Director's Report Details

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.

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: 

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 injury of a 31-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 7, 2023, at 4:52 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 6, 2023, at approximately 10:25 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) were in a marked police vehicle on Bathurst Street when they observed a taxicab bearing two different licence plates. They activated the emergency lights on the police vehicle and stopped the cab in the area of Bathurst and Queen Street West. Their cruiser was in front of the cab. The driver of the cab initially stopped but quickly reversed away from the police vehicle, mounted the curb, and struck a female pedestrian on the sidewalk (now known to be the Complainant). The officers immediately went to the aid of the Complainant and the cab fled westbound on Queen Street West. Emergency Medical Services responded and transported the Complainant to Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH). She was seen by a doctor and diagnosed with a fracture of the left foot. She was treated and released from the hospital at 2:15 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/07/2023 at 6:10 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/07/2023 at 6:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 1

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a portion of the northbound lanes and east sidewalk of Bathurst Street just north of Queen Street West.

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s Cruiser – Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

At 10:34 p.m., August 6, 2023, the SO turned left onto southbound Bathurst Street. He was about 50 metres south of Queen Street West. His rate of speed was about 30 km/h.

At 10:36:55 p.m., the SO travelled northbound on Bathurst Street. He was about 30 metres north of Queen Street West and his rate of speed was about 17 km/h.

Expert Evidence

Reconstructionist Report

SIU collision reconstruction did not attend the scene of this collision; however, it did review the Ontario Motor Vehicle Collision Report prepared by TPS Traffic Services Unit.

The area of impact was on the northeast corner of the intersection of Queen Street West and Bathurst Street. It occurred about 2.5 metres north of the north curb of Queen Street West, and about three metres east of the east curb of Bathurst Street. The collision was described as having occurred when the taxi, which had been stopped northbound on Bathurst Street in lane #2, reversed southbound on Bathurst Street in lane #1 then onto the northeast corner, striking the Complainant. The reported approximate speed of the Toyota was 20 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence^[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

Starting at about 10:36 p.m., the recording commenced. The SO was stopped at the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Bathurst Street and Richmond Street West. The cruiser was stopped very briefly, after which it continued southbound on Bathurst Street before executing a U-turn and approaching the intersection again, travelling northbound. The SO activated the flashing emergency lights and drove through the intersection to continue northbound. A ‘taxi’ was seen parked on the east side of Bathurst Street next to the curb in the northbound lanes. In front of the taxi was what looked like a concrete barricade. The SO pulled to the driver’s side of the taxi, slightly ahead of it, angling the police vehicle to the right, and stopped. The Toyota was effectively blocked from being able to move forward. The sound of squealing tires was heard. The SO notified the dispatcher of the situation and requested an ambulance.

The ICCS footage ended at 10:56 p.m.

The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of August 6, 2023, the SO was operating a marked cruiser southbound on Bathurst Street, south of Queen Street West, when his attention was drawn to a northbound ‘City’ cab. The WO was in the front passenger seat. The officers were aware of fake ‘City’ cabs in the area compromising the credit cards of unsuspecting passengers. The SO checked the licence plate marker and learned that the vehicle was a rental. That piqued his suspicion as he was of the understanding taxis could not be rental cars. The officers decided to stop the vehicle for investigation.

The SO executed a U-turn and caught up to the vehicle just north of Queen Street West. It had parked along the east side curb behind a concrete traffic barrier and in front of a pick-up truck. The officer brought his cruiser to a stop at an angle just in front of the vehicle, effectively preventing it from moving forward. As the SO and WO exited the cruiser, the driver of the vehicle was able to reverse through a window between the front of the pick-up truck and the rear of the cruiser. The vehicle continued to reverse around the driver’s side of the pick-up and veered onto the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the Bathurst Street and Queen Street West intersection. It struck a female pedestrian – the Complainant – knocking her down and traversing her left foot. It then accelerated westbound on Queen Street West through a red light.

The SO and WO rendered aid to the Complainant and called for an ambulance.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left foot.

Section 320.13 (1) Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured when a motor vehicle ran over her left foot in Toronto on August 6, 2023. As the vehicle was fleeing from TPS officers at the time, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation of the incident. 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 Complainant’s injury.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former 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. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that endangered the Complainant’s life or contributed to her injury. There clearly was not.

The SO and WO were engaged in the execution of their lawful duties when they decided to pull in front of the purported cab to investigate the driver. They were aware of reports of phony ‘City’ taxis being used to defraud passengers. They also understood that the vehicle they had spotted was registered to a rental company, another telltale sign of possible fraud.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with the vehicle. Aware that the fake taxis in the area were known to take flight from police, the officer waited for an opportune moment to attempt a stop. With the vehicle positioned between a pick-up and a concrete obstruction, the SO had reason to believe it was sufficiently blockaded with the addition of his cruiser by the driver’s side. The fact that the vehicle was able to maneuver out of the barricade suggests that the officer erred, but if he did so, I am unable to reasonably conclude his judgment was markedly substandard.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout his dealings with the ‘taxi’, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: December 5, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit