Director's Report Details

The next picture captured the e-bike and debris field looking north from the southbound lanes of Islington Avenue, south of the intersection.


Figure 2 - Photograph of the scene showing the Complainant's e-bike and the debris field from the collision

The following image captured the damage CW #4’s car took from the impact. [3]


Figure 3 - CW #4's vehicle

On October 13, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator examined and photographed the TPS motorcycle the SO rode at the TPS TS building. The 2015 Harley Davidson was marked with a service vehicle identification number, and the graphics common to TPS motorcycles. It did not exhibit collision damage. Its emergency lighting system, horn, and siren functioned as designed.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

At 1:46:05 p.m., the police motorcycle was westbound on Evans Avenue, approaching Horner Avenue. It was slowing and travelling 55 km/h.

At 1:46:16 p.m., it was southbound on Horner Avenue, and had accelerated rapidly from the Evans Avenue intersection to 101 km/h.

At 1:46:20 p.m., it finished negotiating a left curve on Horner Avenue, and reached 105 km/h.

At 1:46:24 p.m., it neared 88 Horner Avenue, and slowed to 85 km/h.

At 1:46:31 p.m., it neared the intersection with Judson Street, and slowed to 68 km/h.

At 1:46:51 p.m., it was eastbound on Judson Street, after accelerating rapidly from the intersection with Horner Avenue, and was traveling about 103 km/h.

At 1:46:53 p.m., it continued eastbound still accelerating. It was travelled about 126 km/h at the time.

At 1:46:57 p.m., it still accelerated eastbound reaching a top recorded speed of 137 km/h, about 200 metres from the Islington Avenue and Judson Street intersection.

At 1:47:02 p.m., it slowed to about 93 km/h about 50 metres from the intersection.

At 1:47:08 p.m., it was established in the intersection with a recorded speed of 5 km/h.

Expert Evidence

SIU Reconstruction

A SIU reconstructionist examined the available data and arrived at the following findings.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Judson Street and Islington Avenue; however, the area of interest included Horner Avenue and Judson Street to the west of the Islington Avenue intersection.

The area in question was primarily an industrial area with intermittent driveways to low-rise commercial buildings intersecting the local roads. Horner Avenue ran nominally north-south and was 4 lanes wide. The east side of Horner Avenue was bordered by a grass boulevard followed by a sidewalk. The speed limit was posted at 50 km/h.

Judson Street was also a two-lane road, running nominally east-west. Judson Street intersected Horner Avenue in a T-intersection. Traffic entering Judson Street from southbound Horner Avenue was uncontrolled (no stop sign or traffic lights), but there was a dedicated left-turn lane for left-turning traffic. The speed limit on Judson Street was 40 km/h. The north side of the road was bordered by a grass boulevard followed by a sidewalk.

Islington Avenue was a four-lane road that ran north-south. The intersection of Judson Street and Islington Avenue was a four-way traffic signal-controlled intersection. Raised concrete medians divided opposing traffic. The speed limit on Islington Avenue was 60 km/h.

Post-impact, the e-bike slid on the road for about 30 metres before coming to rest. Research into typical sliding friction of small motorcycles on asphalt concluded a friction range of between 0.40 to 0.65. Based on this range of friction, the post-impact speed of the e-bike was between 55 and 70 km/h. Given the assumed pre-impact trajectory of each vehicle, all of the post-impact southbound movement of the e-bike was due to the impact with the vehicle it struck. In other words, the vehicle it struck was likely travelling 55 to 70 km/h when it collided with the e-bike, based on where the e-bike came to rest. This speed range was consistent with the vehicle travelling at or near the speed limit of 60 km/h at the time of impact.

In terms of the e-bike’s impact speed, the angle between the right front corner impact and the centre of the roof header impact was about 30 degrees. This translated to the e-bike travelling between 32 and 40 km/h at impact.

The perpendicular nature of a camera that captured the police motorcycle and e-bike travelling south on Horner Avenue allowed for a reasonably accurate speed measurement. The e-bike’s speed in this video was estimated at an average of about 85 km/h. The motorcycle’s speed was estimated to be about 80 km/h.

A simulation of the movement of the police motorcycle in the minute or so prior to the collision involving the e-bike and another vehicle was completed based on the GPS data and incorporating the approximate movement of the e-bike in the 15 seconds before impact based on the security camera footage and the assumption that the e-bike’s maximum speed was 114 km/h.

The motorcycle was approximately 100 metres west of the intersection of Islington Avenue and Judson Street when the e-bike entered the Islington Avenue intersection and the collision occurred.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [4]

Video Footage - Ourland Community Centre and Clutch Auto Sales

Videos from the City of Toronto Ourland Community Centre, 18 Ourland Avenue, on the northeast corner of Islington Avenue and Judson Street, and Clutch Auto Sales, 223 Evans Avenue, did not capture information helpful to the investigation.

 

Video Footage - Cordeiro Roofing - Camera “Front S”

Located at 88 Horner Avenue, the camera was oriented northbound towards a curve on Horner Avenue, north of the building. On October 11, 2023, starting at about 12:30:01 p.m., it captured light to moderate traffic in both directions.

Starting at about 1:44:53 p.m., an e-bike operated by the Complainant entered camera view travelling southbound in the southbound curb lane. A TPS motorcycle operated by the SO travelled next to and approximately one metre from the e-bike. The Complainant drove onto the driveway of the north parking lot at Cordeiro Roofing and continued southbound on the sidewalk on the west side of Horner Avenue, as the SO paralleled him in the curb lane. His motorcycle emergency lights were active. Both vehicles exited the image at 1:44:57 p.m. [5]

 

Video Footage - Cordeiro Roofing - Camera “Front N”

The camera was oriented to face south along Horner Avenue.

Starting at about 1:44:56 p.m., the Complainant operated his e-bike into the camera’s view travelling southbound on the front lawn of the Cordeiro Roofing building, west of the sidewalk. A police motorcycle operated by the SO travelled southbound in the curb lane, parallel to the Complainant, with its emergency lighting active. There was no pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. The Complainant drove to and then along a walkway that led to the south Cordeiro Roofing parking lot before continuing across the parking lot and onto a grass area between the sidewalk and the perimeter fencing of a neighbouring property. The e-bike briefly lost contact with the ground as the Complainant continued south. The SO drifted into the southbound passing lane of Horner Avenue, then returned to the curb lane. Just north of Judson Street, the Complainant turned east, crossed the sidewalk, and drove across Horner Avenue, with the SO south of him (south of the intersection). The Complainant then rode eastbound on Judson Street.

Starting at about 1:45:08 p.m., as the Complainant turned onto Judson Street, the SO executed a U-turn and maneuvered around a civilian vehicle that had stopped on Horner Avenue. The SO navigated to travel eastbound on Judson Street and appeared to accelerate. By 1:45:16 p.m., neither motorist was visible to the camera.

Video Footage - Cordeiro Roofing - Camera “South Gate”

Starting at about 1:44:57 p.m., the SO’s motorcycle entered the camera view travelling southbound on Horner Avenue in the curb lane followed by the Complainant approximately two motorcycle-lengths behind him. The Complainant drove on the sidewalk and pulled ahead of the SO, who drifted into the southbound passing lane.

At 1:44:59 p.m., the e-bike exited camera view and, at 1:45:00 p.m., the police motorcycle did too.

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

Recorded on October 11, 2023, police radio and telephone communications began at 1:47 p.m., when the SO broadcast his request for an ambulance to be rushed to Judson Street and Islington Avenue for a man - the Complainant - hit by a car.

Starting at about 1:50 p.m., the communications centre telephoned EMS and made that request telling them blood was coming from the man’s mouth, and that he was unconscious and had flown through air. One minute later, the communications centre made a police radio request for police officers to block traffic in the area.

At 1:55 p.m., a CAD entry recorded that the Complainant had been thrown six metres.

At 1:59 p.m., a police officer broadcast the ambulance had arrived and was assessing the Complainant.

At 2:15 p.m., a broadcast was made that the ambulance run to hospital had begun.

A 2:28 p.m., a broadcast marked the ambulance’s arrival at SMH.

At 2:52 p.m., an entry recorded the Complainant had not been wearing a helmet and his e-bike had been travelling at least 50 km/h.

At 3:14 p.m., the e-bike was described as fully electric, un-plated, and with no pedals.

At 4:55 p.m., a broadcast indicated that the Complainant’s injuries were non-life-threatening.

At 6:02 p.m., a broadcast indicated that the Complainant had a fractured femur, broken foot and cracked neck, and was to undergo surgery that night.

At 6:03 p.m., the CAD recorded information from a witness indicating that the Complainant had disobeyed a traffic light and was struck by a southbound vehicle travelling on a green light.

 

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO

On October 11, 2023, the SO’s BWC recorded approximately 40 minutes of footage beginning at about 1:47 p.m. When activated, it captured the SO on Islington Avenue, south of Judson Street. His motorcycle was parked at the intersection with its emergency lights activated. An injured man - the Complainant - was lying on the road. The SO walked back to his motorcycle, retrieved his hand-held police radio, walked to the Complainant, and asked if he could hear his voice. The Complainant did not respond.

Starting at about 1:48 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance be rushed, and told the Complainant not to move. The Complainant tried to get up. The SO broadcast a request for more police officers.

Other police officers arrived beginning at 1:50 p.m. and started traffic control.

At 1:52 p.m., the SO broadcast another request to rush the ambulance. Toronto firefighters arrived at 1:54 p.m. and examined the Complainant.

At 1:55 p.m., the SO talked to the driver of the car that collided with the Complainant - CW #4.

An ambulance arrived at 1:57 p.m., and a man [believed to be CW #3] explained to paramedics that the collision caused the Complainant to fly through the air.

Starting at about 2:01 p.m., CW #3 asked the SO, “Did you see it?” The SO said, “I came after the fact, but I did see the bike explode.” CW #3 said, “You came pretty fast,” and the SO replied, “My training facility is just on the other side.” CW #3 said, “Cars were making left turns, I saw him in the air. He had a mask on so I took it down so he could breathe. He flew up high.”

At 2:15 p.m., the ambulance left.

WO #1 asked the SO, “Did you see it?” and he responded, “No I came up on it, I saw similar bikes up there but don’t know who's who and what's what, just going to the training pad.”

At 2:20 p.m., the SO walked to CW #4’s car and his camera recorded the damaged front-end and windshield.

At 2:25 p.m., another police officer asked the SO if he saw it and he responded, “I came after the fact.”

At 2:27 p.m., after asking WO #2 if they should turn their BWCs off, the SO turned off his BWC.

BWC Footage – WO #2

On October 11, 2023, WO #2’s BWC recorded approximately 140 minutes of footage. Beginning at about 2:12 p.m., WO #2 was captured on Islington Avenue, south of Judson Street, talking to other police officers near an ambulance. The audio went live at 2:13 p.m. when he asked the SO if witnesses had made statements. He then made role delegations to other police officers.

At 2:15 p.m., WO #2 made a police radio broadcast that the ambulance had left for hospital.

Starting at about 2:25 p.m., WO #2 spoke to WO #1, who briefed him on her understanding of the collision’s dynamics based off her conversations with witnesses. She told him she did not suspect the driver of the vehicle that collided with the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
At 2:27 p.m., the SO asked WO #2 if their BWCs should be turned off. He agreed and turned his camera off. He re-activated it at 2:45 p.m.

At 2:52 p.m., WO #2 made a police radio broadcast that CW #4 was probably doing the speed limit.

At 3:01 p.m., WO #2 spoke to the SO, who said, “I’m starting to wonder if this wasn’t the two motorcycles I saw. It was at the other intersection and they fuckin’ flew by so I made the right and I went in that direction and there was nobody there. So, I went down Evans. Anyways I made the left there and I came down here and boom, I find him.”

At 3:14 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 discussed the specifications of the e-bike.
At 3:20 p.m., WO #2 muted his audio and took a one-minute telephone call.
At 3:29 p.m., WO #2 walked to CW #4’s car and made notes.

At 3:34 p.m., WO #2 drove his motorcycle closer to the intersection and assisted with traffic control. He muted his audio and took a 14-minute telephone call at 3:59 p.m.

Starting at about 4:23 p.m., WO #2 was approached by CW #4, who said, “The SO was telling me he was coming along on Evans, and he sees two guys on bikes that were speeding and that’s why he came down this way and I was talking to the tow truck driver, and he said that one of the guys drove by, were speeding away. So, one guy went one way, and the other guy went the other way. That’s why he booked it across the red light he was trying to get away. The SO was right behind him. As soon as he hit him.”

At 4:40 p.m., WO #2’s BWC camera was turned off. It was re-activated at 4:48 p.m. and recorded until 4:50 p.m., when it was turned off again. It was re-activated at 5:01 p.m. near the e-bike as he assisted another police officer examine the bike before the recording concluded.

BWC Footage – Undesignated (UD) Officer

On October 11, 2023, beginning about 2:14 p.m., UD Officer’s BWC footage captured CW #2 telling UD Officer that, at about 1:55 p.m., he was stopped for the eastbound red light on Judson Street that controlled traffic through its intersection with Islington Avenue. He first noticed an e-bike in his rear-view mirror and then watched it travel past him, from behind, at a high rate of speed through the red light, into the intersection, and hit a car. The collision knocked the side mirror off the vehicle the e-bike hit. He said, “I didn’t even know he was being chased, or being followed, or whatever by the other officer.” The e-bike driver flew high above the lights and was very hurt. A police motorcycle also came from behind his location, activated its emergency lights, stopped at the intersection and the proceeded into the intersection, after which the officer started first-aid.

 

BWC Footage - WO #1

WO #1’s BWC footage began October 11, 2023, at 1:59 p.m. As she exited her police vehicle, the video captured the post-collision scene looking south from the southbound lanes of Islington Avenue, just north of its intersection at Judson Street. She walked the scene, took notes, and returned to her police vehicle before walking back into the intersection. Paramedics loaded a man [now known to be the Complainant] into an ambulance. She talked to a witness – CW #3 – who told her the Complainant “blew through the red light and a red car hit him and he flew through the air”, adding he did not see the Complainant wearing a helmet and, “Cops got here really quick too.”

WO #1 walked to where the Complainant’s e-bike lay, then to the ambulance. The Complainant was in the ambulance, on a stretcher, moaning. She asked him if he had taken any alcohol or drugs, and the Complainant said, “No.” She asked a paramedic if the Complainant had a helmet and was told, “I don’t know.” She said she did not smell any alcohol.

WO #1 then spoke to a man - CW #4 - who drove the vehicle the Complainant had struck. CW #4 told her he had not consumed any alcohol. She told him she was not going to ask him any collision-related questions as a detective might want to speak to him first. She noted the damage at the passenger side and windshield of CW #4’s vehicle.

WO #1 then spoke to a police officer before returning to her police vehicle where she covered the lens of her BWC and made use of the computer in the vehicle. A police officer - UD Officer - told her he had talked to CW #2, who saw the “e-bike heading east then ran a red and a TPS motorbike was there and turned on its lights”. An unidentified voice [believed to be the SO] said, “The sarge told us to turn our cameras off as there was no more investigation.” WO #1 said she would pause her BWC. The video ended at 2:40 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between October 17, 2023, and December 12, 2023:

• Involved police officers list;
• Civilian witness list;
• CAD;
• MVCR;
• Police communications recordings;
• Scene photographs;
• BWC footage – WO #1;
• BWC footage - UD Officer;
• BWC footage – SO;
• BWC footage – WO #2;
• GPS data – police motorcycle; and
• TPS Policy – Suspect Apprehension and Pursuit.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 21, 2023, and January 19, 2024:

• Medical records – Complainant – SMH (received January 19, 2024);
• Video footage – Ourland Community Centre (received November 27, 2023);
• Video footage – Clutch Automotive Sales (received November 21, 2023); and
• Video footage – Cordeiro Roofing (received November 21, 2023).

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

O. Reg. 266/10 - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits - Initiating or Continuing Pursuit

(a) if the police officer has reason to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or is about to be committed; or

(b) for the purposes of motor vehicle identification or the identification of an individual in the vehicle.