Director's Report Details

• 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 Act

Pursuant 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. 

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• 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, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information 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.

 
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 Team

Date 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.

At 8:08 p.m., WO #1 said the cube truck was about 300 metres ahead approaching a red light at Dixie Road. When the SO was about 500 metres from the intersection of The Queensway and Dixie Road, WO #1 broadcast that the truck was on the median at Dixie Road. When the SO was about 250 metres from the intersection, the cube truck was visible in the intersection turning left onto Dixie Road.

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 Recordings

TPS 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 [2]) 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 #1

On 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 Sources

The 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.

(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.

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

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit