SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TVD-298
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 death of a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 death of a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On July 29, 2023, at 3:36 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.According to the TPS, on July 29, 2023, at 2:08 p.m., 23 Division Major Crime Unit (MCU) were targeting a stolen vehicle in the area of Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue. A male [later known to be the Complainant] approached the vehicle and the MCU vehicles attempted to box it in without success. The stolen vehicle fled the scene. When the police officers rounded a corner onto Martin Grove Road, they saw a large explosion. The stolen vehicle had been involved in a single motor vehicle collision, and it was fully engulfed in flames. The Complainant was trapped inside the stolen vehicle and deceased.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 07/29/2023 at 3:46 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/29/2023 at 5:10 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned (FIs): 2
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
25-year-old male; deceasedSubject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between July 29 and 31, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning on a street in the area of Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue, and then travelling north on Martin Grove Road to the south-facing abutment of the Highway 401 off-ramp overpass, north Dixon Road.
Figure 1 – Collision scene
Physical Evidence
Three unmarked TPS MCU vehicles were reportedly involved in the incident under investigation:- Vehicle 1 - This vehicle was parked on Martin Grove Road in lane two, the curb lane, facing north a short distance behind a Dodge Ram.
- Vehicle 2 - This vehicle was parked on Martin Grove Road in lane two facing north and was a short distance behind Vehicle 1.
- Vehicle 3 - This vehicle was parked behind Vehicle 2 on Martin Grove Road and was also facing a northbound direction in lane two.
At 9:30 p.m., July 29, 2023, SIU FIs arrived on the street where the Complainant first fled from the MCU officers in the pick-up truck. SIU observed a black scuff mark on the curb in front of the residence where it had been parked. The tracks continued onto the grass area and the sidewalk for several metres.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
SIU Route Video
The route video commenced at the address where the pursuit began. It was a residential area.
The posted speed limit was 40 km/h. The roadway in this area was paved in asphalt. The route travelled to the functioning traffic lights at Martin Grove Road.
Martin Grove Road travelled in a north and south direction. It was paved in asphalt and had four marked lanes for traffic. The speed limit in this area was 60 km/h.
The route continued to Dixon Road, a major intersection which was controlled by functioning traffic lights. Both Martin Grove and Dixon Road had four lanes, two in each direction, along with appropriate turn lanes. The route continued past Martin Grove Road along a slight downgrade for less than 100 metres where it stopped at the bridge abutment of the overhead Highway 401 off-ramp to Dixon Road.
TPS Communications Recording
The radio communications of the involved officers were not recorded. Video Footage #1
On July 29, 2023, the SIU received video footage capturing the intersection of Lavington Drive and Martin Grove Road.Starting at about 2:04:43 p.m., a sedan was captured stopped in the left turn lane at Lavington Drive and Martin Grove Road. A grey pick-up travelled west on Lavington Drive at a high rate of speed and proceeded into the intersection. It began to turn north, crossed Martin Grove Road onto the west side median, and collided with a sign, after which it collided with a street light pole.
Starting at about 2:04:50 p.m., a SUV travelled west on Lavington Drive approaching Martin Grove Road and stopped at the intersection. There was a van stopped facing north in the intersection on Martin Grove Road.
Starting at about 2:04:55 p.m., the grey pick-up reversed from the light pole and began to travel north back onto Martin Grove Road. The SUV turned right onto Martin Grove Road and travelled behind the truck. The SUV was followed by a van.
Video Footage #2
On July 29, 2023, at 2:03:56 p.m., the video began with a view of a grey pick-up truck parked on the curb across from a residence. There was a sedan parked nearby.Starting at about 2:04:00 p.m., a male - later known to be the Complainant - was captured walking towards the pick-up truck. The Complainant had his hands in his jacket pockets. The Complainant removed his left hand from his pocket and pointed it at the grey pick-up truck. The taillights of the grey pick-up truck flashed on and off.
Starting at about 2:04:07 p.m., the Complainant walked towards the driver’s side of the grey pick-up truck. He arrived at the vehicle, opened the driver’s door, and entered.
Starting at about 2:04:16 p.m., a SUV drove behind the grey pick-up truck. It stopped behind the grey pick-up truck. A van was captured travelling towards the grey pick-up truck. The grey pick-up truck travelled forward.
Starting at about 2:04:22 p.m., another vehicle travelled towards the grey pick-up truck. The grey pick-up truck travelled into a driveway and on the sidewalk and median before leaving camera view. The SUV followed the grey pick-up truck into the driveway and south on the sidewalk.
Starting at about 2:04:28 p.m., the van and another vehicle were captured travelling behind the fleeing pick-up truck.
Video Footage – Dash Camera #1
At the three-second mark of the 31-second video, a pick-up truck [now known to be a Dodge Ram driven by the Complainant] appeared to lose control and collide with a pole, after which it reversed, repositioned, and travelled aggressively northbound on Martin Grove Road.Video Footage - Dash Camera #2
The dash cam captured a vehicle [later known to be a Dodge Ram driven by the Complainant] being driven aggressively in a northbound direction of travel on Martin Grove Road. It appeared to lose control and travel to the eastside sidewalk on Martin Grove Road, after which it left camera view.Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following records from the TPS between July 29, 2023, and November 24, 2023:- Information from computer-aided dispatch;
- Involved Officer List;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Fingerprints – the Complainant;
- Collision reconstruction measurements;
- TPS Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
- TPS Policy - Theft of Vehicle;
- TPS Policy - Surveillance;
- TPS Policy - Crime and Disorder;
- Doorbell camera footage;
- Dash camera footage;
- Notes – WO #4;
- Notes – WO #3;
- Notes – WO #2; and
- Notes – WO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:- Video footage #1, received July 29, 2023; and
- Video footage #2, received July 30, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.
In the afternoon of July 29, 2023, the SO, operating an unmarked police vehicle, was part of a team of surveillance officers that had gathered in and around the area of Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue. The officers were aware a stolen vehicle was in the vicinity. The vehicle – a Dodge Ram pick-up – was parked on the road outside a residence. The plan was to arrest the driver of the pick-up before they could re-enter the vehicle.
Shortly after 2:00 p.m., the Complainant made his way on foot towards the pick-up. Unmarked police vehicles unsuccessfully attempted to surround the vehicle before it could be put in motion, including the SO’s vehicle from the rear. Realizing what was happening, the Complainant had quickly entered the pick-up and accelerated away.
The SO followed the pick-up, watching as it mounted a curb and drove over a median to get around another police vehicle. The officer continued to follow the vehicle north on Martin Grove Road.
The Complainant drove at highway speeds. He blew through a stop sign and a red light. On the latter occasion, he briefly lost control of his vehicle as it veered into the southbound lanes and then mounted the curb, striking a light standard, before righting course and proceeding north. The Complainant continued in that fashion through a green light at Dixon Road. Just north of the intersection, he cut between two northbound vehicles before leaving the roadway and striking the concrete south-facing abutment of the Highway 401 off-ramp overpass. His vehicle exploded on impact.
The SO followed the pick-up truck northwards on Martin Grove Road at much lower speeds. He was about five seconds back of the Complainant when the pick-up entered the Dixon Road intersection. The officer and other team members stopped their vehicles in the east curb lane of Martin Grove Road south of the collision site and attempted to render assistance.
The Complainant was declared deceased on scene by attending paramedics.
In the afternoon of July 29, 2023, the SO, operating an unmarked police vehicle, was part of a team of surveillance officers that had gathered in and around the area of Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue. The officers were aware a stolen vehicle was in the vicinity. The vehicle – a Dodge Ram pick-up – was parked on the road outside a residence. The plan was to arrest the driver of the pick-up before they could re-enter the vehicle.
Shortly after 2:00 p.m., the Complainant made his way on foot towards the pick-up. Unmarked police vehicles unsuccessfully attempted to surround the vehicle before it could be put in motion, including the SO’s vehicle from the rear. Realizing what was happening, the Complainant had quickly entered the pick-up and accelerated away.
The SO followed the pick-up, watching as it mounted a curb and drove over a median to get around another police vehicle. The officer continued to follow the vehicle north on Martin Grove Road.
The Complainant drove at highway speeds. He blew through a stop sign and a red light. On the latter occasion, he briefly lost control of his vehicle as it veered into the southbound lanes and then mounted the curb, striking a light standard, before righting course and proceeding north. The Complainant continued in that fashion through a green light at Dixon Road. Just north of the intersection, he cut between two northbound vehicles before leaving the roadway and striking the concrete south-facing abutment of the Highway 401 off-ramp overpass. His vehicle exploded on impact.
The SO followed the pick-up truck northwards on Martin Grove Road at much lower speeds. He was about five seconds back of the Complainant when the pick-up entered the Dixon Road intersection. The officer and other team members stopped their vehicles in the east curb lane of Martin Grove Road south of the collision site and attempted to render assistance.
The Complainant was declared deceased on scene by attending paramedics.
Relevant Legislation
Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing death
320.13 (3) 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 the death of another person.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant passed away in a motor vehicle collision on July 29, 2023. As the vehicle he was operating had briefly been pursued by TPS officers, the SIU initiated an investigation of the incident. The SO was identified as the subject official in the investigation. 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 Complainant’s death.
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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.
Together with the other officers who had convened in the area, the SO was lawfully placed investigating a stolen automobile. Moreover, when they observed the Complainant unlocking the pick-up with a key fob as he neared the vehicle, the officers also had grounds to effect an arrest.
As for the brief pursuit that unfolded after the Complainant re-entered the vehicle and took off, I am satisfied the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The officer travelled at moderate speeds, was in substantial compliance with a stop sign and red light that crossed his path, and was a fair distance back of the pick-up as it past Dixon Road en route to the point of impact, all of which transpired over no more than a kilometre. On this record, aside from being part of the impetus for the Complainant’s reckless flight to avoid apprehension, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the pick-up.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout the incident, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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.
Together with the other officers who had convened in the area, the SO was lawfully placed investigating a stolen automobile. Moreover, when they observed the Complainant unlocking the pick-up with a key fob as he neared the vehicle, the officers also had grounds to effect an arrest.
As for the brief pursuit that unfolded after the Complainant re-entered the vehicle and took off, I am satisfied the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The officer travelled at moderate speeds, was in substantial compliance with a stop sign and red light that crossed his path, and was a fair distance back of the pick-up as it past Dixon Road en route to the point of impact, all of which transpired over no more than a kilometre. On this record, aside from being part of the impetus for the Complainant’s reckless flight to avoid apprehension, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the pick-up.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude the SO comported himself other than lawfully throughout the incident, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) 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]
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.