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 death of a 14-year-old youth (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 13, 2023, at 11:15 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At approximately 7:23 pm., October 13, 2023, a YRP paid-duty police officer [later identified as the Subject Official (SO)] was patrolling the parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland, 1 Canada’s Wonderland Drive, Vaughan, in a marked police vehicle when he observed a man [later identified as the deceased, the Complainant] acting suspiciously between two vehicles on the lot. The SO exited his police vehicle to investigate the actions of the Complainant, at which point the Complainant fled on foot from the SO. The SO pursued the Complainant on foot through the lot. The Complainant continued up over a berm and onto Jane Street, where he was struck by a motor vehicle on Jane Street between Norwood Avenue and Avro Road. The SO reported the motor vehicle collision (MVC) shortly thereafter. York Paramedic - Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded and transported the Complainant to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) where he was reported to be in life-threatening condition with head trauma.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/13 at 11:43 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/14 at 1:55 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the east parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland; more specifically, the northern end of the ‘drop-off - pickup’ lot at the eastern end of the parking lot, the grassy berm adjacent the ‘drop-off - pickup’ lot on its east side, and Jane Street, east of the grassy berm, between the entrance to the ‘drop-off - pickup’ lot and a distance south.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On October 14, 2023, at 1:55 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene of a collision on Jane Street, north of Norwood Avenue, Vaughan. The weather was cool and overcast, and the roads were dry. Jane Street ran in a general north/south direction, and the roadway was paved and in a general good state of repair. Its posted speed limit was 60 km/h. There were two southbound and two northbound lanes with a dedicated centre left turn lane for both directions. Lane markings were present. Overhead streetlighting was present. Both the east and west edges of the roadway had raised concrete curbs. Norwood Plaza was located on the east side of the roadway. A grass boulevard with trees was on the west side of the roadway, and further to the west was a grassy berm that separated the roadway and the east parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland.

There was an entrance driveway on the west side of the roadway, north of the collision scene, that provided access to the parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland. The east parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland was accessed by the laneway on the west side of Jane Street. The parking lot was paved and illuminated with overhead lighting. A 1.2-metre-high metal barrier fence separated the entrance lane and the parking area. There was a grass and tree berm on the east side of the entrance laneway. The berm separated the parking area from the roadway.

YRP Traffic Reconstruction Investigators had placed yellow pylons along the scene by vehicle parts and orange pylons by personal effects. A pylon had been placed at the approximate point of impact as established by YRP Reconstruction Investigators. The location was on the west side of lane one (the passing lane) of the two northbound lanes of Jane Street.

Two vehicles were located within the scene.


Figure 1 - Two vehicles located at the scene with pilons on the roadway indicating the location of evidence

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and civilian eyewitnesses to the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of October 13, 2023, the SO was working a paid-duty patrolling the east parking lot of Canada’s Wonderland, an amusement park in Toronto. He was aware of robberies that had taken place in recent weeks at the park in which the assailants had fled east across the parking lot and the adjacent roadway – Jane Street. While operating a marked YRP cruiser northwards in the access lanes just west of the ‘drop-off – pickup’ zone, the SO observed a male cross in front of his vehicle and decided to stop him. He accelerated and brought the cruiser to a stop where the male had crossed into the ‘drop-off – pickup’ zone, exited, and ran around his vehicle and eastwards. By this time, the male was also running eastward towards Jane Street.

The male was the Complainant. Aware of the SO’s presence, he had started his run midway through the ‘drop-off – pickup’ zone. He continued up and down a grassy berm and entered onto the southbound lanes of Jane Street. Having cleared the southbound lanes, the Complainant continued into the northbound passing lane and the path of a white BMW. The front driver’s side of the BMW struck the Complainant, who catapulted onto the hood of the vehicle and struck the windshield before rolling off and impacting the rear of another vehicle stopped in a left-turn lane. The Complainant suffered catastrophic injuries in the collision.

The SO was at the site of the collision within seconds. He immediately arranged for an ambulance, placed the Complainant in the recovery position, and checked on the persons whose vehicles had been struck.

Firefighters and paramedics arrived quickly and rendered care. The Complainant was transported to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries five days later.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death

(a) in doing anything, or

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

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

On October 18, 2023, the Complainant passed away from injuries incurred in a collision with two vehicles on Jane Street on October 13, 2023. As the Complainant was being chased by a YRP officer when he ran onto the road and was struck, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. 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 and the Complainant’s subsequent death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

Having observed the Complainant running towards Jane Street across his path, the SO told the SIU that it was his intention to stop and investigate him for robbery. The video footage establishes that the Complainant was not, in fact, running as the officer described, but, even if he was, it is doubtful the SO had the lawful authority to detain him for investigation. The law is clear that such detentions are unlawful short of a constellation of objectively discernible facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the detainee is implicated in criminal activity: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59; R. v. Simpson (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 182. The SO might have been justifiably concerned about robberies in the area in light of recent events at the park. That, however, would not appear to have been enough to stop the Complainant given the other innocent explanations that could have accounted for his running.

Be that as it may, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s conduct was criminally negligent. The fact is, the SO never did actually effect an unlawful detention. And, as is clear from the video footage, the Complainant had started to run away from the SO before the officer even exited his cruiser. In fact, he was halfway up the berm – approximately 20 metres from the officer – by the time the SO was out and chasing him. It is not apparent that distance ever narrowed in the moments before the Complainant ventured onto the roadway and was struck. Nor is it clear that the Complainant was even aware that the SO was in foot pursuit. All of which is to say that the Complainant was not effectively forced onto the roadway.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not reasonably satisfied that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with charges.


Date: February 7, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit