SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OVI-033
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy ActPursuant to section14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation may also have 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.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries a 63-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn February 5, 2022, at 12:07 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU about an injury to the Complainant.
According to PRP, on February 5, 2022, at approximately 5:22 a.m., a PRP police cruiser operated by the Subject Official (SO) was involved in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with the Complainant’s vehicle at the intersection of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway in Brampton. The police cruiser and the Complainant’s vehicle rolled over and both drivers were transported by ambulance to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). The injuries sustained by the Complainant had not been disclosed to the PRP, but he was admitted to hospital. The SO’s injuries were reported as serious. The scene was being held.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 02/05/2022 at 1:07 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/05/2022 at 1:15 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):63-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on February 5, 2022.
Subject OfficialSO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Official (WO)WO Interviewed
The witness official was interviewed on February 10, 2022.
The intersection of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway was controlled with overhead traffic signals that functioned as designed. Torbram Road ran notionally in a north-south direction. Proceeding north on Torbram Road towards the intersection, there were two marked lanes with a marked left turn lane and a marked right turn lane. There was a raised island separating the northbound and the southbound lanes. There was a raised island bordering the right turn lane. Proceeding south on Torbram Road towards the intersection, there were two marked lanes with a marked left turn lane and a raised island separating the southbound and northbound lanes. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h.
There were commercial businesses on the east sides of the roadway with a Petro Canada gas station in the southeast corner and TAJ Plaza in the northeast corner of the intersection. There were residences on the west side of the roadway; however, there were no private driveways that led from Torbram Road. There were overhead streetlights illuminating the intersection and west side of the roadway.
Williams Parkway ran notionally in an east-west direction. There were two marked eastbound lanes with marked left and right turn lanes. There was a raised centre median separating the eastbound and westbound lanes. There were two marked westbound lanes with a marked left and a marked right turn lane. There were raised centre medians separating the eastbound and westbound lanes. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h.
A gouge, assessed as perhaps the location of the initial point of impact, was located in the approximate centre of the two northbound lanes and the left turn lane of westbound Williams Parkway. The gouge continued in a northeast direction to the involved vehicles
There were two vehicles within the scene as follows.
Figure 2 – The PRP Dodge Charger
Vehicle #1 was a 4-door Dodge Charger – white and blue in colour. This vehicle was a marked police cruiser displaying graphics as designed by the PRP. The police cruiser was orientated in a southeast direction in the northeast corner of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway. The police cruiser had extensive front-end damage. There was secondary collision damage to the front left driver’s door with a horizontal tear in the door. The vehicle had no battery power, and the emergency equipment and lighting could not be tested. The driver’s front air and side bags had deployed. Tire marks were visible that commenced in the approximate middle of the two northbound and two westbound lanes, and continued in a northeast direction to the Dodge Charger police cruiser.
Figure 3 – The Honda Accord
Vehicle #2 was a black 4-door Honda Accord. The vehicle was situated on its roof and orientated in a northwest direction on the right northbound lane of Torbram Road and north of Williams Parkway. The vehicle had extensive front end collision damage. There was an apparent secondary impact with the right rear corner. The vehicle had been braced by the Fire Service. Both left doors had been removed to facilitate removal of the occupant.
PRP Reconstruction ReportThe following is a summary of the information contained in the report.
The incident involved a collision between a Dodge Charger police vehicle and a Honda Accord. The Dodge Charger police vehicle was travelling northbound on Torbram Road at the intersection with Williams Parkway in the City of Brampton, facing a green traffic signal and proceeding straight through. The Honda Accord was travelling southbound on Torbram Road at the intersection of Williams Parkway, with the intention of executing a left turn onto eastbound Williams Parkway on a green traffic signal.
The Honda Accord approached the intersection and attempted to execute a left turn onto eastbound Williams Parkway. The Dodge Charger police vehicle would have been clearly visible to the Complainant. Even with the lighting conditions being dark, the roadways were illuminated by artificial lighting and the Dodge Charger police vehicle headlights were on.
The Dodge Charger police vehicle was travelling steadily in the range of 122-123 km/h for the duration of the time between 5 and 1.2 seconds prior to impact. The service brake was first applied 1.2 seconds prior to impact. At 0.1 seconds prior to the collision, the Dodge Charger police vehicle was travelling at 103 km/h.
The posted speed limit on Torbram Road was 60 km/h. The Complainant would not have anticipated the approaching police vehicle to be travelling double the speed limit without emergency equipment activated. Speed was therefore a factor in this collision.
Environmental factors such as lighting, weather and road conditions were not factors in this collision.
The SO was driving a police vehicle at approximately 122 km/h in a 60 km/h speed zone with no emergency lights activated. The Complainant encroached in the pathway of the police vehicle while making a left turn. Both drivers’ actions contributed to the cause of the collision.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Communications Recordings - Traffic Stop EventOn February 5, 2022, at 5:18:15 a.m., a radio broadcast indicated that Officer #1 was conducting a traffic stop at Bovaird Drive East and Sunnyvale Gate. The licence plate of the stopped vehicle was provided and the driver was queried on CPIC.
The CPIC check indicated the driver was the subject of an ongoing police investigation. A notice on the check further indicated that if the vehicle was located, the Toronto Police Service Major Crime Task Force was to be immediately contacted.
Another officer was dispatched to assist Officer #1 at 5:19:07 a.m.
At 5:31:44 a.m., the traffic stop event concluded.
Video Footage from Iron Mountain - 195 Summerlea RoadAt 5:19:58 a.m., the SO’s cruiser left the south parking lot of 195 Summerlea Road with the WO’s cruiser following towards the exit near Atlas Court. The emergency lights were not activated on either police cruiser.
Video Footage from Pappa Johns - 1-18 Corporation DriveAt 5:22:04 a.m., a marked police SUV [now known to be operated by the WO] proceeded northbound on Torbram Road on a green light. No emergency lights were activated. Between 5:25:57 and 5:26:08 a.m., five marked police vehicles proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with emergency lights activated.
Video Footage from Jas Supermarket - 9025 Torbram RoadAt 5:21:15 a.m., the SO’s marked police vehicle proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with no emergency lights activated.
At 5:21:18 a.m., the WO’s marked police SUV proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with no emergency lights activated.
Video Footage from Paradise Touch - Unit 1 – 2200 Queen StreetAt 5:21:39 a.m., the SO’s marked police vehicle proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with no emergency lights activated.
At 5:21:43 a.m., the WO’s marked police SUV proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with no emergency lights activated.
Video Footage from Thomas Aquinas Secondary School - 25 Corporation DriveAt 5:21:53 a.m., a sedan [believed to be operated by the SO] proceeded quickly northbound on Torbram Road followed closely by an SUV [believed to be operated by the WO]. Neither police cruiser had its emergency lights activated.
Between 5:25:50 a.m. and 5:29:30 a.m., a fire truck and 14 police vehicles proceeded northbound on Torbram Road with their emergency lights activated.
Video Footage from the Bedding and Mattress Store - 1650 Williams ParkwayAt 5:22:24 a.m., the Complainant’s vehicle drove southbound on Torbram Road and slowly entered the intersection with Williams Parkway on a green traffic signal light. His left turn signal was activated. The traffic signal for eastbound and westbound travel on Williams Parkway was red.
At 5:22:26 a.m., as the Complainant commenced an eastbound turn onto Williams Parkway, a northbound police cruiser operated by the SO entered the intersection, struck the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle, and pushed the vehicle clockwise and out of camera view. The impact of the collision was audible on the video. The emergency lights on the SO’s police vehicle were not activated and the siren was not heard.
At 5:22:29 a.m., the WO’s police cruiser entered the intersection on a green light as the SO’s police vehicle rested in the northbound lanes. The emergency lights on the WO’s police vehicle were not activated and the siren was not heard.
