Mark Clairmont | MuskokaTODAY.com

BALA — A speeding police officer whose vehicle hit a pedestrian leaving the Bala Bay early last Sept. 29 and killing him has been cleared of criminal responsibility

The SIU, Ontario’s police watchdog, released a report on the accident today, Friday March 28.

Noah Landriault, 25, who worked at the Kee to Bala, was with a friend just before 6 a.m. that Sunday when he was struck by an unmarked police Jeep Cherokee on a call.

He was crossing Hwy. 169 from the former hotel toward the Kee.

The police cruiser was northbound toward the Port Carling side of Muskoka Lakes.

The unidentified subject officer (SO) ran to the man who was still alive, while his friend called 911 — as did the officer.

Landriault was pronounced dead on scene after paramedics arrived just after 6 a.m.

SIU report:

According to the SIU report here they were contacted to investigate at 6:50 a.m. as they do in any serious injury incident involving police.

The report said the officer behind the wheel declined an SIU interview and to provide notes, as is her legal right

The civilian witness, who was also unidentified, was interviewed the same day after the accident.

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that Landriault’s death was attributable to blunt impact head trauma.

911 call at 5:52 a.m. Sept. 29

On September 29, at 5:52:35 a.m., the OPP Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) received a 911 call from a man (the  complainant witness) advising a person was hit on the road.

According to SIU records the Provincial Communication Centre operator speaking to the subject officer said “the Complainant was hit by a car. She provided the location and indicated the Complainant was still conscious, but barely. The communicator asked what happened, with the SO responding, “I was coming down, I’m the one that hit him. I was coming down 169, Bala, two males walking down…” She was driving, “70.” The Complainant was a pedestrian in the middle of the street.”

At 6:09 a.m., MPS paramedics and the Muskoka Lakes fire service were at the scene. The complainant was vital signs absent.

SIU conclusions:

The SO was northbound on Muskoka Road 169 entering the community of Bala. She drove through two gentle curves, which were about 125 and 500 metres south of the collision scene. The posted speed limit had decreased from 60 km/h to 50 km/h. It was a posted Community Safety Zone. In the final curve and about 250 metres south of the collision scene, the speed limit was again posted as 50 km/h.

The Complainant and the CW left the Bala Bay Inn and walked on the north driveway to Muskoka Road 169 intending to cross the road. They walked at a normal pedestrian rate of speed. The roadway was clear of traffic.

The Complainant and the CW reached the west edge of the road. The SO was about 180 metres away to the south and the road had not yet straightened out. She was driving at a rate of speed calculated to be about 75 km/h. She would not likely have had a view of the Complainant and the CW.

The SO continued northbound at about 70 to 75 km/h.

The Complainant stepped onto the road in the southbound lane and began to cross. It was about nine seconds prior to the collision.

About three seconds after the Complainant stepped onto the road, the road ahead of the SO straightened out to a primarily commercial neighbourhood with one lane for northbound traffic and one lane for southbound traffic. The road was dry, level, in good condition, and lit by overhead streetlights. There were no view obstructions.

As the Complainant and the CW crossed the southbound lane, a light flickered from the CW’s cell phone. Neither looked back to the south.

The SO continued northbound at a rate of speed of about 70 km/h.

The Complainant and the CW ought to have been visible to the SO as she approached them. Likewise, as they walked on the road, the Complainant and the CW ought to have been aware of the Jeep approaching northbound by the sound or by the headlights. They continued to walk in the southbound lane and were heading generally northeast.

About two seconds prior to the collision, the Complainant stepped onto the centre line between the southbound lane and the northbound lane. The SO was about 40 metres away.

As per the video footage, the Jeep’s headlights clearly lit up the Complainant and the CW. The CW turned his head and looked towards the Jeep. About one second later, the Complainant stepped into the northbound lane while the SO was about 16 metres away.

As he walked, the Complainant turned and looked towards the Jeep. He stopped, or tried to stop, walking. The SO braked hard. She did not steer in an evasive manner. The Jeep slowed to about 44 km/h.

About nine seconds after the Complainant and the CW stepped onto the road and started to cross, and at least six seconds after they ought to have been visible to the SO, the Complainant was struck by the front left corner of the Jeep and projected forward and onto the ground.

Video footage from nearby business

The SIU report cited video footage from Muskoka Power Sports and Recreation/

It showed that starting at 5:51:44 a.m.,[3] the Complainant and the CW were walking on the west side of Muskoka Road 169 north of the driveway to the Bala Bay Inn. There was a light source which flickered on and off consistent with a cell phone believed to be in the CW’s hand as he walked. A Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by the SO was northbound on Muskoka Road 169. There were two gentle curves in the road between about 125 and 500 metres south of the collision scene.

Starting at 5:51:45 a.m., the Complainant (who appeared to be on the right side of the CW) stepped across a shallow concrete gutter and onto the white solid fog line on the west side of the road and then onto the southbound lane. The Complainant and the CW started to cross the road on a diagonal of 45 degrees or less.

As the Complainant and the CW crossed the southbound lane, a light flickered from the CW’s cell phone. Neither looked back to the south.

The SO continued northbound at a rate of speed of about 70 km/h.

The Complainant and the CW ought to have been visible to the SO as she approached them. Likewise, as they walked on the road, the Complainant and the CW ought to have been aware of the Jeep approaching northbound by the sound or by the headlights. They continued to walk in the southbound lane and were heading generally northeast.

About two seconds prior to the collision, the Complainant stepped onto the centre line between the southbound lane and the northbound lane. The SO was about 40 metres away. As per the video footage, the Jeep’s headlights clearly lit up the Complainant and the CW. The CW turned his head and looked towards the Jeep. About one second later, the Complainant stepped into the northbound lane while the SO was about 16 metres away.

As he walked, the Complainant turned and looked towards the Jeep. He stopped, or tried to stop, walking. The SO braked hard. She did not steer in an evasive manner. The Jeep slowed to about 44 km/h.

About nine seconds after the Complainant and the CW stepped onto the road and started to cross, and at least six seconds after they ought to have been visible to the SO, the Complainant was struck by the front left corner of the Jeep and projected forward and onto the ground.

SO’s cell phone usage:

The account details summary for the SO’s OPP cell phone was obtained for the reporting period of September 29, 2024, between 5:45 and 6:05 a.m. The summary indicated there were five outgoing calls placed between 6:02:48 and 6:05:06 a.m., and no usage at the time of the collision (5:51 a.m.).

Incident narrative:

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a civilian eyewitness and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes.

At about 5:50 a.m. of September 29, 2024, the Complainant, in the company of the CW, was leaving the premises of the Bala Bay Inn, 3063 Muskoka District Road 169, Bala. The two walked eastward towards Muskoka Road 169, the CW slightly to the left (north) of the Complainant, and entered onto the roadway intending to cross it. The Complainant had just walked into the single northbound lane when he was struck by a northbound vehicle. The CW promptly called 911.

The vehicle – a 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – was being operated by the SO, who was on duty and in transit to a temporary northern assignment. The officer immediately stopped the Cherokee after the collision and ran to render assistance to the Complainant.

Paramedics arrived on scene. The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased.

Analysis and director’s decision:

The Complainant passed away on September 29, 2024, from injuries suffered in a collision with a motor vehicle in Bala. As the motor vehicle was an unmarked police vehicle being operated by a police officer, 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 Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

While it remains unclear why the collision occurred, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence available to the SIU that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Her speed as she approached the point of impact with the Complainant is subject to legitimate scrutiny.

Had the SO been travelling at or near the 50 km/h speed limit, she would have had more time to react to the Complainant’s presence on the road and take evasive action than her actual speed, upwards of 70 km/h, permitted (albeit, there is evidence the officer would not have been able to stop in time even had she been driving at 50 km/h).

That said, weighed in the balance with the totality of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the officer’s speed amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. The SO’s speed was more than it ought to have been, but not grossly so. And the surrounding circumstances were largely extenuating – the Cherokee’s headlights were on, there was little prospect of pedestrians on the road given the time of day, the weather was clear, the roads were dry, and the area where the collision occurred was mostly commercial with some artificial lighting.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

The file is closed.

Date: March 26, 2025

Joseph Martino, director

Special Investigations Unit

See SIU report here.

EMAIL: [email protected]

30 years of TRUSTED ‘Local Online Journalism’

SINCE MAY 20, 1994

Twitter: @muskokatoday, Facebook: mclairmont1

SUBSCRIBE for $30 by e-transferring to [email protected]

Mail cheque to MuskokaTODAY.com Box 34 Gravenhurst, Ont. P1P 1T5

And include your email address to get stories sent to your inbox