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:

• 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 Personal 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.

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 man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 4, 2024, at 9:04 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on February 4, 2024, at 6:33 p.m., TPS officers responded to an ‘unknown trouble’ call. A cruiser, travelling eastbound on Bloor Street, turned left at Castle Frank Crescent and collided with an e-bike. The e-bike rider – the Complainant – was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital for life-threatening injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/02/04 at 9:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/02/04 at 11:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Reconstructionists assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

31-year-old male; not interviewed (physically incapable)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 5, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on February 5, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Bloor Street East in the area of the Castle Frank Subway Station (600 Bloor Street East) driveway entrance / exit.

Figure 1 – The scene of the collision

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Upon the arrival of the SIU at the scene, the weather was cool and clear, and the roads were dry. At the location, Bloor Street East ran in an east – west direction, and the posted speed limit was 40 km/h. The roadway was paved with two marked lanes in each direction. There was a centre left-turn lane for Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) buses to enter a driveway into Castle Frank Subway Station. A bicycle lane was clearly marked and divided from the motor vehicle lanes by either curbs or lane markings.

A marked police vehicle, a Ford Explorer, was situated in a northbound direction partially across the westbound lanes of Bloor Street East, and the westbound bike lane.

An e-bike was situated on the westbound bike lane north of the police vehicle.

Expert Evidence

The TPS provided the SIU with the reconstructionist field notes of Officer #1 and Officer #2 on April 5, 2024. The notes were reviewed by a SIU Reconstructionist, who arrived at the following findings.

The area of impact between the police vehicle and the e-bike was near the middle of the driveway into the TTC Castle Frank Subway Station. The area of impact was about six metres west of the east curb of the driveway, and about one-half-metre north of the south side of the two-metre-wide bicycle lane.

There was no pre or post-impact physical evidence on the roadway, including tire marks, scratches, or gouges, to assist with the area of impact determination. The area of impact was determined by the post-collision positions of the police vehicle, the e-bike, and the Complainant.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) data were reviewed. No crash event was recorded.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) data associated with the cruiser were examined for a period between 6:25 p.m., and 6:39 p.m., February 4, 2024.

At 6:25 p.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled southbound on Mount Pleasant Road, from about St. Clair Avenue East, at a rate of speed that was unremarkable.

At 6:30 p.m., the cruiser turned onto Bloor Street East and drove eastbound through the intersection at Parliament Street, again at a rate of speed that was unremarkable.

At 6:31:35 p.m., the SO drove eastbound on Bloor Street East in the left turn lane on the west side of the Castle Frank Subway Station. His rate of speed was about 13 km/h.

At 6:32:01 p.m., the cruiser was in the centre of Bloor Street East even with the bus driveway entrance. His rate of speed was recorded at about 8 km/h.

At 6:33:46 p.m., the SO was slightly forward of his last recorded position, consistent with the officer having commenced a left turn. His rate of speed was 0 km/h.

Between 6:35:39 and 6:39:43 p.m., the SO was slightly further forward of his last position, consistent with the officer having almost completed his left turn and being stopped and stationary where the police cruiser was found to be upon arrival of SIU investigators. His rate of speed was 0 km /h.

Cross-referencing the GPS data with the in-car camera (ICC) footage and data derived from the SIU scene measurements and Google Maps, the Complainant was about 36 metres away from the area of impact when the SO commenced his left turn into the driveway. As the SO turned, the Complainant continued westbound in the bicycle lane at what appeared to be a constant speed.

The Complainant was four to five metres away from the area of impact when the SO stopped with the front end of the police cruiser having crossed over the plane, and encroached into the south side, of the bicycle lane.

Considering the SO commenced his turn and then stopped in about four seconds, and that the Complainant rode about 36 metres at a constant velocity, it was determined that the Complainant rode his e-bike at a rate of speed of about 32 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 6:31:56 p.m., February 4, 2024, the SO turned the steering wheel of his cruiser slowly to the left.

Starting at about 6:32:00 p.m., the police vehicle stopped.

Starting at about 6:32:01 p.m., an object [later identified as the Complainant] travelled across the video frame outside the windshield.

Starting at about 6:32:12 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and approached the Complainant, who rested on the pavement across the bike lane with his head pointed south and his feet on the sidewalk.

Starting at about 6:32:36 p.m., the SO asked the dispatcher to call for an ambulance.

Video Footage – TTC

The footage did not capture the events in question.

ICC Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

Starting at about 6:31 p.m., February 4, 2024, the cruiser operated by the SO was captured stopped in the left turn lane of Bloor Street East waiting for traffic to clear to make a left turn onto the grounds of the Castle Frank Subway Station.

Starting at about 6:32 p.m., with a break in westbound motor vehicle traffic, the cruiser started into the left hand turn. The Complainant was captured on an e-bike travelling westward in the bike lane approaching the front entrance of the subway station, a distance east of the cruiser. The cruiser continued into the turn and came to a stop just as its front end entered the bike lane. The Complainant, still several metres east of the cruiser as it came to a stop, continued straight and collided with the cruiser’s front push-bar. The Complainant tumbled off his bike.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between February 5, 2024, and April 5, 2024:

• Computer-assisted dispatch report;
• Involved Officials List;
• Witness List;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes – the WO;
• Notes – Officer #1;
• Notes – Officer #2;
• CDR Report;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Mechanical examination – e-bike;
• Mechanical examination – police vehicle;
• General Occurrence Report;
• BWC footage;
• ICC footage;
• Drone photographs; and
• GPS data.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following record from other sources on February 21, 2024:

• Video footage – TTC.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that captured the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of February 4, 2024, the SO was operating a marked police cruiser and travelling to the Castle Frank Subway Station at 600 Bloor Street East following an ‘unknown trouble’ call to police. With him in the passenger seat was the WO. The pair arrived on scene at about 6:30 p.m. The SO maneuvered into the left turn lane off eastbound Bloor Street East to travel north onto the driveway of the subway grounds, and waited for westbound traffic to clear.

At the same time, the Complainant was operating an e-bike travelling westbound on Bloor Street East in the designated bike lane adjacent to the north sidewalk. He approached the subway driveway exit/entrance and struck the front push-bar of the SO’s cruiser. The Complainant was thrown westward off his bike.

The SO had entered into the left turn and stopped, the front of his cruiser just into the bike lane – just as the e-bike was about to cross his path.

The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital for treatment of unascertained serious injuries.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13 (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.

On February 4, 2024, the Complainant was seriously injured in a collision with a TPS cruiser. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the driver of the cruiser – the SO – 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.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) 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.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties in the series of events culminating in his cruiser’s collision with the Complainant and his e-bike. The officer was responding to a bona fide call for service involving a transit user and a potentially dangerous situation at the subway station.

With respect to the manner in which the SO drove the cruiser, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The SO’s speed as he made his way to the scene was unremarkable. Not aware of any exigent circumstances in relation to the call for service, he and his partner had not engaged their emergency equipment to get to the scene as soon as possible. But for the fact of the collision, the left turn appears to have been executed with due care. The SO waited for traffic to clear and then started into his turn at moderate speed. Drivers making a left turn bear the burden of ensuring they only do so when it is safe to proceed. In this case, it would appear the SO either did not see the Complainant until it was too late, or he did see the Complainant but miscalculated how much time he had to make the turn. In either case, it is important to note that the officer did come to a stop just as the e-bike was upon the cruiser; indeed, it is arguable that the Complainant had an opportunity to avoid the collision had he maneuvered to his right. For whatever reason, he did not do so; rather, he continued without decelerating in a straight line right into the front of the cruiser. On this record, the SO’s indiscretion is fairly characterized as a momentary lapse of attention, which, the case law establishes, will generally not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 3, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit