SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TVI-109
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 injury a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”) suffered.
Notification of the SIUOn April 13, 2022, at 9:04 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On April 12, 2022, at about 7:27 p.m., TPS officers responded to the area of Auckland Road and Dundas Street West in response to Civilian Witness (CW) #1, who was jumping in and out of traffic. CW #1 had carjacked a black Volvo and crashed the vehicle into a five-tonne cube truck, after which he carjacked the cube truck and fled towards Mississauga. A TPS motorcycle officer, Witness Official (WO) #4, activated his emergency lighting but was told to discontinue his engagement in the area of Kipling Avenue and Bloor Street West. A TPS canine unit vehicle with the Subject Official (SO) and WO #1 were in the area. Because of the size of the cube truck, they maintained observation on the vehicle from 300 to 500 metres behind, with no emergency lighting or siren engaged. As CW #1 drove into Peel Region, he struck several vehicles and ended up driving through stopped traffic at Dixie Road and The Queensway. The cube truck became inoperable from the collision and CW #1 abandoned it, after which he was arrested by TPS officers.
CW #1 was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital but had no serious injury.
CW #1 had rear-ended the Complainant’s vehicle, an Audi, resulting in injury to the Complainant - a radial head injury to his right arm.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 04/14/2022 at 8:51 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/14/2022 at 12:10 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):24-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on April 14, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses (CW) CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 16, 2022, and May 7, 2022.
Subject Official (SO) SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO) WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes received
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received
The witness official was interviewed on April 21, 2022.
The Scene The scene was not held.
The collision between the cube van operated by CW #1 and the Complainant’s vehicle occurred in the westbound left-turn lanes of The Queensway at the Dixie Road intersection.
A SIU investigator contacted the Region of Peel and, on April 18, 2022, at 8:55 a.m., received images from a weather camera (not video recorded, but a still camera) at the intersection on The Queensway and Dixie Road. The images below depicted the intersection and how the white cube truck continued on Dixie Road before the engine seized and it stopped.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
WO #3’s In-car Camera System (ICCS) Video FootageOn April 21, 2022, at 10:03 a.m., the SIU received the ICCS video footage for a TPS cruiser, which was occupied by WO #2 and WO #3. The summary that follows is amplified by information gathered from the officers’ notes.
WO #3 responded to the call at 7:55 p.m. and had his emergency equipment activated. He tried to catch up to the TPS ‘canine’ Ford Expedition driven by the SO for 14 minutes, passing many vehicles that had been struck by CW #1.
At 8:04 p.m., WO #3 passed TPS motorcycle officer – WO #4 - who had discontinued his pursuit.
At 8:07 p.m., WO #3 caught up to the SO westbound on The Queensway – the SO’s vehicle was ahead of his (see photograph).
At 8:09 p.m., both TPS vehicles arrived at the intersection of The Queensway and Dixie Road. There were three or four damaged vehicles scattered in and around the two left turn lanes.
Just south of the intersection, both TPS vehicles pulled up to the cube truck which was stopped having left a trail of fluid on the road.
At 8:10 p.m., the arrest of CW #1 occurred off camera.
The SO did not have his emergency equipment or siren on.
TPS Communications RecordingsTPS provided all communications recordings to the SIU on April 29, 2022, at 1:34 p.m. The following is a summary of the recordings.
There were 30 911 calls concerning the actions of CW #1. They began on April 12, 2022, at 7:27 p.m., when CW #1 was in the area of Dundas Street West running on the road and jumping on cars.
At 7:34 p.m., WO #4 (TPS motorcycle), in the area of Burnhamthorpe Road West and Highway 427, was made aware of CW #1.
At 7:50 p.m., CW #1 was smashing the car window of a Volvo with a shovel.
WO #4 located the Volvo at 7:56 p.m., and broadcast that he was following the Volvo, which was swerving all over the road. WO #4 said he was trying to catch up to CW #1 but kept hitting every red light.
At 7:58 p.m., WO #4 broadcast that CW #1 was eastbound on Burnhamthorpe Road West, driving a white cube five-tonne truck dragging the black Volvo behind him. WO #4 broadcast that CW #1 had “carjacked” the cube truck and was eastbound. The officer was following from a distance. Another officer (Officer 1 ) broadcast he was heading to the area where WO #4 was driving. The Volvo finally dislodged from the truck and struck a building.
As CW #1 continued southbound on Kipling Avenue, approaching Bloor Street West, he struck two vehicles and almost rolled the truck. There was a broadcast that CW #1 was an emotionally disturbed person.
At 8:03 p.m., a male voice said he was a dispatch supervisor, provided his badge number, and said, “Abandon pursuit.” WO #4 was in the area of Kipling Avenue and North Queen Street. The cube truck turned onto westbound North Queen Street, and WO #4 said, “I’m stopping,” and then, “I’ve lost sight.”
At 8:04 p.m., WO #1 said CW #1 was westbound on North Queen Street “all over the road, trying to flip it”. He said they were watching, and not using their emergency equipment.
At 8:07 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that CW #1 was westbound on The Queensway west of The West Mall, and that they (WO #1 and SO) were about 300 metres behind with no emergency equipment activated.
At 8:08 p.m., WO #1 said CW #1 was approaching a red traffic light with quite a bit of traffic ahead of him. WO #1 then said CW #1 was on the median, and then that he was southbound on Dixie Road and “people are bailing out of their car”.
At 8:09 p.m., WO #1 reported a collision with three or four cars badly damaged. He requested an ambulance be dispatched and advised CW #1 had stopped on Dixie Road south of The Queensway.
At 8:10 p.m., there was a broadcast that CW #1 was in custody.
Officer 1 requested enough TPS officers be dispatched to Dixie Road and The Queensway in order to close down the intersection in the event the injuries from the collision met the SIU mandate.
Twitter Video of Arrest of CW #1On April 14, 2022, at 12:57 p.m., an SIU investigator searched Twitter and located a video posted by a member of the public. Attempts were made to contact the individual, to no avail.
The video was from April 12, 2022, at 7:58 p.m., and depicted a construction site with a residential road in the background. A check of Google Maps showed that this was near the intersection of Dixie Road and The Queensway.
The large white cube truck entered the screen on the Twitter video and stopped in the middle of Dixie Road. Smoke could be seen billowing from the engine and CW #1 exited the truck. Twenty-four seconds after the truck stopped, two TPS cruisers entered the video with one stopping behind the truck and one stopping on its right side, both with their emergency lighting activated. TPS officers engaged with CW #1, but the arrest could not be seen as there was green fencing around the construction site which obstructed the images.
Materials Obtained from Police Service Upon request, the SIU received the following records from TPS between April 14, 2022, and 29, 2022
- Computer-assisted Dispatch reports;
- Communications recordings,
- ICCS video footage;
- Notes - WO #3;
- Notes - WO #2;
- Notes - WO #1;
- Notes - WO #4;
- Motor Vehicle Accident Report (x9);
- Notes Excusal - WO #2; and
- Occurrence Report.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
- Medical records from Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga Hospital;
- Civilian video recordings from Twitter and CW #4; and
- Weather camera stills from camera, owned by Region of Peel, at intersection of Dixie Road and The Queensway.
CW #1 was in mental health crisis in the evening of April 12, 2022. CW #1’s distress manifested in bizarre and violent behaviour on public roadways. Motorists who came across CW #1 contacted 911. One of those motorists was CW #4. On Highway 427 in the area of Burnhamthorpe Road, CW #4 had seen CW #1 jump onto vehicles and threaten the driver of a Volvo with a shovel, thereafter carjacking the car and accelerating away eastbound on Burnhamthorpe Road.
CW #1 continued before crashing into a cube truck, after which he exited the Volvo, commandeered the truck, and continued eastbound on Burnhamthorpe Road, dragging the Volvo for a distance. He would continue in this reckless fashion for a further eight to nine kilometres, ramming into multiple vehicles along the way and leaving a trail of destruction behind him. Westbound on The Queensway, CW #1 entered the left-turn lanes of the roadway at Dixie Road and rear-ended the vehicle occupied by the Complainant. He continued a short distance south on Dixie Road before his vehicle stalled and came to a stop.
By this time, TPS officers following CW #1 came upon the truck and took CW #1 into custody. CW #1 had exited the truck and was trying to get away when he was intercepted by the officers.
The first officer to have engaged with CW #1 prior to his arrest was WO #4. On patrol in the area on a motorcycle, WO #4 had pursued the cube van east on Burnhamthorpe Road and south on Kipling Street before he was ordered to discontinue his engagement in the area of North Queen Street. Thereafter, the SO, operating a police SUV, began to follow CW #1 at a distance. With him was WO #1. Behind them was another cruiser occupied by WO #2 and WO #3. The SO kept pace with the cube van west and, eventually, south on North Queen Street until The Queensway, and then west to Dixie Road and south to the scene of the arrest. WO #2 and WO #3 were the officers who arrested CW #1.
The Complainant was taken to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with a fracture of the right arm.
Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm
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. 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 exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO conducted himself, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, in connection with CW #1’s collision with the Complainant. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful execution of his duty as he tailed CW #1 for several kilometres from a distance. He and the other officers responding to the calls of CW #1’s reckless driving had a duty to do what they could to mitigate the risk of harm coming to persons in the vicinity of the cube van, even if by only monitoring the situation, reporting what they were observing, and rendering assistance as required.
I am satisfied that the SO discharged his duty with due care and attention to public safety. Cognizant of the fact that WO #4 had been ordered to discontinue pursuit, the officer maintained a fair distance from the cube van at all times – in the neighbourhood of several hundred metres. Nor did he activate his emergency equipment or siren throughout the engagement so as to give away his presence and potentially aggravate CW #1’s dangerous driving. In the circumstances, it is clear that neither the SO nor any of the other involved officers had anything to do with the manner in which CW #1 was driving.
The question arises whether the SO, aware of the mayhem CW #1 was causing, ought to have adopted a more proactive approach and attempted to forcefully stop the cube van ahead of the Dixie Road and The Queensway intersection. That proposition, I am satisfied, is untenable in the circumstances. Given what the officers knew of CW #1’s erratic and volatile behaviour before their arrival, and what they discerned of his reckless driving after they had engaged with him, it would have been apparent that CW #1 could not be stopped short of some sort of physical intervention with the police cruisers. Any such intervention, however, would not only have run counter to the direction that had been given WO #4 that he discontinue pursuit, but would also have entailed a significant degree of risk to the public given the amount of traffic on the roadways.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout his engagement with CW #1, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: August 10, 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) This officer was not designated as either a witness official or a subject official. [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.