SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TVI-207

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 16, 2024, at 6:49 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 16, 2024, at 1:45 a.m., two TPS plainclothes officers were travelling in an unmarked TPS police vehicle northbound on Niagara Street in Toronto. The TPS officers, working in the area, were interested in speaking to an individual walking southbound on Niagara Street south of Queen Street West. The TPS officers initiated a three-point turn on Niagara Street just south of Queen Street West. As the unmarked TPS vehicle completed the first movement, an electric bicycle being operated by a man [now known to be the Complainant] made a left turn (southbound) from westbound Queen Street West onto Niagara Street, striking the passenger side of the unmarked TPS police vehicle. The TPS officers interacted with the Complainant and came to believe he was impaired by alcohol, after which he was arrested without incident. Prior to transportation to the station, the Complainant complained of pain to his left leg. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to the collision scene and the Complainant was transported to Toronto Western Hospital (TWH). He was diagnosed at 6:05 a.m. with a fractured left patella (knee).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/16 at 7:37 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/16 at 10:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 16, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 30, 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 May 23, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Niagara Street, just south of Queen Street West, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On May 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the scene of the collision and met the TPS Liaison Officer. The forensic investigator was briefed on the occurrence and a SIU Traffic Reconstructionist arrived a short time later.

Niagara Street was a two-way roadway that travelled in a north-south direction with one lane in each direction. It had raised curbs and there were sidewalks on both sides of the street that met the edge of the road. There were streetlights located on the east side of the street.

At the north end of Niagara Street, the road met Queen Street West at a T-intersection.

The intersection was controlled with traffic signals and there were marked crosswalks across all corners.

Queen Street West travelled in an east-west direction with commercial businesses on both sides of the road. There were two lanes in each direction and two sets of streetcar tracks. There were sidewalks on each side of the street that extended out to the raised curbs, and streetlights located on both sides of the street.

There were two vehicles located at the scene on Niagara Street:

  • An unmarked TPS police vehicle. It was parked facing northwest and almost completely blocked the southbound lane. The rear wheels straddled the centre line. There was minor damage to the right front corner, above the wheel, that consisted of a small dent and scratch. There were swipes observed in the dust on the hood, and a scratch to the road surface just north of the right front wheel.
  • A scooter electric bicycle. It had been manufactured with pedals; however, they had been removed. There was no serial number visible, and it appeared to be in poor condition. The key to the electric bicycle was missing so it was not possible to check the lighting system; however, when it was moved an alarm system was activated and the headlight illuminated. The front wheel was pushed back against the frame and the cowling around the headlight was scratched and cracked. The electric bicycle was on the west sidewalk resting on its kickstand. It was apparent that it had been moved after the collision.

The scene was photographed, measurements were taken, and the scene was released to TPS.

Figure 1 – Damage to the right front corner of the unmarked police vehicle

Figure 1 – Damage to the right front corner of the unmarked police vehicle

Figure 2 – Front wheel of the electric bicycle pushed back against the frame

Figure 2 – Front wheel of the electric bicycle pushed back against the frame

Forensic Evidence

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Report

TPS officers retrieved data from the involved TPS police vehicle’s air bag control module. The data were consistent with minor damage and a low-speed impact. No air bags had deployed, and no collision event had been captured by the air bag control module. As a result, no data related to the speed, braking, accelerator pedal or seat belt use were available.

Expert Evidence

Technical Collision Investigation

The collision involved an unmarked TPS police vehicle, operated by the SO, with the WO as a passenger, and an electric bicycle operated by the Complainant.

A SIU Reconstructionist attended the scene and met with the SIU forensic investigator on May 16, 2024. The scene had been secured by the TPS and the involved TPS police vehicle was reportedly in the same position it was in when the collision occurred. The electric bicycle had been moved to the sidewalk on the west side of Niagara Street.

The road and weather conditions were good and did not contribute to this collision. It occurred during nighttime darkness. The area was very well-illuminated with overhead streetlights on the east side of Niagara Street, and plenty of ambient light from other sources.

The area of impact (AOI) was determined to be in the middle of the southbound lane of Niagara Street about 13.5 metres south of the south curb of Queen Street West. Scratches on the ground were consistent with the electric bicycle having immediately fallen over and striking the ground after it collided with the TPS police vehicle.

There were no tire marks in the AOI, and road evidence was not expected to be discovered due to the collision being minor in nature and having occurred at a relatively low rate of speed. There were also no tire marks leading up to the AOI from the electric bicycle which would suggest the Complainant did not see the TPS police vehicle in sufficient time to brake or swerve to avoid the collision.

The surveillance video viewed by the SIU Reconstructionist appeared to show the rear brake light of the electric bicycle come on briefly as the Complainant entered the southbound lane of Niagara Street just prior to the collision occurring.

The damage to the TPS police vehicle was to the quarter panel area on the front passenger side. The damage, consisting mainly of scratches, was minor. There was a circular-shaped mark just above and forward of the wheel well that precisely matched the front headlight of the electric bicycle. Dust on the passenger side of the engine hood had been disturbed consistent with the Complainant having been partially ejected from the electric bicycle and onto the hood before he fell to the ground.

The damage to the electric bicycle was to the front, including the left side of the front fairing.

The police SUV and electric bicycle were transported from the scene to a TPS maintenance facility to be inspected by a licenced mechanic.

The TPS police vehicle was found to have no defects.

The electric bicycle was found to have a pre-existing brake defect.

The SIU Reconstructionist calculated the speed of the electric bicycle after reviewing video footage of the event. On the video, the electric bicycle was observed as it crossed the stop line for westbound traffic, entered the intersection, turned left onto Niagara Street, and drove to the AOI in about four seconds. The distance was measured on Google Maps to be approximately 27 metres, indicating the electric bicycle operated by the Complainant drove at an average speed of approximately 24 km/h.

The video showed that the TPS police vehicle had stopped for approximately one second prior to the Complainant’s electric bicycle colliding with it.

Findings

The TPS police vehicle had stopped on Niagara Street at Queen Street West behind one other car which had stopped at the stop line for the red traffic signal light. The TPS police vehicle turned to the left, moved a very short distance forward towards a white sedan, and then stopped. It then turned to the right and moved a short distance in reverse towards the car behind it, and then stopped.

The electric bicycle drove westbound on Queen Street West. It crossed over the stop line and entered the intersection on a green traffic signal light at a rate of speed of approximately 24 km/h. The electric bicycle operated by the Complainant had no front light and no ability to brake.

As the electric bicycle turned left through the intersection, the TPS police vehicle crossed over the centre line on Niagara Street with the front facing generally northwest. The TPS police vehicle stopped across almost the entire southbound lane approximately 13.5 metres south of the intersection. Approximately one second after the TPS police vehicle stopped, the front of the electric bicycle being operated by the Complainant collided with the front passenger side of the TPS police vehicle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

The recordings begin on May 16, 2024, at approximately 1:45 a.m., with the WO contacting TPS dispatch and advising that they just had an electric bicycle strike their vehicle. She advised that the location was Niagara Street and Queen Street West, and requested EMS for a man approximately 38 years of age who might be intoxicated.

At approximately 1:51 a.m., the SO contacted TPS dispatch and requested a “rush” on EMS as the man was complaining of leg pain. The request was acknowledged by TPS dispatch.

At approximately 1:55 a.m., the SO requested that a sergeant attend the scene.

At 1:58 a.m., a request was made for Traffic Services to attend.

Video Footage from 734 Queen Street West

The video camera, affixed to the exterior of a business at 734 Queen Street West, was pointed in a southwest direction and captured the intersection of Niagara Street and Queen Street West.

The date stamp on the video was May 16, 2024.

The start of the video was time-stamped at 12:46:53 a.m., and finished at 12:47:11 a.m.[3]

The video began with a vehicle [now known to be an unmarked TPS police vehicle] facing north in the northbound lane on Niagara Street. The TPS police vehicle pulled slightly forward and turned out to the left, after which it reversed slightly before continuing to turn out to the left moving slightly forward.

The Complainant was observed riding his electric bicycle westbound in the centre lane of Queen Street West. He entered the intersection and turned left to travel southbound on Niagara Street. As the Complainant completed his left turn from Queen Street West to southbound Niagara Street, the TPS police vehicle continued with a three-point turn and pulled out in front of the Complainant, blocking the southbound lane of Niagara Street.

The Complainant completed his left-hand turn from Queen Street West to southbound Niagara Street and the rear brake light of his electric bike illuminated. The brake light dimmed and then illuminated a second time just before the Complainant collided with the front passenger side of the TPS police vehicle.

The SO exited the TPS police vehicle he was operating and walked from the driver’s side of the vehicle, around the front of the vehicle, towards the passenger side. The video then concluded.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 21, 2024, and May 30, 2024:

  • Notes – the WO;
  • CDR Report;
  • Mechanical inspection of the involved police vehicle;
  • Mechanical inspection of the involved electric bicycle;
  • MTO Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report; and
  • Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 16 and 27, 2024:

  • The Complainant’s medical records from TWH;
  • Cell phone video footage from the CW;
  • Video footage from 734 Queen Street West; and
  • Video footage from 740 Queen Street West.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of May 16, 2024, the SO was on patrol operating an unmarked cruiser north on Niagara Street approaching Queen Street West. His partner – the WO – occupied the front passenger seat. They were stopped a vehicle back of the red light at Queen Street West when they recognized a male on foot travelling south on Niagara Street. The male was wanted on an arrest warrant. The SO decided to execute a three-point turn to travel south after the man.

At about the same time, the Complainant, operating an electric bike westbound on Queen Street West, was preparing to turn left onto Niagara Street. He entered the intersection on a green light and had travelled upwards of ten metres past Queen Street West when he collided with the front passenger side of the unmarked cruiser.

The SO had just pulled forward into the southbound Niagara Street lane as part of his maneuvers to turn his vehicle around when the collision occurred. He and the WO exited the vehicle to check on the Complainant, who had been ejected from the bike.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in ambulance and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision with a TPS police vehicle on May 16, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the driver of the police vehicle – 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.

Having observed a male for whom an arrest warrant was in effect, the SO was within his rights in deciding to re-orient his vehicle, so that he could pursue the male, if he could do so safely. On the one hand, attempting a three-point turn near an intersection is inherently risky, particularly in downtown Toronto. On the other hand, given the time, traffic was relatively light in the area, and the officer risked losing the male if they waited to turn at some later point. The maneuver itself appears to have been performed in a controlled fashion, with no sudden decelerations or accelerations. And there is evidence that the collision could well have been averted but for a braking defect on the electric bike and possible impairment on the part of the Complainant. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed 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: September 13, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
  • 3) The times appear to have been about an hour behind actual time. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.