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 injuries of a 61-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 29, 2024, at 11:53 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 29, 2024, at approximately 4:50 p.m., TPS police officers responded to a break and enter in progress at Claireville Drive, Etobicoke. Reportedly, the suspect had fled on foot and in a vehicle. A TPS police officer began to pursue the fleeing vehicle to Humberline Drive, where it went southbound towards Finch Avenue West. The vehicle made it through the intersection at Finch Avenue West, but the TPS police vehicle struck a third-party vehicle in the intersection. A person in the civilian vehicle [now known to be the Complainant] was taken to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and subsequently diagnosed with two fractured vertebrae. The TPS police officer was taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre with serious injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/30 at 12:14 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/30 at 2:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 30, 2024.

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 30, 2024.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

WO #6 Notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 1, 2024, and April 9, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Humberline Drive and Finch Avenue West, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On March 30, 2024, two SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene of a motor vehicle collision in the intersection of Humberline Drive and Finch Avenue West. The weather was cool and clear, and the roads were dry. Access to the scene was restricted by police officers.

Humberline Drive ran in a general north-south direction. The road was paved with two through southbound lanes, and a marked left-turn lane onto Finch Avenue West. A raised concrete island separated the southbound and northbound lanes. There were two northbound lanes. Pedestrian walkways were on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit was 50 km/h.

Finch Avenue West ran in a general east-west direction. In an easterly direction towards the intersection, the road was paved with two marked lanes. There were marked left and right-turn lanes for turns onto Humberline Drive. A raised concrete island separated the eastbound and westbound lanes. There were two westbound lanes. Pedestrian walkways were on both sides of Finch Avenue West, and the posted speed limit was 60 km/h.

The intersection was controlled with overhead traffic lights that appeared to function as designed. The northwest quadrant of the intersection had a strip plaza, the northeast quadrant of the intersection was a green area, the southeast corner of the intersection had an Esso gas station, and in the southwest corner of the intersection was a residential subdivision.

There were two vehicles contained within the scene.

Vehicle 1 was a TPS vehicle, which was a Ford Explorer SUV, grey and white. This was a fully marked police vehicle, which displayed TPS graphics. The TPS vehicle was oriented in an easterly direction and located southwest of the raised centre island and east of the intersection. There was extensive front right and right rear collision damage. Both the driver and passenger-side air bags had deployed. The driver’s steering wheel and driver’s knee air bags had deployed. There was a break to the front windshield originating in the base middle and spidering upwards.

Figure 1 – Vehicle 1

Vehicle 2 was a white, Mercedes 3500 Sprinter van, white in colour. The van was located south of Finch Avenue West, and east of Humberline Drive. It was oriented in an easterly direction, on the south side grass boulevard, south of the pedestrian walkway. It had extensive front end collision damage. The driver’s steering wheel air bag had deployed as had the front passenger airbag.

Figure 2 - Vehicle 2

The point of impact (POI) was established by tire marks, in the left through lane of southbound Humberline Drive, and the left eastbound through lane of Finch Avenue West. Tire marks continued in an easterly direction to the right rear of the police vehicle.
A fluid trail (covered with absorbent material) continued from the POI in a southeast direction mounting the curb and continuing along the east grass boulevard to the stopped position of the Mercedes. Small trees and bushes along the path had also been struck.

Pylons were placed to assist with the tire marks. The scene was photographed and scanned for the purposes of a planned drawing.

Figure 3 - Pylons placed along tire marks demonstrating the POI and subsequent movement of Vehicle 1

The physical evidence on the road and the damage to the vehicles was consistent with the police vehicle having entered the intersection southbound on Humberline Drive and the Mercedes having entered the intersection eastbound on Finch Avenue West. The vehicles collided at an angle of about 90 degrees.

The posted speed limit on Humberline Drive was 50 km/h. The posted speed limit on Finch Avenue West was 60 km/h. The road and weather conditions were good. It was daylight.

Forensic Evidence

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

Data from the CDR showed that at five seconds prior to the collision, the SO drove at 48 km/h. The accelerator pedal was applied 61 percent. Two-tenths of one second later, about 52 metres north of the area of impact and about 30 metres north of the southbound stop line, the SO applied the brake pedal for about two seconds. At about two-and-one-half seconds prior to the collision, the SO took his foot off the brake pedal. The police cruiser had slowed to about 24 km/h, and was at the southbound stop line about 22 metres north of the area of impact. The SO then applied the accelerator 100 percent. The rate of speed of the police cruiser increased to about 39 km/h as it crossed the westbound lanes of Finch Avenue West. Less than one-half of one second prior to the collision, the SO steered to the left and applied the brakes in an apparent reaction to the impending collision. At impact, the rate of speed of the police cruiser was 37 km/h.

GPS Data – the SO’s Cruiser

Figure 4 – Image from Google, Airbus, with markers showing the police vehicle’s route of travel

At point 5, the police vehicle was southbound on Humberline Drive, approaching Finch Avenue West, at 48 km/h.

At point 4, the police vehicle was southbound on Humberline Drive, approaching Finch Avenue West, at 53 km/h.

At point 3, the police vehicle was southbound on Humberline Drive, approaching Finch Avenue West, at 30 km/h.

At point 2, the police vehicle was southbound on Humberline Drive, approaching Finch Avenue West, at 26 km/h.

At point 1, the police vehicle was southbound on Humberline Drive at 33 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car camera (ICCS) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

On March 29, 2024, at 4:38 p.m., the SO was captured driving from the area of Eglinton Avenue West and Kipling Avenue. The roads were dry and in good condition. The weather was mostly cloudy. As heard on the police radio captured on the ICCS audio, the SO was dispatched to a theft in progress on Claireville Drive. By the reactions of the other traffic, it would appear the emergency lights were flashing. During playback of the ICCS, the siren could be heard at times. The dispatcher advised there were two suspect vehicles in relation to the theft. An unknown police officer broadcast that he was in a foot pursuit.

At 4:43:43 p.m., the SO was just north of the north end of the centre island of Humberline Drive north of the intersection of Finch Avenue West. With his emergency lights flashing and his siren sounding, the SO pulled into the southbound lanes and faced north. A white box truck with a refrigeration unit on the front of the box above the cab, slowed and stopped in the curb lane. The Mazda turned sharply to its left into the northbound lanes, veered around the police vehicle and accelerated southbound on Humberline Drive. The Mazda continued southbound on Humberline Drive towards Finch Avenue West at a high rate of speed. The SO turned his police vehicle around, stopped, and advised the dispatcher to standby.

At 4:44:13 p.m., the SO got out of his police vehicle; his siren still sounded. While the SO was outside of the police vehicle, he yelled, “Stop.” A box truck, with its rear roll-up door wide open, passed the police vehicle and travelled at a high rate of speed southbound on the northbound side of the centre median towards the intersection. The traffic light was red for Humberline Drive. The SO, who was still outside of his police vehicle, broadcast that the box truck fled southbound through the red light on the wrong side of the road.

At 4:44:43 p.m., the SO re-entered his police. The dispatcher asked the SO if he was in pursuit. The SO said, “10-4.” The SO accelerated southbound towards the intersection. He slowed when he reached the intersection. The traffic light was red. Traffic in all directions appeared to react to the box truck, which sped through the intersection against the red light. There were two cars stopped or moving slowly in the southbound curb lane as if they were going to turn right to westbound Finch Avenue West. There were three cars stopped in the northbound lanes on the south side of the intersection. There were cars stopped westbound on Finch Avenue West; one was in the left-turn lane. A second car was stopped in the passing lane. There was a line of cars stopped in the left-turn lane for eastbound Finch Avenue West to Humberline Drive. The first of those cars was stopped past the stop line and over the crosswalk. There was a car stopped in the eastbound curb lane at the stop line. Two pedestrians stood on the southeast corner of the intersection.

The SO accelerated towards the intersection. The box truck was still visible south of the intersection. The flashing emergency lights, and the siren of the police vehicle were both activated as the SO approached and entered the intersection.

A Mercedes Sprinter van travelled eastbound on Finch Avenue West in the passing lane. The top of the Mercedes was visible above the roof lines of the cars stopped in the left-turn lane. The Mercedes was five to ten metres west of the eastbound stop line as the SO crossed the westbound lanes of Finch Avenue West. In the distance, the suspect truck entered a curve in the road, which was measured on Google Maps to be about 200 metres south of the intersection. The SO crossed into the path of the Mercedes.

At 4:44:52 p.m., a collision occurred with the Mercedes. The SO’s police vehicle rotated counterclockwise. It faced east, rolled forward a few metres and came to rest. As the SO’s police vehicle came to rest, a second police vehicle [now known to be driven by WO #3] approached the intersection westbound on Finch Avenue West with its emergency lights were flashing. The Mercedes came to rest on Finch Avenue West just east of the intersection, on the grass, off the road. WO #3 was heard to say on the police radio that a police vehicle had been involved a collision.

Video Footage - Esso Gas Station

The Esso Gas Station was located on the southeast corner of the intersection.

At 4:43 p.m., the SO’s TPS SUV entered the intersection travelling eastbound on Finch Avenue West and turning left onto northbound Humberline Drive. It was difficult to determine if the police cruiser’s emergency lights were flashing but the movements of the nearby cars would suggest they were activated. The SO drove northbound on Humberline Drive. As he did, the emergency lights could be seen to be activated. He stopped north of the intersection. A white box truck with what looked like a refrigeration unit on the front of the box stopped in the southbound lanes north of where the SO stopped. A small dark-coloured car [now known to be the Mazda 3 that had fled from the police officers at the theft call on Claireville Road] travelled southbound and passed the stopped truck. It then passed the police cruiser and continued southbound on Humberline Drive towards the intersection. The Mazda drove at a rate of speed much faster than the other southbound traffic through what would appear to have been a green light at the intersection. The SO made a U-turn. He drove a short distance south and stopped again with the emergency lights still activated. The white box truck with the refrigeration unit drove about the same short distance and stopped again.

At about 4:43:49 p.m., the SO exited his police cruiser. He appeared to walk towards the stopped box truck. A second white-coloured box truck appeared in the distance travelling southbound on Humberline Drive. It approached the SO at a higher rate of speed than other traffic.

At 4:44:03 p.m., the second white box truck passed the police cruiser at a high rate of speed. From where the police cruiser was positioned it was clear the box truck travelled southbound in the northbound lanes. The second box truck entered the intersection; it was clear from the flow of traffic that the traffic light for Humberline Drive was red. The truck narrowly missed colliding with cars travelling through the intersection on Finch Avenue West.

At 4:44:15 p.m., the SO re-entered his police vehicle and drove southbound. It was difficult to discern but the emergency lights appeared to be activated.

At 4:44:22 p.m., the SO slowed as he reached the intersection. A large sign obstructed the view of the police cruiser as it entered the intersection. It was clear from the flow of traffic the light was green for Finch Avenue West and, therefore, red for Humberline Drive.

At 4:44:25 p.m., a collision occurred in the intersection between the police cruiser and a Mercedes Sprinter van. When the police cruiser came to rest it was clear the emergency lights were flashing. Four seconds later, a second TPS SUV with its emergency lights flashing [now known to be driven by WO #3] entered the image westbound on Finch Avenue West and approached the intersection.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On March 29, 2024, at 4:49:09 p.m., WO #1 stood beside the SO, who lay on his back on the pavement at the southeast corner of intersection. Two officers knelt on either side of the SO, and WO #3 stood nearby. The SO was conscious and spoke with the police officers. The SO told the police officers a vehicle came across the intersection, and that it had looked clear when he went through the intersection.

Police Communications Recordings

On March 29, 2024, at 4:39 p.m., TPS communications received a 911 call from an employee of a business at Clairville Drive reporting that a theft in progress was observed on security cameras. Five individuals were loading a forklift into a box truck.

At 4:36 p.m., two police units [one now known to be the SO] were dispatched. There was no mention of violence, weapons or injury. It was reported that two suspect vehicles were involved: a black Jeep Grand Cherokee and a grey Mazda 3. There was also a white box truck involved.

At 4:42 p.m., an unknown police officer broadcast that the Mazda just took off and there was another suspect coming out. The unknown police officer said he was in a foot pursuit.

At 4:43 p.m., the officer advised he had one person in custody on the ground. Another officer advised he had a suspect stopped at gunpoint.

At 4:43 p.m., the SO advised he had blocked the Mazda on Humberline Drive [now known to be just north of Finch Avenue West]. The SO then broadcast that the Mazda and the box truck had left southbound on Humberline Drive, towards Finch Avenue West.

At 4:44 p.m., the SO broadcast that the truck went through a red light. The dispatcher asked the SO if he was in pursuit and he said, “10:4.”

At 4:44:55 p.m. WO #3 requested an ambulance. The officer reported there had been a collision and the police officer in the cruiser was not responding. The dispatcher advised an ambulance was on its way.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 30, 2024, and April 11, 2024:

• BWC footage;
• ICCS footage;
• Video footage - Esso;
• Police communications recordings;
• Data from Airbag Control Module of the SO’s cruiser;
• GPS data from the SO’s cruiser;
• Involved Officer List;
• Pursuit training records - the SO;
• Notes of WO #1;
• Notes of WO #2;
• Notes of WO #3
• Notes of WO #4;
• Notes of WO #5;
• Notes of WO #6;
• Police Procedure - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits;
• Police Procedure - Service Vehicles Involved in Collisions;
• Police Procedure - Use of Service Vehicles
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records, including Ambulance Call Report, from EGH on May 2, 204.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, 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 afternoon of March 29, 2024, the SO was operating a marked police SUV responding to the location of a theft in progress. A call had been received from a business in the area of Claireville Drive and Humberline Drive of masked individuals stealing a forklift from the premises. Some had made off on foot while others had fled in vehicles. A Mazda and truck were reportedly involved in the crime and getaway.

The SO was northbound on Humberline Drive, a distance north of Finch Avenue West, when he maneuvered into the southbound lanes. He had observed the Mazda heading south towards him and was attempting to block its path of travel. The Mazda swerved around the cruiser in the northbound lanes and continued south through the Finch Avenue West intersection. The officer exited his cruiser as the truck involved in the theft was also travelling towards him. It too passed the cruiser in the northbound lanes and entered the Finch Avenue West intersection on a red light. The SO re-entered the cruiser and turned around to pursue the truck.

At about the same time, the Complainant was operating a Mercedes Sprinter van eastbound in the passing lane of Finch Avenue West approaching Humberline Drive. He entered the intersection on a green light and was struck by the SO’s cruiser. The Sprinter’s front end collided with the front passenger side of the cruiser. It continued a short distance and came to rest at the southeast corner of the intersection. The cruiser rotated counterclockwise following impact and came to rest facing east in the intersection.

Other officers and first responders arrived on scene and rendered aid. The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with two fractured vertebrae.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

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.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red Light Exemption

144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

The Complainant was seriously injured when his vehicle was struck on March 29, 2024, by 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 within his rights when he decided to initiate a pursuit of the Mazda and truck that sped past his location. He had reason to believe the vehicles were involved in the theft of machinery from a nearby business.

With respect to the manner in which the SO operated the cruiser, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. The officer failed to stop at the red light as he was required to do pursuant to sections 144(18) and (20) of the Highway Traffic Act. Those provisions, while conferring latitude on police officers to travel through red lights in the interests of law enforcement, require that they first come to a complete stop in order that they might assess safety considerations before doing so. The SO then compounded his error by accelerating through the intersection without ensuring that traffic in all directions had fully yielded. While some if not most of the motorists travelling east and west on Finch Avenue West had come to a stop, the Complainant had not. On the other hand, if the officer did not stop, he did slow. A post-collision statement made to other officers also suggests he believed, albeit wrongly, that it was safe to proceed when he did. Finally, it is worth noting that the officer had his emergency equipment operating at the time. On this record, the SO was not as careful as he should have been, but his conduct fell short of transgressing the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: July 26, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit