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 injury that a 52-year-old woman (“Complainant #1”) and the injury that a 21-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”) suffered.

Notification of the SIU

On June 15, 2020, at 12:46 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. The TPS advised that on June 14, 2020, at 8:15 p.m., TPS officers observed a vehicle pass them and proceed through a red traffic light. The police officers tried to stop the vehicle. The Subject Officer (SO) and the Witness Officer (WO) were the involved police officers. The vehicle (Nissan Rogue) was driven by Civilian Witness (CW) #3. CW #3’s Nissan collided with a second vehicle driven by Complainant #1 and Complainant #1’s vehicle collided with a third vehicle at the intersection of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. Complainant #1 suffered a fractured left metacarpal and her daughter, Complainant #2, a fractured right clavicle. CW #3 was taken to the hospital and then to TPS 42 Division. 

The Scene

The scene was located at the intersection of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue in Toronto. The intersection was paved with asphalt, and both roads were level and controlled by traffic lights.

Markham Road has four lanes and travels in a north/south direction. There are two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound with additional turning lanes at the intersection. Sheppard Avenue travels in an east/west direction with four lanes. There are two lanes eastbound and two lanes westbound with additional turning lanes at the intersection.

The intersection is well lit with street lights and ambient light from businesses. It is controlled with traffic lights and the road markings are visible.

Scene Diagram

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS)

The GPS data were provided by the TPS for the police vehicle operated by the SO on June 14, 2020. The data was time stamped beginning at 8:14:17 p.m. at the location of 2200 Markham Road, and ending at 8:15:39 p.m. The total time travelled was one minute and 22 seconds and the total distance was 1.66 kilometres. The average velocity of the police vehicle was 20.2 metres per second or 72.8 km/h over the total distance travelled. The speed of the police vehicle on Markham Road, 160 metres south of the intersection at Nugget Avenue/McLevin Avenue, was 117.4 km/h.

Expert Evidence

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Analysis

The TPS provided a copy of the CDR data for the vehicles involved in the collision: a 2019 Nissan Rogue, 2013 Ford Escape and 2015 Honda Civic. The 2019 Nissan Rogue operated by CW #3 was travelling at 116 km/h, five seconds to “time zero”. At time zero, the Nissan was travelling at 108 km/h upon entering the intersection. The accelerator pedal was at zero percent and the brake pedal was not engaged five seconds prior to time zero.

The 2013 Ford Escape was stopped when it was struck from behind by the Nissan. At the time of impact, the Ford’s accelerator pedal was at zero percent, the engine revolutions per minute (RPM) was at idle and the brake pedal was engaged. After being struck, the Ford accelerated forward from the force of the impact and struck the Honda Civic at about 42 km/h at time zero. The time of the impact with Nissan to the impact with the Honda was about 1.5 seconds. The 2015 Honda Civic was travelling at approximately 43 km/h when it was struck by the Ford Escape in the intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following:

• In-Car Camera (ICC) video recording – the SO’s police vehicle;
• ICC Video Recordings from two other police officers’ vehicles;
• A Civilian’s Tow Truck’s ICC; and
• Petro Canada Gas Station (Petro) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV).

ICC video recording – The SO’s Police Vehicle

At 8:13:56 p.m., on June 14, 2020, the SO’s police vehicle was stopped at a red traffic signal. At 8:14:13 p.m., the police vehicle slowly drove through the intersection, although the traffic signal was red. At 8:14:15 p.m., CW #3 continued through the intersection, southbound in the northbound left turn lane at a high rate of speed. The WO told the SO, “Don’t chase him, don’t chase him.” At 8:14:17 p.m., the emergency lights were activated and, at 8:14:19 p.m., the siren was activated for three seconds and then shut off. CW #3 was about three to four hydro poles ahead of the police vehicle. As CW #3’s vehicle approached a railway yard overpass, the gap between the police vehicle and CW #3’s Nissan reduced to about three hydro poles.

At 8:14:43 p.m., as CW #3’s Nissan drove down the decline of the overpass, the Nissan was not in view of the ICC for about five seconds. The police vehicle maintained a distance of about three hydro poles. The traffic light at Nugget Avenue was green when the police vehicle drove through the intersection. CW #3’s Nissan went out of view because of a dip in the road before Sheppard Avenue. At 8:15:13 p.m., the police vehicle’s siren was activated for one second and then de-activated. The police vehicle passed Verne Crescent and CW #3’s Nissan was still out of sight. At 8:15:16 p.m., as the police vehicle approached Ormerod Street, the emergency lights were deactivated. The police vehicle started to slow down as it approached the intersection at Sheppard Avenue and stopped in the centre lane at the intersection.

There was no traffic in the southbound lanes while the police vehicle followed CW #3’s Nissan but the traffic in the northbound lanes was sporadic until Nugget Avenue when it became moderate.

The WO reported the collision on the police radio. The SO approached the driver side of the Nissan and the WO approached the passenger side. CW #3 got out of the vehicle and the SO handcuffed him. CW #3 was escorted to the police vehicle and several police vehicles arrived and blocked the intersection.

Between 8:17:42 p.m. and 8:22:00 p.m., the SO questioned CW #3 about his identification.

Between 8:22:00 p.m. and 9:00:21 p.m., CW #3 was in the back seat of the police vehicle. CW #3 asked for an ambulance after he was asked about his injuries and he was checked by a paramedic. The SO read CW #3 his right to counsel and cautioned him. After CW #3 was checked by a second paramedic, CW #3 was removed from the police vehicle.

ICC video recording from a non-designated police officer’s vehicle

On June 14, 2020, a non-designated police officer was parked beside a second non-designated police officer in the plaza on the southwest corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. At 8:16 p.m., the non-designated police officer arrived at the scene, eastbound on Sheppard Avenue.

The non-designated police officer interviewed CW #6 in the rear seat of the police vehicle.

ICC from the second non-designated police officer’s vehicle

On June 14, 2020, the second non-designated police officer was parked beside the aforementioned-non-designated police officer in the plaza on the southwest corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. At 8:16 p.m., the second non-designated police officer arrived at the scene, eastbound on Sheppard Avenue. The recording provided nothing relevant to this investigation.

A civilian’s tow truck’s ICC

The TPS provided the SIU with the SIM card from a civilian’s ICC. The recording did not provide any evidentiary value to this investigation.

Petro CCTV

On June 17, 2020, a copy of the CCTV was retrieved from a Petro. The Petro was located on the northwest corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. The CCTV’s camera was controlled by motion detection and provided no evidentiary value to this investigation.

Communications Recordings

The TPS provided a copy of the communication recording on June 14, 2020. The recording started at 8:15:20 p.m. on June 14, 2020 and ended at 3:09:01 a.m. on June 15, 2020. At 8:15:20 p.m., the WO requested more police vehicles to Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue East, and a traffic unit. She also requested dispatch to run a licence plate. Two non-designated police officers advised they were near the intersection and heard the collision. Someone requested an ambulance. An unknown unit responded to the collision.

A man called 911 and reported the collision. He saw what happened after the third car was struck. An unknown officer arrived on scene and an unknown unit reported four vehicles involved in the collision. The fire department was requested. The dispatcher asked if the collision was “departmental” (that is, whether it involved a police vehicle) and an unknown officer confirmed it was not departmental. The WO said three parties were injured and one vehicle was on fire. The WO confirmed the intersection was closed and only three vehicles were involved in the collision, not four, with five injured parties. At 8:44:44 p.m., a supervisor reported transporting the WO and the SO to the police station.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Two Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Events;
• Collision Field Notes;
• Communication recordings;
• Crash Data Retrieval – Ford Escape;
• Crash Data Retrieval – Honda Civic;
• Crash Data Retrieval – Nissan Rogue;
• Email from TPS regarding Civilian Witness Interviews;
• General Occurrence;
• Global Positioning System (GPS) Coordinates Data-the SO’s vehicle 2020.06.14;
• Motor Vehicle Accident Report;
• Notes-the WO;
• Notes-the SO;
• Procedure-Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
• Statement Summary from a civilian;
• Statement Summary from a second civilian;
• Statement Summary from CW #7;
• Statement Summary from CW #4;
• Statement Summary from CW #6;
• Statement Summary a third civilian;
• Two TPS Civilian Witness Lists;
• TPS Scene Photos; and
• TPS ICC video recordings.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

In addition to the materials received from the TPS, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials from other sources:

• Medical record from Scarborough and Rouge Hospital-Complainant #1;
• Medical record from Scarborough and Rouge Hospital-Complainant #2;
• A Civilian’s Tow Truck’s ICC; and
• Petro Canada Gas Station (Petro) CCTV.

The material events in question are clear thanks to interviews with civilian eyewitnesses and the WO (the latter present in the cruiser with the SO), GPS and CDR data associated with the movements of the involved police and non-police vehicles, respectively, and a video recording of the entire event captured by the ICC system of the SO’s cruiser. As was his legal right, the SO declined to interview with the SIU but did authorize the release of his notes.

While stopped for a red light on Markham Road at an intersection about half-a-kilometre south of Finch Avenue and just north of a Kia dealership, the SO and the WO watched as an SUV sped south toward their location, past the driver’s side of their cruiser in the northbound lanes of the roadway, and continued south. The officers decided to follow the SUV. With the cruiser’s emergency lights and siren activated, the officers drove through the intersection on a red light and accelerated southward on Markham Road.

The driver of the SUV – CW #3 – continued at speed down Markham Road traversing its intersection with Nuggett Avenue / McLevin Avenue on a green light. Once past the intersection, the SUV raced toward Sheppard Avenue East, where southbound traffic had come to a stop for a red light.

Among the stopped vehicles was a Ford Escape occupied by Complainant #1 and her daughters. Theirs was the first vehicle stopped for the light in the lane adjacent to the left turning lane. Without braking, the front end of CW #3’s SUV ploughed into the back of the Escape, sending it into the intersection where it collided with a westbound vehicle making a left hand turn into the southbound lanes of Markham Road.

The SO and the WO arrived at the intersection within seconds of the collision and placed CW #3 under arrest.

The driver of the left turning vehicle, CW #1, was fortunate not to have suffered serious injuries in the collision, as was CW #3. The occupants of the Escape were not so lucky. Complainant #1 suffered a fractured hand, while one of her daughters, Complainant #2, broke her clavicle.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Operation causing bodily harm

On June 14, 2020, Complainant #1 and her daughter, Complainant #2, were in their vehicle stopped for a red light when it was suddenly struck from behind by another vehicle. The two suffered serious injuries in the collision. As the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended Complainant #1 and Complainant #2’s vehicle was being pursued by a police cruiser at the time, the SIU was called in to conduct an investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident.

The only offence that arises for consideration as far as the potential criminal liability of the subject officer is concerned is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, liability for the crime is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances: R v Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49; R v Roy (2012), 281 CCC (3d) 433 (SCC).

I am satisfied that the SO comported himself within the limits of the law in the course of his brief engagement with CW #3’s vehicle. The SO was within his rights to initiate a pursuit of CW #3 having seen him dangerously blow through a red light at speed in the opposing lanes of traffic. Thereafter, there is no indication in the evidence that the SO drove dangerously. With his emergency lights and siren activated, he safely proceeded through the intersection that marked the beginning of the engagement. While the SO did exceed the speed limit as he chased after CW #3, averaging about 73 km/h from start to finish, there was no other traffic in the southbound lanes, nor was northbound vehicular traffic impacted in any way. The officers used their emergency equipment judiciously throughout the incident keeping their emergency lights on at all times and activating their siren as they approached intersections. Finally, there is no suggestion that the SO unduly pushed CW #3. In fact, the SO was at all times well back of CW #3, who had ample opportunity to desist in his reckless driving had he been so inclined.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds on the aforementioned-record to believe
 
that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer and the file is closed.


Date: November 30, 2020

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit