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 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. 

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.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/27/2023 at 12:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/27/2023 at 3:43 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists Assigned: 1

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 27, 2023.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 2, 2023.

 

Subject Officials (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #4 Not interviewed; interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on June 2, 2023, and July 20, 2023.

Investigative Delay

This investigation and the submission of this report were delayed significantly as the lead investigator was unavailable for nine weeks. Delays in the completion of the report were also incurred because of workload pressures and competing priorities.

The next Google Maps image, captured in July of 2023, north indicated at bottom by compass, depicts 301 Rexdale Boulevard, the vehicle-occupied eastbound lanes, the median the Complainant traversed, and vacant westbound lanes within which the collision occurred. A white SUV-style vehicle was captured exiting the easterly parking lot access from City Automotive in this picture, the driveway egress used by the Complainant.




Figure 2 - Screenshot from Google Maps Streetview depicting 301 Rexdale Boulevard, including the driveway egress used by the Complainant and the median he traversed

The next image, provided by TPS, with north orientated (predominantly) to the bottom of the image, captured the scene as it presented after the collision and the Complainant’s arrest, and the angle at which the SO’s and the Complainant’s vehicle collided.

Figure 3 - The Complainant's vehicle and multiple police vehicles at the scene
 

Forensic Evidence

Collision Reconstruction Findings

A SIU collision reconstructionist reviewed the material available relevant to the collision, including the data recorded by the event data recorder associated to the SO’s police vehicle, and made the following findings.

Five seconds before impact, the SO’s police vehicle was about 70 metres west of the point of impact traveling east in the eastbound passing lane of Rexdale Boulevard at about 60 km/h. At that time, the SO began to steer left. The Complainant’s vehicle was traveling north across the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard at about 20 km/h.

Four seconds before impact, the police vehicle was about 50 metres from impact just starting to cross into the shared left turn lane in the centre of Rexdale Boulevard, still at about 60 km/h. The Complainant’s vehicle was still travelling north across the eastbound lanes at about 20 km/h.

Three seconds before impact, the police vehicle was about 35 metres from impact and mostly in the shared left turn lane in the centre of Rexdale Boulevard, still traveling about 60 km/h. The SO began to apply his brakes. The Complainant, still travelling north, mounted the raised concrete median that separated the eastbound and westbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard at about 15 km/h.

Two seconds before impact, the police vehicle was about 20 metres from impact in the middle of the Rexdale Boulevard shared left turn lane. The police vehicle was slowing to about 50 km/h. The Complainant’s vehicle continued to traverse the median and began to enter the westbound traffic lanes of Rexdale Boulevard.

One second before impact, the police vehicle was just under ten metres from the point of impact and entering the westbound (oncoming) traffic lanes of Rexdale Boulevard at about 40 km/h. The SO applied the brakes moderately as the Complainant’s vehicle was still entering the westbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard, by that time with only its left rear wheel still on the median.

At impact, the police vehicle was in the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard. Its left front corner collided with the left front corner of the Complainant’s vehicle, head-on. The police vehicle had slowed to about 27 km/h at collision. At the time of collision, the Complainant’s vehicle was in the westbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard headed in a diagonal relative to the lanes, and travelling at 10 to 15 km/h.

To better visualize the movement of the vehicles, the following computer renderings were constructed. The police vehicle’s locations (in blue) were matched from event data recorder data. The Complainant’s vehicle locations (in red) were estimated based on available in-car camera system (ICCS) video. The sequence of images starts at five seconds before impact, and continues in one second increments. The images on the left, oriented with north to the left of the image, were taken from the SO’s ICCS footage. The images on the right were generated by the reconstructionist.




Figure 4 - Series of images showing screenshots of ICCS footage and the locations of the vehicles in the five seconds before impact

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Communications Recordings

On April 26, 2023, starting at about 9:22 a.m., the CW called 911 and reported a matter in the City Automotive Sales & Leasing parking lot. A driver [now known to be the Complainant] was sleeping inside a car with the engine running and in gear. It appeared as if his foot had left the brake, and the car had travelled forward and struck a Dodge Caravan that belonged to the business. The Complainant continued to sleep until the CW woke him and spoke to him about the collision damage. The Complainant said he was tired and sleeping. The CW told the call-taker that when he arrived at work, the Complainant had been parked in the middle of the road, blocking the roadway (eastbound roadway on Rexdale Boulevard and the driveway into the premises of City Automotive). The CW had told the Complainant to park in the parking lot and the Complainant did so until he struck the company’s vehicle. The police dispatcher relayed the information to police officers and informed the CW the police would be dispatched.

The CW told the 911 dispatcher that a police officer [now known to be WO #1, who was around the corner from the scene] arrived and had the Complainant's car blocked with his police vehicle. The police dispatcher provided an update and dispatched other police officers to assist.

Starting at about 9:26 a.m., WO #1 broadcast he was dealing with the matter in the parking lot, and the Complainant was still asleep inside his car. The dispatcher relayed that information and called for an ambulance to attend. WO #1 provided the registration number of the Complainant’s car, and a records check revealed it was a rental car.

Starting at about 9:28 a.m., WO #1 broadcast, “Vehicle is still running. It’s in reverse.” Starting at about 9:29 a.m., he broadcast, "He's taking off right now. He just ran my car. He woke up. He is going west." The dispatcher requested more police officers attend and asked if WO #1 was injured. She also asked if WO #1 was in pursuit.

Starting at about 9:30 a.m., an officer announced he was attending the scene. The dispatcher repeated a description of the Complainant’s car and that it was travelling westbound on Rexdale Boulevard. It was then broadcast that a police officer [now known to be WO #2] had sustained an injury to his hand, and the dispatcher requested an additional ambulance.

Starting at about 9:31 a.m., the dispatcher confirmed WO #2’s injury and asked if there was a pursuit.

Starting at about 9:32 a.m., a broadcast was made indicating that the Complainant was in custody and there had been no pursuit. The scene was in the westbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard, west of Martin Grove Road, and a request was made for additional police to help with traffic control. A broadcast was made that the airbags in both the Complainant’s car and a police vehicle had deployed. The dispatcher asked if any police officers were injured, and WO #1 replied WO #2 had sustained an injured hand. The dispatcher said an ambulance was on its way, and a police officer stated the incident was a departmental collision.

Starting at about 9:34 a.m., it was reported that the Complainant’s car had run into a police vehicle. The dispatcher broadcast that police officers from 23 Division were at the scene, and she asked if two police vehicles were rammed by the Complainant. A police officer replied that only one police vehicle was rammed.

Starting at about 9:35 a.m., a request was made for an ambulance to take WO #2 to the hospital. WO #1 broadcast there were three damaged police vehicles.

Starting at about 9:36 a.m., a police officer broadcast that a supervisor was on the scene and asked anyone else who was on the way to slow down. A police officer broadcast that all the roads had been closed.

Starting at about 9:37 a.m., WO #1 again requested two ambulances. One for the Complainant and one for WO #2. The dispatcher informed him the ambulances were on the way.

Starting at about 9:43 a.m., a broadcast was made that paramedics were assessing the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:48 a.m., it was reported that the Complainant had been placed in an ambulance, but they did not know which hospital he would be attending. The dispatcher requested a description of the Complainant's injuries.

Starting at about 9:52 a.m., a police officer broadcast he and WO #2 were in an ambulance headed to hospital.

Starting at about 9:53 a.m., it was reported that the SO was the police officer involved in the collision with the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:58 a.m., two officers broadcast the Complainant was in an ambulance, and they were going to Humber River Regional Hospital. They did not know the extent of the Complainant’s injuries but would provide an update when they received information.

Starting at about 10:02 a.m., a confirmation was broadcast that three police vehicles were involved in the incident. A police officer was injured, possibly with a broken finger, and he had been taken to the hospital. A subsequent broadcast was made that the Complainant had a facial injury. The scene of the incident was to be held pending determination of SIU involvement.

Starting at about 10:06 a.m., it was reported that the surrounding access roads had been cordoned off. It was again broadcast three police vehicles and three civilian vehicles were involved in the incident. A traffic sergeant was asked to attend. The dispatcher broadcast that a traffic sergeant was already at the scene.

Starting at about 10:19 a.m., the ambulance arrived at hospital with the Complainant.

 

ICCS Footage – WO #1

WO #1’s ICCS footage began at 9:25 a.m., on April 26, 2023, whereupon a dispatcher could be heard relaying the report of an impaired driver [now known to be the Complainant] sleeping inside his vehicle in a parking lot at 301 Rexdale Boulevard.

WO #1 arrived at that address at 9:26 a.m. and entered the property through the driveway at the west of the property. The Complainant’s car was parked against the building’s north wall, faced north. WO #1 parked in front of the Complainant’s car at a slight southeast angle, partially blocking the car. He exited his police vehicle and, as he walked towards the car, he broadcast the Complainant was inside sleeping. He continued to broadcast updates and provided the licence plate number to the dispatcher. A man [now known to be the CW] emerged from the building and WO #1 signaled him to wait inside. The CW returned inside the building. WO #1 walked to the driver’s side of the Complainant’s car.
Starting at about 9:28 a.m., the dispatcher broadcast the Complainant’s car was a rental. WO #1 broadcast the car was still running.

Starting at about 9:29 a.m., the Complainant drove forward, and struck and pushed WO #1’s police vehicle from his path. Once he pushed by the police vehicle, he accelerated eastbound through the parking lot then turned north towards the east driveway exit and the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard.

WO #1 walked back to his police vehicle while broadcasting that the Complainant had woken, and drove at and struck his police vehicle before driving west on Rexdale Boulevard. He entered his police vehicle and drove after the Complainant. He exited the parking lot, crossed the eastbound lanes on Rexdale Boulevard, traversed the median into the westbound lanes, and pulled behind the Complainant, who had stopped in the westbound lanes faced west. [3] The collision scene was littered with other vehicles.

The SO stood by the driver’s side front corner of the Complainant’s car with his sidearm drawn and pointed at the car. WO #1 exited his police vehicle with his sidearm drawn and ran around the front of the Complainant’s car to the driver’s side. The SO appeared to give instructions and make hand gestures towards the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:30 a.m., the SO held the Complainant’s driver’s door open. A plainclothes police officer arrived at the passenger side of the car, drew his sidearm, and pointed it towards the Complainant. A second plainclothes police officer arrived and stood by the passenger side of the car. She opened the front passenger door and unsuccessfully attempted to push through the deployed airbags before she turned and walked towards the driver’s side, followed by the first plainclothes police officer.

Starting at about 9:31 a.m., the dispatcher asked if any police officers were injured, and if the incident involved a pursuit.

Starting at about 9:32 a.m., the SO broadcast the Complainant was in custody and that the airbags in the Complainant’s car and a police vehicle had deployed. He requested a police officer to assist with traffic control. The dispatcher again requested confirmation of police injuries, and WO #1 broadcast one police officer [now known to be WO #2] had cut his hand.

Starting at about 9:33 a.m., a voice [believed to be the Complainant] was heard screaming (as if in pain).

Starting at about 9:36 a.m., firefighters inspected the Complainant’s car. Onlookers stood and watched from a distance.

ICCS Footage - the SO

On April 26, 2023, at 9:27 a.m., the SO’s ICCS captured him travelling eastbound in the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard.

 
Starting at about 9:29 a.m., the police radio announced the car driven by the Complainant was a rental. As the SO continued, the Complainant’s car exited the driveway at 301 Rexdale Boulevard. He crossed the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard, in front of a truck, traversed the centre median boulevard, entered the westbound lanes, and turned west. The SO continued to travel eastbound towards the Complainant. As the Complainant made that westbound turn, the front passenger side of his car struck a civilian automobile on its driver’s side. The SO maneuvered from travelling eastbound in the eastbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard to eastbound in the westbound lanes of Rexdale Boulevard. Starting at about 9:29:29 a.m., the officer drove his police vehicle into the front-end of the Complainant’s car almost head-on. Both vehicles came to sudden stops. The SO yelled instructions to the Complainant, who appeared to be trying to move his car.

A second police vehicle [now known to be driven by WO #2] entered the camera view and stuck the back-end of the Complainant’s car offset to the driver’s side. WO #2 exited his vehicle with a tool and used it to breach the driver’s door window of the Complainant’s car. As he broke that window another police vehicle [now known to be driven WO #1] arrived in camera view and stopped behind the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #1 exited his police vehicle with his sidearm drawn. He approached the Complainant’s car from the passenger side with his sidearm pointed at the Complainant (who was still inside his vehicle). WO #1 exited the camera’s view in the direction of the driver’s side of the Complainant’s vehicle and two plainclothes police officers arrived on camera.

Starting at about 9:30 a.m., WO #1 appeared on camera at the driver’s side of the Complainant’s car with a hammer and broke the rear passenger side door’s window. He attempted to open the driver’s door and pull the driver’s side deployed airbag out of the way, without success. He produced a knife and cut the airbag to access the Complainant. The two plainclothes police officers approached from the passenger side of the Complainant’s car and one (female) opened the front passenger door. As she looked under the airbag debris, WO #1 opened the driver’s door, took the Complainant by his left hand, and pulled him out of the car. WO #1 and the Complainant disappeared from the camera’s view. The two plainclothes police officers also moved in that direction. The Complainant screamed, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.”

Starting at about 9:31 a.m., the dispatcher asked if any police officers were injured, and if there was a pursuit involved.

The remaining footage captured post-collision activities only.

BWC Footage – WO #1

On April 26, 2023, at 9:26:25 a.m., WO #1’s BWC recorded him driving his police vehicle into the City Automotive Sales parking lot. He exited his vehicle at 9:26:57 a.m. and approached the rear passenger side of a vehicle [now know to be occupied by the Complainant], which had reversed into a parking space along the north façade of the building. He walked to the back of the car and broadcast a query request on the licence plate. He then walked to the driver side. His police vehicle was captured, where he parked, in front of the Complainant’s car. He approached the Complainant’s driver’s door. The driver’s window was slightly lowered. The camera was not positioned to capture the interior of the car. He walked back to the rear of the car, communicated with the dispatcher, and returned to the driver’s door.

Starting at about 9:28:51 a.m., as he stood next to the Complainant’s driver’s door, WO #1 broadcast the car was running and in reverse.

Starting at about 9:29:15 a.m., the Complainant sat up and the engine revved. He looked at WO #1. His right hand was on the car’s gear selector lever. The Complainant’s face was free of visible injuries or blood. WO #1 yelled, “Come on out of the car!” and pulled the driver’s door open with his left hand as he reached for his sidearm with his right hand. The Complainant put both his hands on the steering wheel, then raised his left towards his upper body.

Starting at about 9:29:21 a.m., WO #1 drew his sidearm, pointed it towards the open driver’s door, and yelled, “Out of the vehicle!” The Complainant accelerated forward. His open driver’s door hit the front passenger side bumper of WO #1’s police vehicle, which caused that door to close, and the Complainant sped from his parking spot towards the driveway. Another police vehicle on the property next to City Automotive reversed onto Rexdale Boulevard as the Complainant exited the City Automotive lot. WO #1 broadcast, “[The SO], he’s taking off behind ya,” and that the Complainant had, “Rammed,” his police vehicle. He walked back to his police vehicle.

Starting at about 9:29:33 a.m., the BWC audio captured the sound of a collision. WO #1 entered his police vehicle and sped from the parking lot after the Complainant. He stopped on the roadway, westbound on Rexdale Boulevard, behind the Complainant’s stopped vehicle and exited his own. A police vehicle was in front of the Complainant’s vehicle, facing it. Another police vehicle was stopped near the rear driver’s side of the Complainant’s vehicle facing the driver side of WO #1’s police vehicle. WO #1 walked around the rear of his police vehicle to the passenger side of the Complainant’s car with his sidearm drawn. The front passenger side airbag had deployed. The Complainant was not visible. His car had extensive front-end damage. There was another police officer [now known to be the SO] standing in front of the Complainant’s car with his sidearm drawn. He directed WO #1 to go around his vehicle, which he did. A third police officer [now known to be WO #2] stood with his sidearm drawn and pointed at the Complainant’s car. WO #1 ran to the driver side of the Complainant’s car. He and the other police officers yelled for the Complainant to exit the vehicle. WO #1 approached the driver door. His sidearm had been holstered. The Complainant stuck one of his hands out of the broken driver’s door window. WO #1 used a tool to break the rear driver side door window before he moved to the front window and yelled, “Get out of the vehicle!” He drew a knife, cut through the airbag, and lifted it. The Complainant was leaned towards the passenger side of his car with his left hand on the steering wheel. His face and right hand were not visible to the camera. He said, “I’m bleeding,” and removed his left hand from the steering wheel. WO #1 yelled, “Keep still! Get your hands up!” and raised the airbag higher. The Complainant raised both his hands and turned his body towards the driver door. He bled from his nose. WO #1 again told him to exit his car. He replied, “I can’t, sir. I’m injured, man.” A woman’s voice yelled for him to keep his hands up.

Starting at about 9:31:15 a.m., WO #1 opened the driver’s door and ordered the Complainant out of the vehicle. The Complainant repeated he was injured. WO #1, using his left hand, grabbed the Complainant’s left wrist and pulled him out of the car onto the ground. The Complainant again said he was injured and began to yell in pain as he was put on the ground. Police officers held the Complainant on the ground, and he yelled, “I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I’m bleeding. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.” WO #2 helped hold the Complainant down as handcuffs were used to secure his hands behind his back. WO #1 broadcast the Complainant was in custody as he and WO #2 helped him to his feet. The Complainant had blood on his upper lip. He was placed against the rear driver side of a police vehicle, faced towards it, and searched by WO #1 and WO #2 before being turned over to a plain-clothed police officer.

WO #1, bleeding from his right hand, walked to WO #2 and updated the dispatcher about his injury. Thereafter, WO #1 walked around the scene.

The Complainant remained standing against the police vehicle with the plainclothes police officer. The back and hood of his grey sweatshirt were blood-spotted. A trickle of blood ran down the left side of his forehead from his hairline. The plainclothes police officer repeatedly asked the Complainant what drugs or alcohol he had consumed. The Complainant responded that his arm was dislocated. Blood continued to drip from his nose. The plainclothes police officer asked the Complainant what his name was. The Complainant did not identify himself.

Starting at about 9:33:53 a.m., WO #1 took custody of the Complainant while the plainclothes police officer bandaged WO #2’s hand. The Complainant continued to yell in pain and accused the police officers off beating him up. They responded that he injured himself when he rammed a police vehicle. The Complainant told them to check the airbags in his car; there would be no blood.

Starting at about 9:35:46 a.m., firefighters arrived. The Complainant was still stood against the police vehicle with WO #1.

Starting at about 9:36:07 a.m., WO #1 escorted the Complainant to a police vehicle and assisted him into the back seat. WO #1 advised other police officers of the charges the Complainant was facing and asked them to read him his rights to counsel before returning to the collision scene. The recording ended at 9:36:48 a.m.

A second piece of video began on April 26, 2023, at 9:46:27 a.m., with WO #1’s view as he stood on a roadway and explained his initial interaction with the Complainant in the dealership parking lot.

 

BWC Footage - WO #2

On April 26, 2023, at 9:29:23 a.m., WO #2 drove his police vehicle towards where the Complainant’s and the SO’s vehicle had collided. Starting at about 9:29:43 a.m., he stopped at the rear driver side corner of the Complainant’s vehicle and exited his. He had a tool in his right hand. He walked along the driver side of the Complainant’s car. The front driver side of the SO’s police vehicle came into the camera’s view showing extensive collision damage on both the police vehicle and the Complainant’s car. The SO stood on the driver side of his police vehicle with his sidearm pointed at the Complainant’s car. WO #2 walked towards the rear passenger side of the SO’s police vehicle, turned to face the Complainant’s car, drew his sidearm, and pointed it the car. Starting at about 9:29:53 a.m., the audio component of the BWC activated.

WO #2 walked to the rear of his police vehicle, his sidearm still pointed at the Complainant’s car. He stood behind his police vehicle and repeatedly yelled for the Complainant to get out of the car. The Complainant’s car was not visible to the camera as WO #2’s police vehicle blocked the lens. WO #1 approached WO #2 on his left. He told WO #1 not to pass in front of him as he had a view of the Complainant’s hands. He handed WO #1 the red tool he had earlier and told him to break the rear driver side window. Police officers were heard yelling for the Complainant to exit the vehicle and show his hands.

Starting at about 9:30:43 a.m., WO #2 holstered his sidearm. WO #1 was at the driver’s door of the Complainant’s vehicle. He lifted the deployed airbag and WO #2 yelled that the Complainant was alone in the vehicle. The police officers continued to yell for the Complainant to show his hands. WO #1 reached through the driver’s window and tried to unlock the door.

Starting at about 9:31:12 a.m., WO #2 broadcast a request for an ambulance. WO #1 opened the driver’s door and pulled the Complainant from his car. WO #2 moved in to assist him. He took the top/back of the Complainant’s sweatshirt and helped WO #1 pull him to the ground between the Complainant’s car and WO #2’s police vehicle. The Complainant lay on his right-hand side before he was turned onto his stomach. He yelled out (as if in pain). There were blood spots on the hood of his sweatshirt. WO #2 was near the Complainant’s head, facing him. He took control of the Complainant’s right hand and brought it behind his back. WO #1 took control of the Complainant’s left hand and placed it behind his back. The Complainant faced left as WO #2 held his head to the ground. WO #2’s right hand was blood-covered and there was blood on the ground near the Complainant’s head. The Complainant was stood up and WO #2 held him against the rear of a police vehicle while he searched him. There was blood on the right side of the Complainant’s face, and under his nose. He was handed over to a plainclothes police officer as WO #2 stepped away and told WO #1 he had cut his hand. He then walked to the SO who got the first-aid kit out of his police vehicle.

Starting at about 9:33:12 a.m., WO #2 muted his BWC and spoke with the SO. He walked back to his police vehicle where the Complainant stood with the plainclothes police officer and WO #1. WO #1 remained with the Complainant as the plainclothes police officer rendered first-aid upon a cut on WO #2’s right middle finger.

Starting at about 9:38:18 a.m., an ambulance arrived, and WO #2 walked to it, his audio still muted. He entered the back of the ambulance through the side door and got onto the stretcher. Starting at about 9:40:13 a.m., the video ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between May 2, 2023, and September 19, 2023:

• Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
• ICCS footage;
• BWC footage;
• Communications recordings;
• Police Vehicle – event data recorder data;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Reports;
• Involved Officer List;
• Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3; and
• Notes - WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records, received May 9, 2023.

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.

9 (1) During a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall consider the tactics for stopping a motor vehicle as set out in the written procedures of,

(2) A police officer may intentionally cause a police motor vehicle to come into physical contact with a fleeing motor vehicle for the purposes of stopping it only if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that to do so is necessary to immediately protect against loss of life or serious bodily harm. 
(3) In considering the action mentioned in subsection (2), a police officer shall assess the effect of the action on the safety of other members of the public and police officers. 
(4) Despite subsection (2), a police officer may cause a police motor vehicle to come into physical contact with a fleeing motor vehicle for the purposes of pinning it if the fleeing motor vehicle has lost control or collided with an object and come to a stop and the driver of the motor vehicle continues to try to use it to flee. 
(5) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes police officers involved in a pursuit, with assistance from other police officers in motor vehicles, from attempting to safely position the police motor vehicles in a manner to prevent the movement either forward, backward or sideways of a fleeing motor vehicle. 
(6) Every police force shall ensure that its police officers receive training about the intentional physical contact between motor vehicles that is described in subsection (2). 
(7) The training must address the matters described in subsections (2) and (3).