At 5:22:30 a.m., the WO activated his emergency lights in the middle of the intersection and stopped his police vehicle in front of the SO’s vehicle.
Communications Recording – MVC EventOn February 5, 2022, at 5:22:43 a.m., the WO radioed a MVC involving the SO at the intersection of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway. He advised that the civilian vehicle was tipped over and the driver [now known to be the Complainant] was alert and talking. He requested that Emergency Medical Services attend. The WO requested a second ambulance for the SO, who was alert and conscious but unable to feel her legs. The officer was unable to open the door of the Complainant’s vehicle.
At 5:26:35 a.m., a sergeant requested that units tape off the roads and block traffic away from the intersection. An officer radioed that the Complainant was stuck upside down in his vehicle and requested a rush on the Fire Department.
At 5:32:35 a.m., the sergeant advised units to hold points along the route to SHSC in preparation for transport. The Toronto Police Service were also holding points.
At 5:44:32 a.m., the sergeant notified the Major Collision Bureau.
The SO was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital by ambulance. The Complainant was on board an ambulance for transport to SHSC. No emergency run was required.
The SO’s injuries were deemed not life-threatening and, at 11:31 a.m., she was on board the ambulance for transport to SHSC.
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data from the SO’s CruiserThe following is a summary of the information derived from the GPS data related to the SO’s cruiser.
On February 5, 2022, at 5:15:00 a.m., the police cruiser was idle at 195 Summerlea Road, Brampton.
At 5:20:04 a.m., the SO executed a U-turn at Atlas Court, and proceeded northbound on Summerlea Road and then westbound on Clark Boulevard. The cruiser proceeded northbound on Torbram Road towards Queen Street and then towards Corporation Drive.
At 5:22:03 a.m. to 5:22:25 a.m., the SO arrived at the intersection of Torbram Road and Williams Parkway, a total distance of 3.1 kilometres.
Route VideoThe SIU produced a video recording that captured the SO’s path of travel to the scene of the collision.
The video began at 5:23 a.m. to capture the traffic flow at that time of day; however, the recording was done on a weekday and the collision had occurred on a weekend. The video was completed 17 days after the collision and the snowbanks that were encroaching on the road surface had melted significantly since the collision. The road salt obscuring the lane markings on the day of collision had also dissipated making them more visible on the video.
The video started in an industrial building parking lot on the south side of 195 Summerlea Road. The parking lot exited onto Atlas Court and the police vehicle turned left towards Summerlea Road. The route continued north on Summerlea Road. The road was an assumed 50 km/h zone and in a light industrial area with minimal traffic. After approximately 500 metres, the path turned left (west) onto Clark Boulevard. This road was a posted 50 km/h zone and in a light industrial area with minimal traffic. There were two lanes in each direction.
After approximately 450 metres, the path turned right (north) onto Torbram Road. This road was governed by a posted 60 km/h speed limit. The traffic on this road was slightly heavier. It was a major road with two lanes in each direction. Torbram Road was straight and level with visible lane markings and overhead lights. It was light industrial or light commercial on the right and residential on the left. The residences on the left backed onto the road; there was a fence, trees or hedges, and a large boulevard separating the homes from the roadway.
The path travelled north approximately 2.6 kilometres on Torbram before the collision location at Williams Parkway. The route travelled past three intersections that were controlled by traffic signals prior to the collision location,  and there were pedestrians at one of the intersections.
From the start of the route video to the collision scene was approximately 3.5 kilometres. It took approximately five minutes and 50 seconds to travel the distance obeying all speed signs and traffic lights.
Materials Obtained from Police ServiceUpon request, the SIU received the following materials from PRP between February 7 and 25, 2022:
- Event Chronology;
- Crash Data for the SO’s cruiser;
- GPS data for the SO’s cruiser;
- Directive-Operation of Police Vehicle;
- MVC Report;
- Notes-the WO;
- Occurrence Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Reconstruction Report; and
- Training record – the SO.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
- Ambulance Call Report from Peel Regional Paramedic Services;
- Medical Records from SHSC;
- Video footage from Iron Mountain 195 Summerlea Road;
- Video footage from Pappa Johns 1-18 Corporation Drive;
- Video footage from Jas Supermarket 9025 Torbram Road;
- Video footage from Paradise Touch Unit 1 – 2200 Queen Street;
- Video footage from Thomas Aquinas Secondary School 25 Corporation Drive;
- Video footage from Mattress and Bedding 1650 Williams Parkway; and
- Video footage from CNH Industrial 190 Summerlea Road. 
In the morning of February 5, 2022, the Complainant was operating his Honda Accord southbound on Torbram Road intending to turn left onto Williams Parkway. He activated his signal, entered onto the left-turn lane and then the intersection, and embarked on his turn when his vehicle’s passenger side was struck by a police cruiser.
The cruiser – operated by the SO – had entered the intersection at speed on a green light. For most of the five seconds prior to impact, the officer had been travelling at about 120 km/h northward on Torbram Road. She and her colleague, the WO, in another cruiser behind her, were en route to assist an officer with a traffic stop at Bovaird Street East and Sunnyvale Gate. By the point of impact, presumably having seen the Complainant’s vehicle turning into her path, the SO had decelerated her cruiser to about 100 km/h.
The Complainant suffered a fractured sternum in the collision. The SO was fortunate to have emerged without serious injury.
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
Section 128(13), Highway Traffic Act – Police vehicles and speeding
(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a mere want of care is insufficient to give rise to liability; rather, what is required is 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 neglect in the manner in which the SO operated the cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
There are aspects of the SO’s conduct that are subject to legitimate scrutiny. Primary among those are her sustained speeds of twice the 60 km/h speed limit on Torbram Road without the use of her emergency lights or siren. It is difficult to understand the need for such speed. She and the WO were travelling to the area of Bovaird Street East and Sunnyvale Gate to assist another officer with a traffic stop as the vehicle that had been pulled over was of interest to the Major Crime Unit of the Toronto Police Service. The situation was not one of urgency and neither officer had been dispatched to assist; rather, that task had fallen to another officer. It is even more difficult to understand the need for such speed without the use of emergency lights and/or siren. The SO’s failure to activate her lights or siren needlessly deprived other traffic along her route, which, though minimal, was not non-existent, of the added notice that equipment would have provided of her vehicle’s speed. More to the point, it prevented the Complainant from identifying the officer’s vehicle as a police cruiser, which could well have averted the collision at the intersection. The cumulative impact of these indiscretions, in my view, render the SO’s driving dangerous. They fall short, however, of constituting a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.
There were a number of mitigating factors at play in connection with the SO’s driving. Under section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act, police vehicles used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duty are exempt from speed limits. The section does not confer carte blanche on police officers to speed indiscriminately without regard for public safety. It does, however, amount to a recognition at law that speeding by a police officer is of a different character than speeding by a non-police officer. Whatever the wisdom of the SO’s decision to rush to the scene of a traffic stop, it is clear she was in the execution of her duties at the time. The fact that there was very little traffic on the road at the time of the incident – about 5:30 a.m. on a weekend – and that Torbram Road was mostly commercial/industrial with residential homes on the west side that did not let out onto the roadway are also important considerations in the reasonableness analysis. Finally, given the heavy onus on persons making left turns to yield to oncoming traffic, I am satisfied that the officer was to a greater or lesser extent reasonably entitled to expect that the Complainant would not attempt his turn until some point after she had cleared the intersection. Weighed in the balance with these extenuating considerations, I am not reasonably satisfied that the SO’s dangerous driving transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.
For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the SO comported herself lawfully in the time leading to her collision with the Complainant’s vehicle. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 3, 2022
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 2) Inquiries were conducted with the City of Brampton regarding red light cameras, and it was established that there was no record of the SO driving through a red traffic signal along the route she took to the scene of the collision. [Back to text]
- 3) This video footage was reviewed and was found not to be of any evidentiary value. [Back to text]
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.