SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TVI-299
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant 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 Act
Pursuant to section 14 (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, 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.Mandate Engaged
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
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 of a 64-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 64-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
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 of a 64-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 64-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On November 21, 2022, at 8:00 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of injuries to Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. According to TPS, on November 21, 2022, the Subject Official (SO) had been following a vehicle of interest [now known to be a Dodge Challenger] northbound on Kipling Avenue when the Challenger entered the intersection of Redwater Drive against a red light and collided with another vehicle [now known to be a Toyota Corolla]. The driver [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #2] of the Challenger was arrested. Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, the occupants of the Toyota Corolla, were taken to the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center (SHSC) and diagnosed with broken ribs.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 11/21/2022 at 9:02 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 11/21/2022 at 10:00 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists: 1
Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):
Complainant #1 64-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedComplainant #2 64-year-old female; not interviewed (declined); medical records obtained and reviewed
Complainant #1 was interviewed on December 21, 2022.
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 6, 2022, and January 12, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right Evidence
The Scene
The scene of the collision was at the intersection of Redwater Drive and Kipling Avenue, Toronto. Kipling Avenue was a four-lane roadway and Redwater Drive was a two-lane roadway. 
Figure 1 - Screenshot from surveillance video footage capturing the collision
Figure 2 – Damage to the Dodge Challenger
Figure 3 – Damage to the Toyota Corolla
Scene Diagram
Forensic Evidence
Global Positioning System (GPS) Data
On January 9, 2023, the SIU requested that TPS provide GPS data from the SO’s vehicle related to the incident under investigation. On January 10, 2023, TPS provided the GPS data to the SIU. The following is a summary of the information derived from the data.At 1:58:02 p.m., the SO was northbound on Kipling Avenue just north of Belfield Road, travelling at 62 km/h.
At 1:58:15 p.m., the SO was north of the railroad underpass at Kipling Avenue at 53 km/h. [1]
At 1:58:27 p.m., the SO travelled north on Kipling Avenue to just south of Bethridge Road at 96 km/h. At 1:58:31 p.m., the SO continued on Kingston Avenue north of Bethridge Road at 75 km/h.
At 1:58:36 p.m., halfway between Bethridge Road and Rexdale Boulevard, the SO was at 51 km/h and, then, 61 km/h.
At 1:58:45 p.m., at the intersection at Rexdale Boulevard, the SO travelled at 51 km/h.
At 1:58:50 p.m., north of Rexdale Boulevard, the SO travelled at 88 km/h.
At 1:58:54 p.m., the SO was near Frost Street. [2]
At 1:58:59 p.m., the SO was in the area of Frost Street, 150 to 175 metres south of the collision scene, at 67 km/h.
The SO’s maximum speed was 96 km/h.
The distance from where the Dodge Challenger was observed, north of the railroad overpass, to the collision site was about one kilometre. The officer travelled that distance in about 52 seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]
Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD)
On November 22, 2022, the SIU requested that the TPS provide the CAD in connection with the incident under investigation. On November 22, 2022, the TPS provided the CAD to the SIU. The following is a summary of the information contained in the record.At 1:59 p.m., the SO broadcast a request for units to attend a motor vehicle collision. The event was categorized as a ‘Fail to Remain’.
The SO advised that one of the drivers involved in the collision, CW #2, had taken off on foot. A car was smoking, and Complainant #2 was unconscious. The location was at Redwater Drive and Kipling Avenue.
At 2:12 p.m., a police officer advised that CW #2 had been detained in a nearby parking lot.
Paramedic services and fire services were requested.
At 2:35 p.m., Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported by ambulance to SHSC.
Communications Recordings
On November 22, 2022, the SIU requested that the TPS provide the communications recordings in connection with the incident under investigation. On December 12, 2022, the TPS provided the communications recordings to the SIU. The following is a summary of the information contained in the recording.On November 21, 2022, at 1:58 p.m., the SO reported she had just witnessed a motor vehicle collision. She requested that additional units respond to the intersection of Redwater Drive and Kipling Avenue.
It was reported that the driver of a vehicle, CW #2, had taken off on foot.
At 2:44 p.m., CW #2 was in custody.
The passenger of a Toyota Corolla, Complainant #2, was unconscious, but had since woken up and was having difficulty breathing.
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported by ambulance to SHSC.
At 4:10 p.m., an officer, who was at the hospital with the injured parties, broadcast that the doctor at SHSC had confirmed “things were broken” in relation to their injuries.
Video Footage – 2082 Kipling Avenue
On November 24, 2022, the SIU obtained video footage from Petro V Plus gas station located at 2082 Kipling Avenue, Toronto. The video was from two cameras at the gas station. One camera faced east towards the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Redwater Drive. The other camera faced north towards the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Racine Road. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage. Starting at about 2:55 p.m. [4], a Toyota Corolla travelled westbound on Redwater Drive and arrived at a red traffic light at the intersection of Redwater Drive and Kipling Avenue. The Toyota Corolla moved to make a left turn from Redwater Drive to travel south on Kipling Avenue. The front end of the Toyota Corolla was struck by a white Dodge Challenger travelling north on Kipling Avenue. The Dodge Challenger, travelling at a high rate of speed, had proceeded through a red traffic light.
The Dodge Challenger struck the Toyota Corolla with significant force and lifted the back wheels of the Toyota Corolla off the road. The Dodge Challenger also struck the back right side of a Honda Civic.
The Dodge Challenger came to rest on the east side of the intersection of Racine Road and Kipling Avenue.
At 2:56 p.m., a marked police vehicle arrived at the intersection with emergency lights activated. A police officer exited the police vehicle and approached the Toyota Corolla.
ICC Footage – the SO’s Cruiser
On November 22, 2022, the SIU requested that the TPS provide the ICC footage from the SO’s cruiser in connection with the incident under investigation. On November 22, 2022, the SIU received the footage from the TPS. The following is a summary of the pertinent footage. The SO drove a marked police vehicle northbound on Kipling Avenue in the centre of three northbound lanes. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h.
At 1:58:15 p.m., a Dodge Challenger [now known to be driven by CW #2] passed in the right lane at a high rate of speed and merged without signaling into the centre lane of traffic ahead of the civilian vehicle travelling directly in front of the SO.
The SO moved her police vehicle into the right lane as CW #2 arrived at the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road. The SO increased her speed to pass the civilian vehicle as the right lane quickly became a right turn lane.
CW #2 drove through a green light at the intersection in the centre lane of traffic. The SO merged from the right turn lane across the centre lane of traffic to the left lane as she travelled through the green light of the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road.
Beyond the intersection there were two northbound lanes of traffic.
CW #2 encountered traffic and had to slow down. He arrived at a paved median between two solid yellow lines which separated northbound and southbound traffic, and drove onto the paved median. There were no markings on the paved median. [5] The distance between the solid yellow lines was approximately the width of a normal lane of traffic. The SO drove her police vehicle between the solid yellow lines and followed CW #2.
At 1:58:34 p.m., the SO activated her vehicle’s emergency warning lights but not the siren.
The paved median became a left turn lane onto Rexdale Boulevard for northbound traffic.
CW #2 passed two civilian vehicles in the paved median and returned to the centre lane as the left turn lane was occupied by a vehicle waiting to turn left. CW #2 drove through a yellow light at the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Rexdale Boulevard.
The SO passed one civilian vehicle as she drove in the left turn lane. She merged back to the centre lane and then to the right lane as she travelled through a traffic signal light that was turning from amber to red just as she entered the Rexdale Boulevard intersection. The SO did not slow her police vehicle before she entered the intersection on the red light. She also did not activate her siren.
The SO passed two more civilian vehicles as she drove in the right lane.
Beyond Rexdale Boulevard, there were two northbound lanes of traffic and the posted speed limit became 50 km/h. There was a marked left turn lane which separated the northbound and southbound directions of traffic for turning use by either direction of traffic.
CW #2 drove in the turning lane between the northbound and southbound directions of traffic.
The SO moved from the right lane across the centre lane of traffic and onto the turning lane.
One second later, CW #2 drove through a red light at Redwater Drive and collided with a Toyota Corolla [now known to be driven by Complainant #1]. [6]
The SO passed 12 northbound civilian vehicles in the turning lane, which had stopped for the red light.
The Toyota Corolla had made a left turn at a green light from westbound on Redwater Drive to southbound onto Kipling Avenue. The vehicle came to rest north of Redwater Drive facing south in between the northbound and southbound directions of traffic.
CW #2’s vehicle came to rest on the east side of the intersection of Racine Road and Kipling Avenue.
The SO stopped her police vehicle in the centre of the intersection and exited to render assistance to the occupants of the Corolla.
CW #2 exited his vehicle and walked around the scene. He approached the SO while she rendered assistance to the injured parties and then returned to his vehicle.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On November 22, 2022, the SIU requested that the TPS provide the BWC footage in connection with the incident under investigation. On November 22, the SIU received BWC video footage from TPS in connection with three officers, including the SO.The footage commenced after the collision, and was therefore of little probative value to the investigation.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between November 22, 2022, and February 26, 2023:- CAD;
- GPS data;
- Collision Data Recorder data;
- General Occurrence-Entity List;
- General Occurrence-Records Release;
- Communications recordings;
- BWC footage;
- ICC footage; and
- Policy Suspect Apprehension Pursuit.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- Medical records from SHSC for Complainant #1; and
- Medical records from SHSC for Complainant #2.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was her legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU and to authorize the release of her notes.
In the early afternoon of November 21, 2022, Complainant #1 was driving a Toyota Corolla westbound on Redwater Drive towards Kipling Avenue. With him was his wife, Complainant #2. Complainant #1 came to a stop at a red light at Kipling Avenue and then embarked on a left-hand turn after the light turned green. He was well into the turn when the front end of his Corolla was struck by a northbound vehicle.
The northbound vehicle – a Dodge Challenger – was being operated by CW #2. For some time prior to the collision, CW #2 had been driving dangerously; he had been speeding and cutting off other motorists weaving from lane to lane. CW #2 entered the Redwater Drive intersection, against a red light and at about 90 km/h, and collided with the Toyota Corolla.
Seemingly unknown to CW #2 at the time, he was being pursued by the SO operating a marked police cruiser. CW #2 had attracted the officer’s attention on Kipling Avenue south of Bethridge Road when he sped past her northbound vehicle. She watched as CW #2 changed lanes without signaling, and decided to follow him. Seconds later, the SO activated her emergency lights intending to stop CW #2. The officer pursued CW #2 a short distance, travelling through a signal light that was changing from amber to red at the Rexdale Boulevard intersection, and watched from a distance as he struck Complainant #1’s vehicle.
The SO travelled to the site of the collision, called for assistance, and went to render aid to the occupants of the Toyota.
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures.
CW #2 was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. He was arrested at the scene and taken into custody.
In the early afternoon of November 21, 2022, Complainant #1 was driving a Toyota Corolla westbound on Redwater Drive towards Kipling Avenue. With him was his wife, Complainant #2. Complainant #1 came to a stop at a red light at Kipling Avenue and then embarked on a left-hand turn after the light turned green. He was well into the turn when the front end of his Corolla was struck by a northbound vehicle.
The northbound vehicle – a Dodge Challenger – was being operated by CW #2. For some time prior to the collision, CW #2 had been driving dangerously; he had been speeding and cutting off other motorists weaving from lane to lane. CW #2 entered the Redwater Drive intersection, against a red light and at about 90 km/h, and collided with the Toyota Corolla.
Seemingly unknown to CW #2 at the time, he was being pursued by the SO operating a marked police cruiser. CW #2 had attracted the officer’s attention on Kipling Avenue south of Bethridge Road when he sped past her northbound vehicle. She watched as CW #2 changed lanes without signaling, and decided to follow him. Seconds later, the SO activated her emergency lights intending to stop CW #2. The officer pursued CW #2 a short distance, travelling through a signal light that was changing from amber to red at the Rexdale Boulevard intersection, and watched from a distance as he struck Complainant #1’s vehicle.
The SO travelled to the site of the collision, called for assistance, and went to render aid to the occupants of the Toyota.
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple fractures.
CW #2 was fortunate to have escaped serious injury. He was arrested at the scene and taken into custody.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) 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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Toronto on November 21, 2022. As their vehicle had been struck by another vehicle being pursued by a TPS officer at the time, the SIU initiated an investigation. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. 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. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful discharge of her duties when she decided to stop CW #2 and initiated a pursuit to do so. CW #2 was operating his vehicle dangerously and was subject to sanctions for his driving indiscretions.
Having made the decision to pursue, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO failed to comport herself with the care and regard required of the criminal law. There are two aspects of the officer’s conduct that merit particular scrutiny. First, having decided to activate her emergency equipment to pursue CW #2, she should have promptly notified her communications centre of what she was doing. This puts senior officers in the position of monitoring a pursuit with the authority to terminate it if necessary on public safety grounds. The SO’s failure to do so effectively precluded this fail-safe from operating. Second, the SO travelled through an amber/red light at Rexdale Boulevard without stopping, and without the use of her siren.
On the other side of the ledger, the SO did have her emergency lights operating for most of her engagement with CW #2, giving notice to other motorists in the vicinity of the pursuit. Her speeds were at times high but never grossly in excess of the speed limit over any extended period of time. She did travel through a red light, but the light had just changed to red from amber as she entered the intersection. Lastly, it is important to note that the officer’s interventions were short-lived in time and distance – about a kilometre-and-a-half and under a minute. During that period, there is nothing to suggest that the SO unduly pushed or fueled CW #2’s reckless driving.
In the result, as I am not satisfied that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 7, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
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 simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, 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 observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was in the lawful discharge of her duties when she decided to stop CW #2 and initiated a pursuit to do so. CW #2 was operating his vehicle dangerously and was subject to sanctions for his driving indiscretions.
Having made the decision to pursue, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO failed to comport herself with the care and regard required of the criminal law. There are two aspects of the officer’s conduct that merit particular scrutiny. First, having decided to activate her emergency equipment to pursue CW #2, she should have promptly notified her communications centre of what she was doing. This puts senior officers in the position of monitoring a pursuit with the authority to terminate it if necessary on public safety grounds. The SO’s failure to do so effectively precluded this fail-safe from operating. Second, the SO travelled through an amber/red light at Rexdale Boulevard without stopping, and without the use of her siren.
On the other side of the ledger, the SO did have her emergency lights operating for most of her engagement with CW #2, giving notice to other motorists in the vicinity of the pursuit. Her speeds were at times high but never grossly in excess of the speed limit over any extended period of time. She did travel through a red light, but the light had just changed to red from amber as she entered the intersection. Lastly, it is important to note that the officer’s interventions were short-lived in time and distance – about a kilometre-and-a-half and under a minute. During that period, there is nothing to suggest that the SO unduly pushed or fueled CW #2’s reckless driving.
In the result, as I am not satisfied that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: March 7, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) At this time, the Dodge Challenger was seen on the In-car Camera (ICC) footage to pass the SO. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h. [Back to text]
- 2) Time of collision between Dodge Challenger and Toyota Corolla, as per ICC. [Back to text]
- 3) 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]
- 4) All camera times were incorrect; they were ahead by one hour. [Back to text]
- 5) This indicated traffic was not permitted to drive within the lines. [Back to text]
- 6) The distance from the point where the Dodge Challenger first passed the SO to the collision site was approximately 1.2 kilometres, per Google Maps. [Back to text]
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.