SIU Director’s Report - Case # 20-TVI-199

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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 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 an injury a 24-year-old woman (the “Complainant”) suffered.

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On August 14, 2020, at 4:55 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

TPS advised that on August 14, 2020, at about 3:00 a.m. [now known to be at about 2:06 a.m.], TPS police officers responded to a call for gunshots in the area of 151 Sherbourne Avenue. As uniform police officers arrived in the area, a silver Hyundai was seen to leave the area at a high rate of speed. Police officers attempted to stop the Hyundai, but it continued with police officers in pursuit. At Bloor Street East and Parliament Street, the driver [now known to be the Complainant] lost control of the vehicle and struck a guard rail. The Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (TEMS), where she was diagnosed with having sustained a fractured sternum. The other occupants of the vehicle fled on foot. TPS advised that there was evidence of firearm(s) having been in the vehicle and they had a criminal interest in further examination of the vehicle. The involved police officers were the Subject Officer (SO) and Witness Officer (WO) #1 who worked out of TPS 51 Division.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Complainant:

24-year-old female, declined to be interviewed and provide medical records


Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed 

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed


Subject Officer

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


Evidence

The Scene

The scene was located on the north side of the T-intersection of Parliament Street and Bloor Street East.

At 7:57 a.m. on August 14, 2020, SIU Forensic Investigators arrived at the scene and were met by several TPS officers who had properly secured the scene. Prior arrangements were made for TPS to conduct a parallel investigation due to their ongoing criminal investigation.

Parliament Street travelled in a north/south direction and Bloor Street East intersected in an east/west direction at a T-intersection. Both roadways were paved and dry and all street markings were in good repair. Traffic lighting at the intersection appeared to be operating normally. There were two vehicles within the confines of the secured area.

Vehicle 1 belonged to the Complainant and it was a silver Hyundai Sonata. The Hyundai was oriented in a northwesterly direction near the northeast corner of the intersection. This vehicle had heavy front-end collision damage as it had struck the cement bridge railing along the north sidewalk. Both doors on the driver’s side had been removed to accommodate the removal of the Complainant. Airbags, which included the front dash and side curtain, were deployed. There was no other collision damage that would suggest vehicle to vehicle contact.

A visible tire mark on the roadway that began near the south crosswalk continued in a northerly direction to the right to the resting point of the Hyundai.

Vehicle 2 was a 2009 Ford Crown Victoria, white, which is now known to have been operated by the SO. This police vehicle displayed graphics as designed by the TPS. Emergency lighting and siren equipment was present but not operating on SIU arrival. A subsequent check verified that this equipment was operable. There was no onboard video system visible within the confines of the interior, as it was learned that this was a spare vehicle. The police vehicle was oriented in a northeasterly direction in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. There was no collision damage to this vehicle that could be attributed to this investigation.

Photography of the scene was conducted, and the scene was mapped with the use of a Total Station, for a planned drawing.

Scene Diagram

Scene diagram

Physical Evidence


Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) / Global Positioning System (GPS) Analysis of the SO’s TPS Unit - Crown Victoria


The SIU analyzed the AVL and GPS data provided by the TPS as captured in the SO’s police vehicle (Crown Victoria). The TPS data was collected from the vehicle about every 125 metres when the vehicle was in motion, and about every five minutes when the vehicle was stationary. These parameters could be affected by sightlines to satellites, which could become a factor in downtown Toronto.

The GPS latitude and longitude data were copied and pasted into the program Google Earth Pro, which displayed each GPS point on a map. Tools within the program were used for various measurements and to view traffic controls and posted signs. A total of 28 of the data points were analyzed, which were relevant to the incident. The points were date and time stamped down to the second, and included the SO’s TPS fleet number, the speed of the vehicle in miles per hour, directionality (north/south/east/west in degrees), the status of the officer (on scene, dispatched, etc.), and the corresponding TPS incident number.

The data points considered for the analysis commenced at about 2:08 a.m. and ended at about 2:11 a.m. The analysis was assisted by reviewing the In-car Camera System (ICCS) recordings from four TPS vehicles involved in the incident, Intergraph Computer-assisted Dispatch (ICAD), Event Details Report, summary of the police communications, and summaries of the witness officer interviews. Because the ICAD, ICCS and AVL systems used the same telecommunications system to capture data and communicate, the time stamps on these systems were synchronized.

At 2:08:52 a.m. to 2:09:00 a.m., the SO travelled westbound on Shuter Street between Parliament and Sherbourne Streets at about 50 km/h as WO #6 broadcast that a vehicle [now known to be a silver Hyundai] involved in a report of a gunshot had left the scene and was at the intersection of Shuter and Sherbourne Streets. Sometime between 2:09:01 a.m. and 2:09:04 a.m., the SO turned left from Shuter Street onto Sherbourne Street. At 2:09:07 a.m. to 0209:14 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on Sherbourne Street between Shuter Street and Queen Street East, accelerating from about 50 to about 60 km/h. At 2:09:29 a.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Queen Street East from Sherbourne Street, and was just west of Seaton Street, at about 43 km/h. At 2:09:41 to 2:10:02 a.m., the SO drove northbound on Seaton Street and then eastbound through the parking lot at the rear of the apartment buildings at 275, 285 and 299 Shuter Street at recorded speeds of 33 km/h, 67 km/h and 25 km/h. The SO drove through the parking lot area a distance of about 450 metres in about 33 seconds, which calculated to an average speed of about 50 km/h. At 2:10:12 a.m., the SO travelled northbound on Parliament Street north of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Shuter Street at about 90 km/h. As per Google Maps, there was a posted speed limit sign of 40 km/h at this location for northbound traffic.

The SO travelled northbound on Parliament Street. At 2:10:21 a.m., just south of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Dundas Street East, his speed was 96 km/h. At 2:10:26 a.m., at Oak Street, which was between Dundas Street East and Gerard Street East, his speed was about 104 km/h. As per Google Maps, there was a lighted pedestrian cross-over and a posted 40 km/h speed limit sign on Parliament Street just north of Oak Street. At 2:10:34 a.m., just north of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Gerrard Street East, his speed was about 85 km/h. At 2:10:38 a.m., just south of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Carlton Street, his speed was about 96 km/h. At 2:10:44 a.m., just north of Carlton Street, his speed was about 80 km/h. At 2:10:52 a.m., just north of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Winchester Street, his speed was about 109 km/h. At 2:10:56 a.m., just south of the traffic light-controlled intersection at Wellesley Street, his speed was about 117 km/h. At 2:11:00 a.m., near 650 Parliament Street, his speed was about 127 km/h. At 2:11:04 a.m., at St. James Avenue, just north of a lighted pedestrian cross-over, his speed was about 128 km/h. At 2:11:07 a.m., just south of Bloor Street East, his speed was about 93 km/h.

After the motor vehicle collision, the SO parked at the scene in the intersection of Parliament Street and Bloor Street East.

As per Google Maps, the SO traversed two lighted pedestrian cross-overs while northbound on Parliament Street. The SO travelled straight through (no turns) six traffic light-controlled intersections on Parliament Street including Shuter, Dundas, Gerrard, Carlton, Winchester and Wellesley Streets.

Various time/distance calculations were made with the use of the AVL data. From the moment that the Hyundai was reported to be at Shuter and Sherbourne Streets to when the collision was reported at Parliament Street at Bloor Street East, the pursuit was about 2.6 kilometres in length and occurred over a period of about two minutes and 12 seconds. The average speed of the Hyundai and, therefore, the SO for the entire pursuit was about 70 km/h. From the point at which the Hyundai was reported northbound on Parliament Street approaching Shuter Street to when the collision was reported, the pursuit was about 1.8 kilometres in length and occurred over a period of about one minute and five seconds. The average speed of the Hyundai and, therefore, the SO for the portion of the pursuit traveling northbound on Parliament Street, in what appeared per Google Maps to be, at least for some portion, a posted 40 km/h speed limit, was 99 km/h.

The maximum speed reported by the AVL for the SO’s vehicle during the pursuit was about 128 km/h, which occurred on Parliament Street between Wellesley Street East and Bloor Street East. Between 2:10:56 a.m. and 2:11:00 a.m., the SO passed through the traffic light-controlled intersection of Parliament Street and Wellesley Street East. As per the AVL, the SO travelled an average speed of about 127 km/h.

As per the ICCS from WO #2’s vehicle, the SO passed through the intersection of Parliament Street and Wellesley Street East about 3.1 seconds after the Hyundai passed through. Both vehicles appeared to be traveling at about the same rate of speed. It was calculated that the SO was about 110 metres behind the Hyundai when the two vehicles passed through the intersection, and the two vehicles were about 430 metres south of where the collision occurred. When the SO broadcast that the collision had occurred, he was just south of Howard Street and about 100 metres south of Bloor Street East.


Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) from the Hyundai


The air bag control module (ACM) was imaged by the TPS, using the Bosch CDR tool, as part of the TPS collision investigation. A copy of the report was provided to the SIU and reviewed.

The report contained data from the collision under investigation. The CDR report indicated the speed, acceleration, brake pedal positions, and steering of the Hyundai. At about five seconds prior to the collision, the Hyundai travelled at about 145 km/h, with the acceleration pedal at 99 percent. About four seconds prior to the collision, at a speed of about 147 km/h, the acceleration pedal was at 99 percent. At about 3.5 seconds prior to the collision, at a speed of about 148 km/h, the acceleration pedal was at 0 percent. At about 2.5 seconds prior to the collision, the Hyundai slowed to about 143 km/h, brakes were applied and remained applied. At about two seconds prior to the collision, the Hyundai steered to the right, and anti-lock braking and stability control engaged. At impact, the Hyundai was traveling at about 89 km/h. The Complainant was not wearing her seat belt.

From the CDR report, it was calculated that five seconds prior to the collision the Hyundai travelled at about 145 km/h and was just north of St. James Avenue, or about 185 metres south of the collision location. If the collision occurred when the SO broadcast it (2:11:06 a.m.), that would be consistent with the Hyundai being at about St. James Avenue at 2:11:01 a.m. This was five seconds prior to the collision, which is where the SO was known to be by the AVL at 2:11:04 a.m. (about three seconds later).

Per the analysis of the AVL, the ICCS, police communications audio, and the ICAD, the SO was between St. James Avenue and Howard Street when the collision occurred. His speed slowed from about 127 km/h to about 93 km/h, and he was somewhere between 75 and 200 metres and about three seconds behind the Hyundai.

ICCS Reports for Involved Police Vehicles


ICCS recordings were provided by the TPS for four of the police vehicles, which were also involved in the pursuit of the Hyundai driven by the Complainant. On each video, the date was stamped August 14, 2020 and the recordings captured video and audio. The video recordings commenced 30 seconds prior to the flashing emergency lights being activated by the police officers. The audio commenced when the flashing emergency lights were activated. The video and audio were of good quality. None of the ICCS videos were from the lead police vehicle which was operated by the SO. The duration of the pursuit was a few seconds longer than two minutes.

The pursuit occurred in the “downtown” area of Toronto on streets lined with commercial and residential high and low-rise buildings. At least a part of the pursuit travelled through the parking lot of a cluster of high-rise residential buildings at 275, 285, and 299 Shuter Street. The volume of traffic appeared very light. There was at least one near collision, which involved one of the secondary police vehicles. There were a few pedestrians and bicyclists seen. Some of the main roads were under construction with traffic pylons, lane closures and detours. Although the police vehicles seemed to travel at a high rate of speed, the police officers appeared to have good control of their respective vehicles. All the police vehicles continuously had their flashing emergency lights and sirens activated. There were several traffic light-controlled intersections along the pursuit route, and no blatant disregard of traffic controls which affected other vehicles was noted.

The TPS vehicle operated by WO #6 was a grey and white marked Taurus sedan. At 2:07 a.m., WO #6 intermittently activated his flashing emergency lights and responded to the report of a gunshot heard. He travelled westbound on Shuter Street and turned into a parking lot at the rear of 275 Shuter Street. WO #6 spoke to someone. His vehicle faced generally south in a laneway towards Seaton Street and Queen Street East. A marked Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) Special Constable’s vehicle travelled northbound in the laneway from Seaton Street and Queen Street East. At 2:08 a.m., WO #6 and two special constables exited their vehicles and walked to the west towards a large parking lot. A man’s voice [now known to be WO #6] said on the police radio, which was still on in WO #6’s vehicle, that a vehicle [now known to be the Hyundai being operated by the Complainant], which he described as a silver four door, was leaving the scene. The police vehicle operated by WO #3, pulled around from behind WO #6’s vehicle and accelerated southbound in the laneway on Seaton Street towards Queen Street East. WO #6 broadcast that the Hyundai was at the intersection of Shuter Street and Sherbourne Street.

At 2:09 a.m., a different man’s voice on the police radio [believed to be the SO as per the notes of WO #3] advised that the Hyundai was traveling southbound on Shuter Street. He then said, “He’s not stopping, we’re going southbound on Sherbourne.” A police siren could be heard in the background. The SO then said they were “slowing down” and then “in behind the rear of 275 Shuter (Street) again.” The Hyundai travelled northbound at a high rate of speed in the laneway on Seaton Street from Queen Street East, directly towards the front of WO #6’s police vehicle. The Hyundai then quickly and violently mounted a curb and went around the passenger side of WO #6’s police vehicle. The Hyundai was followed by a white Crown Victoria police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] with its flashing emergency lights activated. The SO was followed by a grey and white Ford Taurus, which was a fully marked TPS fleet vehicle (“Unit 1”). The Ford Taurus had its flashing emergency lights activated and contained two undesignated police officers. The Ford Taurus was followed by a fully marked TPS SUV operated by WO #3 and then a second, fully marked TPS SUV (“Unit 2”), which was a canine (K9) vehicle operated by a third undesignated police officer. This officer’s K9 SUV was not equipped with ICCS and it was not part of the parade of police vehicles in the pursuit on Parliament Street. All four police vehicles mounted the curb and went around WO #6’s police vehicle to follow the Hyundai.

At 2:10 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Hyundai was approaching Parliament and Queen Streets and then said the Hyundai was on Parliament Street and approaching Shuter Street. The SO broadcast that the Hyundai was northbound on Parliament Street. WO #6 entered his police vehicle and proceeded onto Queen Street East, then west to Sherbourne Street, and then northbound. The SO advised the Hyundai was northbound on Parliament Street and approaching Carlton Street at 80 km/h. The SO then advised the Hyundai was northbound on Parliament Street, passing Wellesley Street, and approaching Bloor Street.

At 2:11 a.m., the SO advised the Hyundai had crashed at Bloor Street. WO #6 continued to the scene and travelled northbound on Sherbourne Street with his flashing emergency lights and siren activated, followed by another fully marked police vehicle with its flashing emergency lights activated. Both vehicles approached the scene and travelled eastbound on Bloor Street. At 2:12 a.m., WO #6 arrived on the scene.

The TPS vehicle operated by WO #2 was a marked grey and white SUV. At 2:10 a.m., WO #2 travelled eastbound on Wellesley Street and approached the traffic light-controlled intersection of Wellesley Street and Parliament Street. The traffic light was red for Wellesley Street. There was one civilian vehicle stopped, which faced east waiting for the light. The Hyundai travelled at a high rate of speed northbound on Parliament Street through the intersection on a green traffic light. WO #2 stopped at the intersection and faced eastbound in the westbound lane with his flashing emergency lights activated. The SO entered the intersection on a green light and travelled northbound, with his flashing emergency lights activated. The SO was just over three seconds behind the Hyundai traveling at about the same rate of speed as was the Hyundai. WO #2 turned left onto Parliament Street after the SO who was northbound on Parliament Street.

At 2:11 a.m., the SO broadcast that the Hyundai had turned eastbound onto Bloor Street and then said the Hyundai had crashed. WO #2 was about halfway between Wellesley Street and Bloor Street. On Parliament Street just south of Bloor Street was a slight incline in the road, and then a slight decline as the road curved to a northbound driver’s right. WO #2 was the second police vehicle to arrive at the collision scene.

The TPS vehicle operated by WO #3 was a marked grey and white SUV, which was also occupied by passenger WO #4. Per WO #3’s notes, at 2:06 a.m. they responded to a report of a gunshot being heard. They followed WO #6 to the scene at 275 Shuter Street and, at 2:07 a.m., they arrived and parked behind WO #6. At 2:08 a.m., WO #3 was in the car by himself. He drove over a curb and around WO #6’s police vehicle and travelled southbound in a parking lot laneway on Seaton Street towards Queen Street East. WO #3 drove west to Sherbourne Street and then turned left to go southbound. He drove a short distance then turned around and went back towards Queen Street East. A grey and white Ford Taurus, Unit 1, turned from southbound Sherbourne Street onto eastbound Queen Street East. A grey and white TPS SUV, Unit 2, with its emergency lights activated travelled southbound on Sherbourne Street, stopped, and let WO #3 turn right onto eastbound Queen Street East to follow Unit 1. Unit 1 turned left onto Seaton Street and into the laneway. WO #3 drove northbound through the parking lot following two other police vehicles with their flashing emergency lights activated (the SO in the white Crown Victoria and a grey and white sedan) and went around WO #6’s police vehicle again. WO #3 exited the parking lot west of Parliament Street and proceeded eastbound on Shuter Street, then turned left to travel northbound on Parliament Street. Flashing emergency lights could be seen well ahead in the distance. WO #3 travelled through the traffic light-controlled intersection at Dundas Street East on a green light. He stopped for a red light at Gerrard Street East. He then travelled through the traffic light-controlled intersection at Carlton Street on a green light. He travelled through the traffic light-controlled intersection at Winchester Street on a green light. WO #3 travelled through the traffic light-controlled intersection at Wellesley Street on a green light. He was just north of Wellesley Street when the SO said the Hyundai had crashed. WO #2’s vehicle could be seen ahead of WO #3. WO #3 was the third police vehicle on the scene of the crash.

The TPS vehicle operated by WO #5’s partner was a marked grey and white SUV, and WO #5 was the passenger. At 2:08 a.m., as per WO #5’s SIU interview, WO #5’s vehicle was in the parking lot of TPS 51 Division and then travelled northbound on Parliament Street with its flashing emergency lights activated. At 2:09 a.m., the vehicle travelled westbound on Richmond Street, then northbound on Sherbourne Street and eastbound on Shuter Street. In front of WO #5’s vehicle, WO #3 turned onto Shuter Street from the parking lot west of Parliament Street. At 2:10 a.m., WO #5’s vehicle turned northbound onto Parliament Street in behind WO #3. He was behind WO #3, and both had their flashing emergency lights and sirens activated all the way up Parliament Street. WO #5’s vehicle was south of Wellesley Street when the collision occurred. WO #5’s vehicle was the fourth police vehicle at the scene of the collision.

At 2:08 a.m., Unit 1 was on Shuter Street east of 275 Shuter Street when the SO drove westbound on Shuter Street towards 275 Shuter Street. They followed the SO westbound towards the shots fired call scene where WO #6 was located. Neither police vehicle had its flashing emergency lights activated. As the SO approached Sherbourne Street, the SO activated his flashing emergency lights which remained on. At 2:09 a.m., Unit 1 activated his flashing emergency lights and siren. The SO turned left to travel southbound on Sherbourne Street. Unit 1 turned left to follow the SO. The Hyundai turned left from Sherbourne Street onto Queen Street East, followed by the SO and Unit 1. The traffic light was red for all three vehicles. There was a TTC streetcar stopped facing west on Queen Street East on the east side of the intersection. The Hyundai, and the SO and Unit 1, turned left onto Seaton Street to travel northbound on Seaton Street, which turned into a laneway near 275 Shuter Street where WO #6 was parked. The Hyundai, and the SO and Unit 1, each went around WO #6’s vehicle. The Hyundai, and the SO and Unit 1, continued eastbound through the parking lots towards Parliament Street. Unit 1 followed at an increasingly greater distance. The SO turned left to travel northbound on Parliament Street. Unit 1 turned left to travel northbound on Parliament Street. Unit 1 stopped for a red traffic signal light at Shuter Street where two fully marked SUVs [now known to be operated by WO #3 and WO #5’s partner] turned from eastbound Shuter Street to northbound Parliament Street behind the SO. Unit 1 followed WO #3’s vehicle northbound on Parliament Street with his flashing emergency lights and siren activated. Unit 1 was south of Wellesley Street when the SO reported the collision had occurred, and he was the fifth police vehicle to attend the scene.

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Bus Video Report


The TTC provided the SIU with seven video recordings of TTC buses that were in the area of Parliament Street and Bloor Street East between 2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. on August 14, 2020. The video files were date and time stamped, in colour, and contained no audio.

TTC bus 8866 was equipped with six interior cameras and two exterior cameras. Camera 8, which was a rear facing curb side exterior camera, depicted an idle TTC bus 8866 at Bathurst Station at 2:00:00 a.m. At 2:09:08 a.m., a police vehicle with emergency lights activated passed TTC bus 8866 on the driver’s side in the area of 345 Bloor Street East.

At 2:11:13 a.m., TTC bus 8866 was in the area of Bloor Street East and Parliament Street. 
At 2:14:48 a.m., TTC bus 8866 proceeded southbound on Parliament Street.

At 2:08:44 a.m., while TTC bus 8532 was in the area of 600 Parliament Street, several vehicles passed the bus on the driver’s side. The video from this bus had no investigative value.

At 2:11:00 a.m., TTC bus 8545 was in the area of Bloor Street East and Manning Avenue, about 3.7 kilometres west of the collision scene. Accordingly, the video from this bus had no investigative value.

At 2:11:00 a.m., TTC bus 9204 was in the area of Danforth and Hillingdon Avenues, which was 4.2 kilometres east of the collision scene. This video had no investigative value.

At 2:11:00 a.m., TTC bus 8749 was in the area of Danforth and Greenwood Avenue, effectively 3.3 kilometres west of the collision scene. This video had no investigative value.

At 2:11:00 a.m., TTC bus 8463 was in the area of Danforth and Carlaw Avenues, effectively 2.0 kilometres east of the collision scene. This video had no investigative value.

At 2:04:31 a.m., TTC bus 1081 was in the area of Broadview and Danforth Avenues, traveling west on Danforth Avenue. At 2:11:01 a.m., TTC bus 1081 was in the area of Bloor Street West and Queens Park, effectively 1.8 kilometres west of the collision scene. This video had no investigative value.

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 sources:
  • CCTV from a TCHC building at 155 Sherbourne Street;
  • CCTV from a business (Business #1) on Parliament Street;
  • CCTV from a business (Business #2) on Parliament Street;
  • CCTV from a residence (Residence #1) on Parliament Street; and
  • CCTV from a residence (Residence #2) on Parliament Street.
The following is a summary of some of the relevant footage from these video recordings.

CCTV from Business #1 on Parliament Street


The video was date and time stamped, in colour, but contained no audio. The camera appeared to be motion-activated.

The video started at 2:00 a.m., August 14, 2020. The camera had a view of northbound and southbound traffic on Parliament Street. At 2:08:02 a.m., a TTC bus travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:09 a.m., a silver sedan [now known to be operated by the Complainant] travelled north on Parliament Street. Between 2:10 a.m. and 2:11 a.m., there was no recorded footage available. At 2:11 a.m., a white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11 a.m., a second white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11 a.m., a marked white and grey police vehicle (car) with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11 a.m., a third white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:15 a.m., a second marked police vehicle (car) travelled north on Parliament Street. The remaining video footage was of no investigative value. The video ended at 2:30:03 a.m.

CCTV from Residence #1 on Parliament Street


The video files were date and time stamped and in colour; however, they contained no audio. The following is a summary of the six video files.

The first camera had a view of southbound and northbound traffic on Parliament Street and started at 2:08:03 a.m. The video ended at 2:08:34 a.m.

The second camera started at 2:08:37 a.m. At 2:08:48 a.m., a TTC bus travelled northbound on Parliament Street. The video ended at 2:10:50 a.m.

At 2:10:52 a.m., a grey sedan [now known to be a silver Hyundai driven by the Complainant] travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:10:55 a.m., a white marked police vehicle with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11:00 a.m., a white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11:08 a.m., a second white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11:12 a.m., a third white and grey marked police SUV, with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11:15 a.m., a white and grey marked police vehicle with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 2:11:21 a.m., a fourth white and grey marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street.

The three remaining video clips were of no investigative value.

CCTV from Residence #2 on Parliament Street


The video was not date or time stamped. It was in colour and contained no audio. The camera had a partial view of the sidewalk.

At 13:59 minutes into the video, a TTC bus travelled north on Parliament Street. At 15:47 minutes into the video, a silver sedan [now known to be operated by the Complainant] travelled north on Parliament Street. At 15:50 minutes into the video, the SO’s marked police vehicle with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 15:57 minutes into the video, WO #2’s marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 16:03 minutes into the video, WO #2’s marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 16:08 minutes into the video, WO #3’s marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 16:10 minutes into the video, a fourth marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 16:17 minutes into the video, a fifth marked police SUV with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 20:13 minutes into the video, a marked EMS vehicle with emergency lights activated travelled north on Parliament Street. At 31:31 minutes into the video, the recording ended.

Police Communications Recordings

On August 14, 2020, at 2:08:12 a.m., WO #6 broadcast, “Car leaving the scene, silver 4 door, 50 metres Shuter.” The dispatcher asked WO #6, “50 metres from what?” WO #6 then broadcast, “Shuter and Sherbourne.”

At 2:08:54 a.m., WO #6 broadcast, “Car right there, southbound on Sherbourne from Shuter.” At 2:09:07 a.m., WO #1, who was a passenger in the lead cruiser in pursuit, broadcast, “Not stopping, southbound Sherbourne approaching Queen.” The dispatcher asked for a K9 unit to attend TPS 51 Division. At 2:09:50 a.m., an unknown police officer broadcast, “You were on it.” At 2:09:55 a.m., “[undecipherable] and Queen.”

At 2:10:01 a.m., WO #1 broadcast, “Northbound on Parliament approaching Shuter.” At 2:10:07 a.m., the dispatcher repeated, “Northbound on Parliament approaching Shuter,” and asked for the marker. At 2:10:34 a.m., WO #1 advised, “Speed 80 km/h,” followed by, “Notify 55 [division] 80 km approaching Bloor.” At 2:11:06 a.m., WO #1 broadcast, “Crashed the car at Bloor.” At 2:11:29 a.m., the SO, the driver of lead cruiser in pursuit, advised, “Everyone take cover, cannot see inside the car,” followed by, “Entire front end of car is gone, Fire and Ambulance.” At 2:13:06 a.m., the SO advised, “Female not conscious.”

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS:
  • Arrest Policy;
  • AVL / GPS data;
  • Communications Recordings;
  • ICAD;
  • ICCS Scout vehicle - WO #6;
  • ICCS Scout vehicle - WO #2;
  • ICCS Scout vehicle - WO #5;
  • ICCS Scout vehicle - WO #3;
  • Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • Notes-WO #3;
  • Notes-WO #6;
  • Notes-WO #1;
  • Notes-WO #7;
  • Notes-WO #4;
  • Notes-WO #5;
  • Notes-WO #2;
  • Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
  • TPS Event Data Recorder Vehicle Info-Hyundai Sonata;
  • TPS Mechanical Examination-Hyundai Sonata;
  • TPS Photographs;
  • Training Record-Pursuit Training-the SO; and
  • TTC CCTV Footage.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU also obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:
  • Reports from Toronto EMS;
  • CCTV from Residence #1 on Parliament Street
  • CCTV from Residence #2 on Parliament Street
  • CCTV from Business #1 on Parliament Street;
  • CCTV from Business #2 on Parliament Street; and
  • CCTV from a TCHC Building.

Incident Narrative

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included an interview with several witness officers, including WO #1 - the passenger in the cruiser with the SO. The investigation also benefitted from data downloaded from vehicles involved in the pursuit, including the vehicles of the Complainant and the SO, relating to speed and directionality, and a review of video recordings of the incident captured by commercial premises along the pursuit route and the ICCSs of several involved police cruisers.

Shortly after 2:00 a.m. on August 14, 2020, the TPS received a 911 call from a special constable with the TCHC indicating that he had just heard the sound of a firearm being discharged in the area between the buildings at 155 Sherbourne Street and 275 Shuter Street. Officers were dispatched to investigate.

WO #6 was the first to arrive at the scene. He parked his cruiser in the parking lot shared by the buildings at 155 Sherbourne Street and 275 Shuter Street, exited and approached a TCHC special constable at the back of 155 Sherbourne Street. The special constable quickly pointed to a vehicle stopped at the entrance/exit of the parking lot on Shuter Street while exclaiming, “She’s in the silver car.” While making his way to the car, WO #6 was informed by the special constable that the woman in the car was the shooter. The officer broadcast that information over the radio and then watched as the vehicle made a left turn onto Shuter Street just east of Sherbourne Street. Right behind the vehicle was a police cruiser.

The Complainant was the driver of the vehicle, a Hyundai Sonata. In the cruiser right behind her were the SO and WO #1.

The SO had heard the call of a shot fired and was responding to the area when he learned from WO #6 over the radio that the Hyundai had left the scene. The officers were traveling west along Shuter Street when the Complainant turned abruptly in front of them. Activating their cruiser’s emergency lights and siren, the officers began to pursue the Hyundai.

The Complainant accelerated away from the SO. Her route took her south on Sherbourne Street from Shuter Street and then east on Queen Street East for a short distance before she turned north onto Seaton Street and back into the parking lot behind 155 Sherbourne Street. The Complainant continued east in the parking lot and exited at the southernmost entrance/exit of the complex onto Parliament Street, where she travelled northward.
Led by the SO, several cruisers followed suit and took up the chase north on Parliament Street. The convoy of vehicles travelled north at pace crossing the major intersections at Dundas Street East, Gerrard Street East, Carlton Street and Wellesley Street East.

As the Complainant came upon Bloor Street East, where Parliament Street ended in a T-intersection, she attempted and failed to negotiate a right hand turn. The Hyundai struck a concrete barrier on the north side of the north Bloor Street East sidewalk in the northeast area of the intersection. The SO arrived within a few seconds and stopped his cruiser in the intersection, whereupon he and WO #1 exited and slowly approached the Hyundai. Together with other officers arriving at the scene, the SO and WO #1 called out to the Complainant but received no response. The Complainant was unconscious inside the vehicle.

Firefighters arrived at the intersection, removed the Hyundai’s driver’s door and extricated the Complainant from the wreckage. She was placed under arrest and taken to hospital by ambulance, where she was diagnosed with a fractured sternum.

Relevant Legislation

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

128(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

(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

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act -- Red light exemption

144 (18)  Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

Analysis and Director's Decision

In the early morning of August 14, 2020, the Complainant suffered a serious injury when she crashed her vehicle into a concrete barrier wall. As she was being pursued by TPS cruisers at the time, the SIU was notified and commenced an investigation. The SO was the operator of the lead cruiser in pursuit and identified as the subject officer for purposes of the SIU 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 collision.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. The offence is premised, 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. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which the SO pursued the Complainant sufficient to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

At the outset, it bears noting that the SO was in the discharge of his lawful duties when he came upon the Complainant’s vehicle and decided to pursue it. Given what he had heard over the radio about a firearm being discharged and WO #6’s subsequent broadcast suggesting the perpetrator was fleeing the scene in a Hyundai, the SO had grounds to believe the Complainant had committed a criminal offence. Accordingly, the officer was within his rights in initiating a pursuit under O. Reg. 266/10, which regulates police pursuits in the province.

Thereafter, there are aspects of the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser that are open to legitimate scrutiny. Needless to say, Toronto’s downtown city streets do not lend themselves to the safe conduct of high speed pursuits at the best of times. While the SO does not appear to have reached the speeds of the Complainant, upwards of 145 km/h in the seconds prior to the collision, he did sustain velocities in the neighbourhood of 130 km/h at points northward on Parliament Street. This was grossly in excess of the 40 km/h speed limit which governed some if not all of the roadway along the pursuit route. I am also satisfied on the evidence that the SO travelled through at least one red traffic control light without stopping, and possibly others, in violation of section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act.

On the other hand, there were a number of extenuating considerations at play that tempered the risks inherent in any pursuit and, in particular, this one. The weather was good, the roads were dry and, given the time of day, there was very little vehicular and pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the pursuit. In the circumstances, though the pursuit travelled through areas that were a mix of commercial and residential premises, the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time did not unduly aggravate the danger to public safety. The use by the SO of his emergency lights and siren throughout the pursuit further mitigated the perils associated with the officer’s speed and travel through intersections. What little traffic there was on the roadway would have been afforded an opportunity to take notice of the pursuit and adjust their movements accordingly. In similar vein, it does not appear that the SO’s cruiser was at any point the cause of any evasive action by third-parties. Worth noting as well is section 128(13) of the Highway Traffic Act, which exempts police vehicles from the speed limitations where they are being used in the lawful performance of an officer’s duty. While the section does not provide police officers carte blanche to speed as they wish without regard for public safety, it does provide a measure of immunity where an officer’s speed is commensurate with the law enforcement objectives at hand. This was not a case where the balance of risks clearly favoured a less aggressive pursuit or a termination of the pursuit altogether at some point prior to the collision. Given the nature of the crime for which the Complainant was being pursued - a serious firearm offence – the SO could reasonably believe that the need to immediately apprehend the Complainant outweighed the risks to public safety being created by the pursuit.

On the aforementioned-record, I find that the dangers associated with the pursuit in this case fall short of rendering the SO’s conduct a marked deviation from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. Consequently, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officer, and the file is closed.


Date: February 1, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.