. The plaintiffs in both actions have filed a joint factum and seek the same relief. They will hereinafter be referred to as “the plaintiffs” or “ the moving parties”. BACKGROUND 3 .

On April 12, 2016, Alexander Cross was driving his vehicle on the Vanier Parkway in Ottawa. Meghan Demers was his front seat passenger. A vehicle driven by Enrico Staniscia collided with Mr. Cross’ vehicle, causing Mr. Cross to suffer life-ending injuries and severely injuring Ms. Demers. Mr. Staniscia was also injured in the accident and succumbed to his injuries some time later. 4 . Ms. Demers and Mr. Cross’ estate, and their respective families began separate actions for damages. 5 . Enrico Staniscia had been pursued by Ottawa Police Service officers prior to the time of the collision.

The Ottawa Police Service (the “OPS”), as well as officers Gutierrez, Hodgson, and Marcuccio are defendants to this action. 6 . Following the accident, the Special Investigations Unit (the “SIU”) completed an investigation of the OPS and the subject officers in relation to the events leading to the accident. 7 . The SIU is mandated to investigate all serious injuries and deaths caused by police officers in the province of Ontario and to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a police officer committed a criminal offence. 8 .

Pursuant to this mandate, the SIU investigated the collision and completed a report dated May 26, 2017. The SIU Director found that there were no grounds to believe the OPS officers committed an offence and the investigation was closed. 9 . In the course of their investigation, the SIU obtained or created several documents. The documents include administrative forms, witness statements, correspondence, police records, investigator notes, various reports, video footage and photographs. 10 .

The plaintiffs in both actions bring motions seeking an order pursuant to Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the SIU to produce their complete, unredacted investigative file in relation to the April 12, 2016 accident. 11 . The SIU has produced large parts of its files (approximately 78 out of 144 documents) and opposes the production of other documents. 12 . The SIU prepared an “Index of Documents” (the “Index”) listing all the documents contained in the SIU file and its position on production.

The Index, along with copies of the documents to which the SIU consented to produce were provided to the moving parties by removable digital storage drive. A copy of the Index is attached to this endorsement.

13 . The moving parties, while acknowledging that they have received components of the SIU investigative file, seek the balance of the SIU’s file. They argue that: a. The documents sought contain information relevant to a material issue in the actions, namely the liability of the OPS and its officers; and b. It would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having discovery of the documents and information in possession of the SIU. 14 . The SIU opposes the production of:

a) Witness interviews and witness statements where no consent has been provided by the witness (items 20, 22, 23, 26-28, 30-32,109, 122 B, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, M of the Index);

b) Documents that are derivative of other sources of information that have already been produced (items 5, 33-34, 37);

c) Documents that are administrative in nature and/ or derivative of other sources of information (items 1 - 2; 107-108);

d) Documents that are not relevant to a material issue in the actions (items 6-18, 41-50, 52-61, 100);

e) Documents available from another source which is available to the moving parties . (items 39,101-103 and 129). 15 . The SIU resists the production order sought arguing that the moving parties have not established either that the documents are relevant to a material issue in the actions or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them as required pursuant to rule 30.10 .

The SIU argues that in the event that the court finds that the requirements of rule 30.10 have been satisfied, a proper balancing of the competing interests, favours non-production due to the confidentiality of its investigative materials particularly with respect to the witnesses who have not consented to the use of their statements in the two actions. DISPOSITION 16 . For the reasons that follow, the motions with respect to the production of the witness interviews are granted. The motions with respect to the balance of the documents remaining at issue are dismissed. LAW AND ANALYSIS 17 .

The production of documents from non-parties is governed by rule 30.10 which provides as follows: 30.10

(1) The court may, on motion by a party, order production for inspection of a document that is in the possession, control or power of a person not a party and is not privileged where the court is satisfied that, (

a) the document is relevant to a material issue in the action; and (

b) it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having discovery of the document. 18 . The relief on a motion under rule 31.10 is discretionary and the onus is on the moving party to satisfy the court on both branches of the test. 19 . The leading authority on the test to be applied on a motion under rule 30.10 is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario

(Attorney General) v. Stavro . [1] In Stavro , the court held that:

a) Production from a non-party is the exception and not the rule. [2]

b) The relevancy of the documents sought to be produced from the non-party must first be established. The fairness assessment is only engaged after the documents are found to be relevant. [3]

c) The “fairness assessment”, in Rule 30.10(1)(

b) includes consideration of the following factors: i- The importance of the documents in the litigation; ii- Whether production at the discovery stage of the process as opposed to production at trial is necessary to avoid unfairness to the plaintiff; iii- Whether the discovery of the defendants with respect to the issues to which the documents are relevant is adequate and, if not, whether responsibility for that inadequacy rests with the defendants; iv- The position of the non-parties with respect to the production v- The availability of the documents or their informational equivalent from some other source which is accessible to the plaintiff’s; and vi- The relationship of the non-parties from whom production is sought, to the litigation and the parties to the litigation. [4] 20 .

The list of factors to be considered outlined in Stavro is not exhaustive. In N.G. v. Upper Canada College , [5] Justice Lang stated that “the public interest … is an important question to consider in the context of the Rule 30.10 “fairness” criterion.” [6] A- Witness Statements and Interviews 21 . The moving parties seek production of all the civilian and police officer statements. They seek un-redacted statements from any witnesses to the accident or to the circumstances and events surrounding the accident, including interview reports, supplementary interview reports and witness statements. 22 .

The SIU investigation consisted of interviews with nine civilian witnesses and five witness officers. The identities of the civilian witnesses and the witness officers have been provided to the moving parties. 23. Following the receipt of the motion, the SIU attempted to contact the civilian witnesses to determine if they would consent to the release of their statement. Of the nine civilian witnesses contacted, three provided their consent to the release of their statement, one provided consent to “anyone except the police” and the others have either not responded or could not be contacted.

24. The SIU opposes the request by the moving parties to produce the remainder of the witness statements on the basis that the authors have not provided consent to their release. 25. The SIU argues that civilian witnesses were given an assurance of confidentiality by the SIU before they provided their statements. That confidentiality promise provided in part that “ Anything you tell us will be kept confidential by the SIU, unless you consent to its release or unless we have to release it by operation of law”.

The SIU submits that the witness confidentiality assurance is a key component to building rapport and securing an interview with witnesses who may fear the consequences of their statements being disclosed to the police. 26. The SIU contends that the balancing of competing interests, including the public interest, militates against ordering production of the remaining civilian witness statements absent the consent of the witness. 27.

One of five OPS witness officer statements and associated audio recording has been produced because the officer is a party to the action and has consented to the motion through counsel. The statements of the four remaining witness officers have not been produced because:

a) The SIU has not received their consent to release their statement; and

b) Each witness officer has been provided with a copy of their statement. The statements could conceivably be obtained through the defendant OPS or via an undertaking at discovery. 28. The moving parties argue that the witness statements are relevant to the issue of liability of the OPS and its officers. Furthermore, much of the information in the SIU file cannot be otherwise obtained by the plaintiffs and information obtained from witnesses will not be as reliable, given the passage of time since the collision. 29.

In cases similar to the one before me, the courts have found that the statements of witnesses are relevant to the issue of liability as against the defendants. 30. In Stafford v. Adams [7] the plaintiff sought production of witness statements obtained by the SIU investigators during its investigation of a pursuit by Toronto Police of a vehicle driven by the Defendant which collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

As stated by Stewart J. in Stafford : [8] “… it was obvious at the onset that any statements made by participants or witnesses to the high-speed chase which ended in a collision would probably be relevant to the issues of liability raised against all defendants.” 31. McGillivary v. Toronto Police Services Board, [9] was a wrongful death action involving the death of Charles McGillivary following a struggle with two police officers. The incident was immediately investigated by the SIU. The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to rule 30.10 to produce witness interviews and statements.

Master Muir found the witness statements to be relevant to the issue of the alleged negligence of the Subject Officers and ordered production. [10] 32. The present actions arise out of a high-speed chase which ended in a fatal collision. In my opinion, it is obvious the witness statements of both the civilian witnesses and the officer witnesses are relevant to the issue of liability of the OPS and the subject officers. 33. In my view, the plaintiffs have satisfied the first branch of the test and have established that the witness statements sought to be produced are relevant to a material issue in the action.

In considering the factors outlined in Stavro , I also find that the second branch of the test, the fairness assessment, has been satisfied and it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having discovery of the document for the following reasons: 1) The witness statements will likely form an important component of the evidence necessary for the just resolution of the proceedings.

2) In my view, the production of the witness statements at the discovery stage rather than at trial is important so that all parties canassess their respective positions and explore the possibility for early resolution. The parties have yet to proceed to discovery ormediation. As held by Master Muir in McGillivary:[11] “ The unfairness referenced in Rule 30.10 is not simply unfairness at trial. It alsoincludes unfairness in proceeding to trial. It is my view that it would be unfair for the parties to proceed to trial without an effectivemediation session.

These witness statements are an important part of that process. As the Court of Appeal noted in D.P. v. Wagg, (ON CA), [2004] O.J.

No. 2053 (C.A.) at paragraph 53 “[s]ociety has an interest in seeing that justice is done in civilcases as well as criminal cases, and generally speaking that will occur when the parties have the opportunity to put all relevant evidencebefore the court”. 3) In my view, the information contained in the witness interviews likely extends beyond information that can be obtained throughdiscovery of the defendants. 4) Although the SIU argues that the witness officers have obtained a copy of their statements, I am satisfied that the moving parties haveno direct access to their statements or statements from the civilian witnesses through another source. 34.

I turn now to the objection to production raised by the SIU due to the public interest concern outlined in paragraphs 25 and 26above. The courts have considered the confidentiality assurance given to the witnesses by the SIU investigators and have found that theassurance is not absolute and the phrase “release it by operation of law” would include an order of this court following the considerationof the relevant legal principles.[12] Further, the public policy evidence of the SIU must be robust to justify the non-disclosure ofdocuments to which the parties are otherwise entitled under Rule 30.10. [13] 35.

I am unable to conclude from the public policy evidence of the SIU that the efficacy of the SIU investigations is dependent on aqualified assurance of confidentiality. The evidence is general in nature and lacking in detail. In balancing the needs of the movingparties for access to the witness statements and interviews against the interests of the non-party and the public, I find that the balancefavours the moving parties. The witness statements are relevant to the issues of liability and would relate to the events surrounding thecollision.

The statements are important to the plaintiffs’ claims and will assist with the determination of what occurred on April 12, 2016.This, in my view, outweighs the SIU’s policy concerns and purported privacy interests of the witnesses that provided statements to theSIU. The productions are, of course, subject to the protection of the deemed undertaking rule. Balance of Documents at Issue 36. Aside from the witness statements, the moving parties have failed to identify which documents in the SIU’s investigative filethat have not been produced are relevant and why.

Simply assuming relevance of all documents in the SIU file is not enough to satisfythe requirements of rule 30.10 [14] 37. Moreover, according to the SIU, many of the documents listed in the Index are derivative of other sources of information thathave already been produced or documents available from another source which is available to the moving parties. The moving partieshave not provided evidence to the contrary. 38. In Stein v. Windsor Police Services Board [15]the Court of Appeal of Ontario ruled that the SIU Director’s Report is derivative ofother information in the file and not relevant.

The court reversed the lower court’s order to produce the report. In my opinion, thisreasoning applies to much of the information in the file that has not been produced. Further, it appears to me that many of the documentsare administrative in nature and there is no evidence before me why these documents would be relevant to a material issue in the actions. 39. In my view, the moving parties are not entitled to the SIU’s complete and unredacted file as of right. As held by this court,the SIU is not “an information collection agency for individuals in civil actions”[16] 40.

One must remember that production from a non-party is exceptional and the onus is on the moving parties to show that thedocuments sought are relevant to a material issue in the action. In my view, the plaintiffs have not met their onus and have not satisfiedthe first branch of the test with respect to the balance of the documents remaining at issue. Given my conclusion, it is unnecessary toaddress the second branch of the test relating to unfairness.

CONCLUSION 41.

Production of the following portions of the Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) file for the motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 12, 2016 sought by the Plaintiffs in both action numbers 17-72772 and 18-75982 is hereby ordered: a- Interview synopses of Constables Colin Bowie, Jonathan Kenney, Kristopher Montgomery and Adam Munro (Index of Documents of the Special Investigations Unit (“Index”) items 20, 27, 30 and 31); b- Interview synopses of civilian witnesses M.D., E.E., K.K., L.L. and C.S., (Index items 22, 23, 26, 28, 32); c- Audio witness statements of Constables Colin Bowie, Jonathan Kenney, Kristopher Montgomery and Adam Munro (Index items 122 B., H, K, L); d- Audio witness statements of civilian witnesses M.D., E.E., K.K., L.L. and C.S. (Index items 122 D, E, G, I, and

M) and e- Scene drawing by civilian witness M.D. (Index item 109). 42. The records produced and copies provided to counsel for the Plaintiffs shall be used by counsel for the sole purpose of these two civil actions, and for no other purpose, and the information may only be used for the purposes of these civil actions and by the parties to the litigation for the full and fair disposition of the issues in those proceedings, and may not be otherwise disclosed or produced to any other person. 43.

The parties directly involved in the litigation in these matters shall not disclose the records produced and copied or any information there from to any person who does not have a direct interest in the civil proceedings; except: a- to the Court for the litigation of these matters or, b- to an expert retained by the parties or appointed by the Court for purposes of rendering an opinion or doing an assessment. 44. The SIU shall produce the documents pursuant to this Order to the Plaintiffs in both actions within 60 days of receipt of this Order. 45.

The motion with respect to the balance of the documents remaining at issue is dismissed. 46. As there was divided success on the motions, there shall be no costs. ________________________ Master Fortier DATE: June 17, 2020

Index of Documents of the Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) - File No. 16-OVD-95 Record No. Record Description Position on Production 1. Intake Shapshot Report Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – information is administrative and derivative of other sources in the file 2. Case Closure / Notification Form Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – information is administrative and derivative of other sources in the file 3. SIU Director’s Decision Letter to Chief of Ottawa Police dated April 21, 2017 Yes – on consent 4.

SIU Director’s Decision Letter to Attorney General for Ontario dated April 21, 2017 Yes – on consent 5. SIU Director’s Report Not relevant, pursuant to Stein v. Windsor Police Services Board , 2013 ONCA 323 (and privileged) 6. Designation Notice to Constable Colin Bowie (pursuant to Ontario Regulation 267/10 ) Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 7. Designation Notice to Constable Timothy Cowlie Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 8. Designation Notice to Constable Salomon Gutierrez Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 9.

Designation Notice to Constable Tyler Hawkins Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 10. Designation Notice to Sergeant Stephen Hodgson Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 11. Designation Notice to Constable Jonathan Kenney Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 12. Designation Notice to Constable Robert Laplante Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 13. Designation Notice to Constable Wendy Marcuccio Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 14. Designation Notice to Constable Kristopher Montgomery Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 15.

Designation Notice to Constable Adam Munro Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 16. Designation Notice to Constable Scott Pearce Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 17. Designation Notice to Constable Alain Rochette Not relevant to a material issue in the actions

18. Designation Notice to Constable Brenna Smith Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 19. Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness A.B. Yes – on consent 20. Interview Synopsis of Constable Colin Bowie No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 21. Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness C.C. Yes – on consent 22. Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness M.D.

No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 23 . Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness E.E. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 24 . Interview Synopsis of Sergeant Stephen Hodgson Yes – on consent 25 . Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness J.J. Yes – on consent 26 . Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness K.K.

No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 27 . Interview Synopsis of Constable Jonathan Kenney No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 28 . Interview Synopsis of Civillian Witness L.L. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 29 . Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness A.M. Yes – on consent 30 .

Interview Synopsis of Constable Kristopher Montgomery No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 31 . Interview Synopsis of Constable Adam Munro No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 32 . Interview Synopsis of Civilian Witness C.S. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 33 .

Follow-up Report – SIU

Summary of Automatic Vehicle Location Data for involved Police Vehicles No – the source of the information, namely the GPS location data, is being produced on consent, and the SIU’s

summary thereof is not relevant 34 . Folllow-up Report –

Summary of Dispatch Recordings obtained from Ottawa Police Service No – the source of the information, namely the audio of the dispatch recordings, is being produced on consent, and the SIU’s

summary thereof is not relevant 35 . Follow-up Report of SIU Investigator David Robinson dated May 8, 2016 Yes – on consent 36 . Follow-up Report of SIU Investigator Leslie Noble dated July 12, 2016 Yes – on consent 37 . Follow-up Report dated October 14, 2016 –

Summary of Goodyear Closed Circuit Television Cameras (“CCTV”) No – the source of the information, namely the Goodyear security camera video, is being produced on consent, and the SIU’s

summary thereof is not relevant 38 . Follow-up Report dated October 25, 2016 –

Summary of City of Ottawa Traffic Camera Video Footage Yes – on consent (the

summary report contains information that assists with the relevance of the video) 39 . Follow-up Report dated October 14, 2016 –

Summary of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) building security CCTV No – the source of the information, namely the RCMP security camera video footage, may be available, and the SIU’s

summary thereof is not relevant 40 . Follow-up Report dated June 1, 2016 regarding security camera video of Salvation Army Ottawa Booth Center Yes – on consent (the video does not play and therefore the source document is not available) 41 . Follow-up Report dated February 19, 2017 regarding passing of Enrico Staniscia and next-of-kin Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 42 . Letter from SIU to Ottawa Police Service dated April 14, 2016, regarding confirmation and notification of investigation and request for records Not relevant to a material issue in the actions

43 . Letter from SIU to Ottawa Police Service dated April 14, 2016, regarding re-designation of Constable Salomon Gutierrez Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 44 . Letter to the SIU dated April 20, 2016, from legal counsel to Constable Salomon Gutierrez regarding designation Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 45 . Interview request letter to Wendy Marcuccio dated May 17, 2016 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 46 . Request letter to Coroner dated May 25, 2016, regarding center of forensic sciences and pathologist reports Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 47 .

Duplicate of Record #46 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 48 . Coroner’s Authority to Seize During an Investigation dated October 11, 2016 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 49 . Letter to SIU dated November 21, 2016, from Lesley Joseph, legal counsel to Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – counsel already has a copy 50 . Coroner’s Authority to Seize During an Investigation dated December 23, 2016 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 51 . Letter from SIU to Coroner dated January 11, 2017 Yes – on consent 52 .

Letter to SIU dated January 17, 2017, from Lesley Joseph, legal counsel to Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – counsel already has a copy 53 . Letter from SIU to Lesly Joseph dated February 6, 2017 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – counsel already has a copy 54 . Letter to SIU dated May 2, 2017, from Lesly Joseph, legal counsel to Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – counsel already has a copy 55 . Internal SIU e-mail dated May 25, 2017, regarding member of public request for file Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 56 .

Letter from SIU to Coroner dated May 26, 2017 regarding SIU Director’s Report and Enrico Staniscia Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 57 . Same, regarding Alexander Cross-St. Pierre Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 58 . Letter from SIU Counsel Joseph Martino dated May 26, 2017, to Lesly Joseph, counsel for Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions – counsel already has a copy 59 . Letter from Ottawa Police Chief to SIU dated May 23, 2017, regarding file closure Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 60 .

Letter from Ottawa Police Service to SIU dated September 28, 2017, regarding investigation pursuant to

section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 61 . Letter from SIU to Ottawa Police dated October 5, 2017, responding to

section 11 investigation letter Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 62 . Witness Statement of K.K. taken by Constable Adam Munro Yes – on consent 63 . Audio / Video Extract Request from Ottawa Police Service to RCMP Yes – on consent 64 . Ottawa Police Service Computer Aided Dispatch Report Yes – on consent 65 . Crash Data Retrieval Report for Pontiac G6 Yes – on consent 66 . Ottawa Police Service – Detailed Call

Summary Yes – on consent 67 . Global Positioning Satellite Data – Constable Gutierrez Yes – on consent 68 . Global Positioning Satellite Data – Constable Marcuccio Yes – on consent 69 . Global Positioning Satellite Data – Sergeant Hodgson Yes – on consent 70 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Colin Bowie Yes – on consent 71 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Timothy Cowley Yes – on consent 72 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Tyler Hawkins Yes – on consent 73 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Sergeant Stephen Hodgson Yes – on consent 74 .

Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Jonathan Kenney Yes – on consent 75 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Robert Laplante Yes – on consent 76 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Kristopher Montgomery Yes – on consent 77 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Adam Munro Yes – on consent 78 . Narrative Text Hardcopy – Constable Brenna Smith Yes – on consent 79 . Ottawa Police Service Policy No. 8.08 – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits Yes – on consent 80 . Training Record – Transcript Report – Constable Salomon Gutierrez Yes – on consent 81 .

Training Record – Employee Profile – Constable Salomon Gutierrez Yes – on consent 82 . Training Record – Transcript Report – Constable Wendy Marcuccio Yes – on consent

83 . Training Record – Employee Profile – Constable Wendy Marcuccio Yes – on consent 84 . Witness Statement of A.B. taken by Constable Kristopher Montgomery of Ottawa Police Yes – on consent 85 . Witness Statement of C.C. taken by Constable Tyler Hawkins of Ottawa Police Yes – on consent 86 . Witness Statement of C.S. taken by Constable Adam Munro of Ottawa Police Yes – on consent 87 . Witness Statement of E.E. taken by Constable Timothy Cowley of Ottawa Police Yes – on consent 88 . Witness Statement of J.J. taken by Constable Brenna Smith of Ottawa Police Yes – on consent 89 .

Memo Book Notes – Constable Brenna Smith Yes – on consent 90 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Colin Bowie Yes – on consent 91 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Timothy Cowley Yes – on consent 92 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Tyler Hawkins Yes – on consent 93 . Memo Book Notes – Sergeant Stephen Hodgson Yes – on consent 94 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Jonathan Kenney Yes – on consent 95 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Robert Laplante Yes – on consent 96 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Kristopher Montgomery Yes – on consent 97 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Adam Munro Yes – on consent 98 . Memo Book Notes – Constable S.

Pearce Yes – on consent 99 . Memo Book Notes – Constable Alain Rochette Yes – on consent 100 . Authorization for Release of Medical Information – Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 101 . Medical Records of Meghan Demers – The Ottawa Hospital No – these records may be obtained directly from the medical service provider 102 . Preliminary Autopsy Findings – Ottawa (Eastern Ontario Regional Forensic Pathology Unit) No – these records may be obtained directly from the medical service provider 103 . Report of Postmortem Examination and Toxicology Report of Alexander Cross-St.

Pierre No – these records may be obtained directly from the medical service provider 104 . SIU Property Status Review dated May 5, 2016 Yes – on consent 105 . SIU Property Status Review dated June 8, 2017 Yes – on consent 106 . SIU Witness List Yes – but with redactions of personal information 107 . Internal SIU E-mails regarding receipt of records Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 108 . Courier slip for return of cell phone to Meghan Demers Not relevant to a material issue in the actions 109 . Scene drawing by civilian witness M.D.

No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release this document 110 . SIU News Release Initial – English Yes – on consent 111 . SIU News Release Initial – French Yes – on consent 112 . SIU News Release Final – English Yes – on consent 113 . SIU News Release Final – French Yes – on consent 114 . SIU Investigator Notes – Pasha McKellop Yes, with redactions of information unrelated to this case 115 .

SIU Investigator Notes of Leslie Noble and Rolf Prisor Yes – but with redactions of information unrelated to this case; information for which a confidentiality assurance was provided, and consent has not been obtained; personal information; privileged information; and information obtained from a police service under a statutory duty to cooperate 116 .

SIU Investigator Notes – David Robinson Yes – but with redactions of information unrelated to this case; information for which a confidentiality assurance was provided, and consent has not been obtained; personal information; privileged information; and information obtained from a police service under a statutory duty to cooperate

117 . SIU Investigator Notes – Gary Smith Yes – but with redactions of information unrelated to this case; information for which a confidentiality assurance was provided, and consent has not been obtained; personal information; privileged information; and information obtained from a police service under a statutory duty to cooperate 118 .

SIU Investigator Notes – Winslow Taylor Yes – but with redactions of information unrelated to this case; information for which a confidentiality assurance was provided, and consent has not been obtained; personal information; privileged information; and information obtained from a police service under a statutory duty to cooperate 119 .

SIU Investigator Notes – Ralph Mahar Yes – but with redactions of information unrelated to this case; information for which a confidentiality assurance was provided, and consent has not been obtained; personal information; privileged information; and information obtained from a police service under a statutory duty to cooperate 120 . Ottawa Police Service Dispatch Audio Recordings Yes – on consent 121 . Ontario Provincial Police scene photographs Yes – on consent 122 . Audio Witness Statements A. A.B. Yes – on consent B.

Constable Colin Bowie No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 C. C.C. Yes – on consent D. M.D. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement E. E.E. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement F. Sergeant Stephen Hodgson Yes – on consent G. K.K.

No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement H. Constable Jonathan Kenney No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 I. L.L. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement J. A.M. Yes – on consent K.

Constable Kristopher Montgomery No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 L. Constable Adam Munro No – the officer has not consented to the release of the statement and in any event, may obtain a copy of it pursuant to subsection 8(3) of Ontario Regulation 267/10 M. C.S. No – the SIU provided an assurance of confidentiality and has been unable to obtain the witness’s consent to release their statement 123 .

Autopsy Photographs *Caution – extremely graphic – discretion is advised Yes – on consent 124 . SIU Exhibit Photographs Yes – on consent 125 . SIU Scene Photographs Yes – on consent 126 . SIU Vehicle Photographs Yes – on consent 127 . Salvation Army CCTV Video Footage (does not play) Yes – however, the video file does not play, and the parties may contact the Salvation Army for further information

128. Goodyear CCTV Video Footage Yes – on consent 129. RCMP Security Camera Video (special player required) No – this record was provided by the RCMP in expectationthat it would only be used for the purposes of the SIUinvestigation; the moving parties are free to seek production ofthe video directly from the RCMP, or the RCMP’s consent forthe SIU to produce it130. Traffic Camera Footage Yes – on consent 131. SIU Scene Video Footage Yes – on consent 132. SIU Pursuit Route Video Yes – on consent [1] (ON CA), [1995] O.J.

No. 3136 (C.A.). [2] (Stavro at para 13). [3] Stavro at paras. 6 and 16. [4] Stavro at para. 15. [6] N.G. at para. 14 [11] at para 16 [13] McGillivary at para. 38 [14] Marshall et al and Estate of Sheldon Gladders, 2014 ONSC 2821 at para 35 .