SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TVI-258

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 21-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 17, 2024, at 5:07 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 17, 2024, at approximately 11:00 a.m., a TPS police officer was operating a fully marked police cruiser northbound on Jane Street, near Lawrence Avenue, when he spotted a vehicle with no front plate travelling southbound on Jane Street. The police officer made a U-turn to stop the vehicle. The driver attempted to flee the area but was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision with a stopped vehicle in the area of Jane Street north of Lawrence Avenue. A female passenger in the suspect vehicle was injured and transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Humber River Hospital – Wilson Campus (HRH-WC). The Complainant was not seen by medical staff until 3:56 p.m., at which time she was diagnosed with a fractured left humerus. The driver of the suspect vehicle was CW #1.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/17 at 6:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/18 at 7:16 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

21-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 18, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 18 and 20, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on July 2, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question began on Jane Street, a distance north of Lawrence Avenue West, continued south on Jane Street, and culminated on Jane Street just north of Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

At 11:07:33 a.m., June 17, 2024, the cruiser travelled northbound on Jane Street, north of Lawrence Avenue, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 43 km/h.

At 11:07:43 a.m., the cruiser travelled northbound on Jane Street, north of Lawrence Avenue at McDonald Avenue, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 50 km/h.

At 11:08:01 a.m., the cruiser travelled northbound on Jane Street, south of John Street, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 40 km/h.

At 11:08:27 a.m., the cruiser travelled northbound on Jane Street, south of Queens Drive, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 32 km/h.

At 11:08:41 a.m., the cruiser travelled southbound on Jane Street, south of John Street, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 56 km/h.

At 11:08:50 a.m., the cruiser travelled southbound on Jane Street, south of Patika Avenue, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 40 km/h.

At 11:09:05 a.m., the cruiser travelled southbound on Jane Street, north of Lawrence Avenue at McDonald Avenue, without its emergency lights activated, at a speed of 14 km/h.

At 11:11:09 a.m., the cruiser was stopped on Jane Street, north of Lawrence Avenue at McDonald Avenue, with its emergency lights activated.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

At 11:08:39 a.m., June 17, 2024, the video opened with a southbound view of Jane Street. The SO was driving southbound in the left passing lane.

At 11:09:01 a.m., the SO entered the northbound lanes to overtake stopped traffic in both southbound lanes.

At 11:09:06 a.m., the SO entered the southbound left passing lane and moved into the right curb lane, where he stopped his police vehicle just north of the Lawrence Avenue West intersection. A red Genesis coupe was stopped right of the right curb lane with both the driver and passenger doors open. A white van rested in the left passing lane to the left of the red Genesis. A black SUV rested on the median that separated the northbound and southbound lanes of Jane Street. A fully marked TPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1] was stopped with its emergency lights activated in the northbound passing lane of Jane Street. Debris was strewn across the southbound lanes between the SO’s police vehicle and the stopped vehicles in the southbound lanes. CW #1 stood on the west sidewalk beside the Genesis, and the Complainant and CW #2 sat on the sidewalk beside the Genesis. WO #1 approached the Complainant and CW #2.

At 11:09:41 a.m., the SO requested over the radio that an ambulance attend the scene in relation to a collision.

At 11:16:11 a.m., a firetruck with its emergency lights activated stopped across the southbound lanes of Jane Street.

At 11:19:23 a.m., an ambulance arrived on scene.

At 11:59:09 a.m., the SO sat in his police vehicle and made a phone call. He reported he did not activate his emergency lights and asked the person to whom he spoke if the SIU would be involved. The SO reported, “If they want to talk to me, I can talk to them, no problem.”

At 12:00:19 p.m., the SO made a phone call and reported he was travelling north on Jane Street when he saw the Genesis with no front plate travelling southbound. The Genesis passed him, and the SO waited for traffic to clear before he performed a U-turn. As the SO travelled southbound, he saw a vehicle jump the centre median and a dust cloud. The SO approached and saw there had been a collision. The SO agreed it was a rear-end collision. A traffic police officer had arrived before the SO, and the police officer [now known to be WO #1] told the SO that CW #1 was a prohibited driver. The SO advised he had not turned on his emergency lights or tried to stop CW #1’s Genesis.

ICCS Footage - WO #1’s Cruiser

At 11:08 a.m., June 17, 2024, the video started with WO #1’s TPS vehicle stopped behind two vehicles at the southbound red traffic lights on Jane Street at Lawrence Avenue West. The lights turned green, and WO #1 made a U-turn into the northbound lane on Jane Street. As he made the U-turn, a man on the east side of the road waved to him and pointed ahead. WO #1 immediately made a request on the radio for an ambulance and the fire services.

A red Genesis came into view as WO #1 stopped in the northbound passing lane. The Genesis was damaged on the hood and front-end. It was stopped southbound in the southbound curb lane and there was debris on the road. A white Mercedes Benz van was parked facing southbound in the southbound passing lane. A dark, blue-coloured Ford SUV rested diagonally across the centre median oriented in a southeasterly direction. Several people stood on the side of the road watching.

At 11:09 a.m., as WO #1 exited his police vehicle, a marked cruiser with its lights and siren activated travelled southbound on Jane Street, arriving at the scene of the collision. The marked police vehicle [now known to be driven by the SO] stopped in the southbound lane about ten metres behind the Genesis. WO #1 walked across the southbound lane towards the Genesis, which was obscured by the Mercedes. The SO exited his police cruiser and went in the direction of the Genesis. The SO then went over to the Ford SUV and began to speak with the occupants, who were still inside the vehicle.

Communications continued between WO #1 and TPS dispatch concerning the incident and number of persons injured. WO #1 provided CW #1’s information to the dispatcher for confirmation of his identity. The dispatcher confirmed the information for the Genesis and address for CW #1.

At 11:11 a.m., another TPS police vehicle arrived and blocked-off the southbound lane. WO #1 spoke to a TPS police officer on radio, who requested to know the extent of injuries. WO #1 indicated that the collision occurred behind him. He advised that CW #1 had attempted to “take off” from the SO and struck another vehicle in front of the SO. WO #1 requested EMS and Toronto Fire Services (TFS). WO #1 reported on the radio that the SO was travelling northbound on Jane Street when he saw the Genesis without the front licence plate. The SO had made a U-turn, and CW #1 accelerated to get away because his driver’s licence was suspended.

At 11:19 a.m., an ambulance arrived, and the paramedics began to attend to the occupants of the Ford SUV. WO #1 informed the SO that the SIU would potentially be involved, and they needed to hold the scene. He informed another police officer that the incident was not the result of a failed police stop. The only interaction the SO had with CW #1 was that he had made a U-turn and CW #1 apparently looked back while trying to get away. More TPS police officers continued to arrive.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

At 11:09:57 a.m., June 17, 2024, the footage opened with a south view of Jane Street. The SO was on foot. A red Genesis was captured stopped to the right of the right curb lane with the driver and passenger doors open. CW #1 stood with a uniformed TPS police officer - WO #1 - at the rear of the Genesis. Two women - the Complainant and CW #2 - sat on the sidewalk to the west of the Genesis. A white van rested in the left passing lane. A SUV rested on the median at the start of the left turn lane. A fully marked TPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1] rested in the northbound left passing lane just south of the SUV.

At 11:10:03 a.m., the SO joined WO #1 at the rear of the Genesis and they both interacted with CW #1. The SO then entered his police vehicle, reversed, and parked across the southbound lanes of traffic. The SO handed CW #1’s driver’s licence to WO #1, who sat in his police vehicle. WO #1 spoke on the telephone and said, “He was straight up, he gave his ID verbally, he advised he’s suspended…. oh, it is a bad, it’s serious.”

At 11:19 a.m., an ambulance parked in the northbound left passing lane just north of the SUV. WO #1 told the SO to hold the scene for possible SIU involvement. WO #1 said, “You know, you didn’t activate your lights so, he took off cuz of you right? So, you didn’t do anything wrong. It’s just procedure we got to do.” WO #1 asked the SO if he activated his lights or just performed a U-turn. The SO agreed he only performed a U-turn, was far back, stopped at the red light, saw the SUV jump and pulled up. WO #1 said, “I just heard a screech and brake, I was at the lights waiting.” WO #1 asked if the SO’s ICCS captured the collision. The SO said, “No, like I said, lights weren’t activated, I was stuck at the red. I was going northbound, he was coming southbound, I saw he had no front plate, I didn’t even run his plate or anything, so by the time I was able to make a U-turn I was pretty far, I turned back, there was traffic, all I saw at the light was this car go up, and like a dust cloud. I didn’t see him collide.” WO #1 said, “So when he passed you did he see you and did he accelerate?” The SO said, “I’m not sure if he saw me but I did a U-turn and then this happened, possibly, possibly not, I’m not clear. I was far past him when I made the U-turn.”

BWC Footage - WO #1

At 11:08 a.m., June 17, 2024, WO #1 arrived at the scene of a collision and stopped his police vehicle in the northbound passing lane of Jane Street, north of Lawrence Avenue West. WO #1 spoke to the driver of a Genesis - CW #1 - who stood by the passenger side of the vehicle. Two women - the Complainant and CW #2 - sat on the ground. WO #1 asked who drove, and what happened. CW #1 said he was the driver, and that he had lost control of his vehicle. WO #1 asked for CW #1’s driver’s licence, and CW #1 replied his licence was suspended. WO #1 asked for CW #1’s identity card. A marked TPS police vehicle driven by the SO arrived in the southbound lane of Jane Street, its lights and siren activated, and parked about ten metres behind the Genesis.

WO #1 reported on the radio that CW #1’s licence was suspended. The SO approached CW #1 and told him, “You saw me make a U-turn and you took off. I know what you were doing.” CW #1 said his licence was suspended. The SO asked why he drove off, and criticized CW #1 for causing a collision and hurting his friends.

At 11:19 a.m., an ambulance arrived.

At 11:23 a.m., the SO confirmed that he did not have his lights and siren activated when he made the U-turn. He did not know whether CW #1 saw him make the U-turn or not, but by the time he completed the turn, he could not see the Genesis in the heavy traffic. Suddenly, he then saw a vehicle up in the air with a plume of smoke. He arrived to find the Genesis involved in the collision.

City of Toronto Traffic Camera Footage - Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue West

At 11:08:37 a.m., June 17, 2024, the video opened with a view of the Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue West intersection. The camera was located at the southeast corner of the intersection. The traffic lights for north and southbound traffic were green. Jane Street had two southbound traffic lanes and a left turn lane at the intersection. North and southbound traffic was separated by a concrete median. Northbound Jane Street had two lanes separated by white dashed lines. Six vehicles were stopped in the southbound left passing lane on Jane Street.

At 11:08:38 a.m., southbound traffic started to cross the intersection, and a red vehicle - the Genesis operated by CW #1 - entered the upper camera frame travelling southbound on Jane Street in the left passing lane.

At 11:08:42 a.m., the Genesis rear-ended a dark SUV. The SUV travelled south and east, and mounted the concrete median. A white van moved forward. The Genesis travelled southwest and came to rest in the southbound curb lane. A southbound, fully marked TPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1], which was south of the scene of the collision, made a U-turn in the intersection and drove north to the scene of the collision.

A southbound fully marked TPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] arrived at the scene of the collision, travelling around three stopped vehicles with his emergency lights and siren activated.

TPS Communications Recordings

At 11:09:04 a.m., June 17, 2024, WO #1 broadcast he was at a personal injury collision on Jane Street, north or Lawrence Avenue West. Other police units were dispatched.

At 11:12:12 a.m., WO #1 asked the dispatcher to check a male, CW #1, on police records. WO #1 advised dispatch that he was not involved in the incident. A male had tried to take off on the SO in a vehicle, and rear-ended another vehicle. WO #1 requested that two EMS ambulances and the TFS respond.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 18, 2024, and July 9, 2024:

  • GPS data;
  • BWC footage;
  • Communications recordings;
  • ICCS footage;
  • City of Toronto traffic camera video;
  • Civilian Witness List;
  • Involved Officer List;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • Notes – WO #5;
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #6;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • Collision Report;
  • TPS Policy - Use of Service Vehicles; and
  • TPS Policy - Suspect Apprehension Pursuits.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 18, 2024, and June 28, 2024:

  • Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records from HRH-WC.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, 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 morning of June 17, 2024, CW #1 was operating a vehicle southbound on Jane Street. His driver’s licence was under suspension and his vehicle did not have a licence plate affixed to the front. With him as passengers were CW #2 and the Complainant. CW #1 was stopped at a red light at the John Street intersection when he saw a police cruiser stopped facing north at the same lights.

The officer was the SO. He noticed the absence of a front licence plate on CW #1’s vehicle and decided to stop it for a traffic infraction. When the light turned green, the SO executed a U-turn and began to travel south after CW #1.

CW #1 accelerated south. As he came upon southbound vehicular traffic stopped in the passing lane for a red light at Lawrence Avenue West, CW #1 braked but was unable to avoid a collision. He slammed into the rear of a SUV, after which his vehicle travelled a short distance southwest before coming to a stop in the curb lane, north of Lawrence Avenue West. The SUV was pushed into the vehicle ahead of it – a van – and came to rest over the concrete centre median. The van was propelled forward a short distance and came to rest in the passing lane.

The first officer on scene was WO #1. WO #1 was operating a cruiser south on Jane Street at the Lawrence Avenue West intersection when he heard the collision behind him. The officer doubled-back to the scene, stopped his cruiser in the northbound lanes of Jane Street north of Lawrence Avenue West, and exited to render assistance. He approached and spoke with CW #1 and his two passengers at the southwest corner of the intersection.

The SO arrived at the scene of the collision and stopped his cruiser a distance behind CW #1’s vehicle.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a broken left arm.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Section 9, Regulation 628, Vehicles Permits, under the Highway Traffic Act – Number Plates

9(3) The number plates for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a motor assisted bicycle, shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position on the front and rear of the motor vehicle.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Toronto on June 17, 2024. As a police officer had tried to stop the vehicle in which she was a passenger moments before the collision, 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.

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 executed a U-turn to go after CW #1 for a traffic infraction. Having observed CW #1’s vehicle without a licence plate affixed to the front, he was entitled to stop him for a Highway Traffic Act infraction: see R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 9(3).

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his brief engagement with CW #1’s vehicle. The officer appears to have executed a U-turn without undue risk to the public before heading south at moderate speeds. He was not near CW #1 when the collision occurred and, in fact, had lost sight of the vehicle before the crash. On this record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress 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: October 11, 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]

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.