SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TVI-311
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 July 20, 2024, at 11:44 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On July 20, 2024, at 7:10 p.m., TPS officers observed a motorcycle travelling at a high rate of speed on Sheppard Avenue, Toronto, and attempted to stop it. The motorcyclist [the Complainant] turned north onto Doris Avenue and stopped, and the rear passenger [Witness #1] got off the vehicle. The motorcycle continued north on Doris Avenue and crashed at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Church Avenue. The motorcyclist was assessed at the scene and transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC), where he was diagnosed with a broken left arm.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/20 at 11:56 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/21 at 1:39 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
Not interviewed (declined)
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on August 7, 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 July 29, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on a stretch of roadway beginning in the area of Sheppard Avenue East and Leslie Street, continuing east on Sheppard Avenue East and then north on Doris Avenue, and concluding at the site of a collision on Doris Avenue a distance north of its intersection with Church Avenue, Toronto.
Figure 1 – Scene of the collision
Physical Evidence
On July 21, 2024, at about 1:40 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene of the collision on Doris Avenue. The area was controlled by TPS officers and caution tape. Doris Avenue was a four-lane roadway in a north-south direction. The area was a high-density neighbourhood with apartment buildings and some commercial businesses.
The collision was in the northbound lanes of Doris Avenue, approximately 45 metres north of Church Avenue. The road was straight. There were visible road markings and raised curbs on each side of the street. Beyond the curbs, there were grassy areas and a sidewalk. The Church Avenue intersection was controlled by traffic lights.
The speed limit on Doris Avenue was 40 km/h south of Church Avenue, and 50 km/h north of Church Avenue. The collision occurred in the 50 km/h zone.
There were two vehicles at the scene. The first was a black Tesla which was stopped in the northbound curb lane. The right front door was scraped and dented. The right sideview mirror was detached from the side of the vehicle. The second vehicle was a silver Honda motorcycle. It was upright and resting on its kickstand. It faced in a northeast direction. The fuel tank was dented. There was blood spatter and smears on the motorcycle. There were tufts of grass stuck in various locations on its right side.
There were gouge marks in the grassy area near the curb between the Tesla and the Honda. There were scratches on the curb near the gouge marks in the grass. A streetlight pole in line with the scratch marks had some minor scrapes on it. There was a small area of blood on the road surface near the front tire of the Honda.
The scene was photographed and scanned with a Leica 3D RTC scanner.
Figure 2 – The motorcycle
Figure 3 – Damage to the front passenger side of the Tesla
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
TPS In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage
On July 20, 2024, at 7:06:07 p.m., a police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO, with passenger, the WO] was stopped at a red light in the southbound left turn lane on Leslie Street at the intersection of Sheppard Avenue East. The road conditions were clear, and it was daylight. A motorcycle travelled through the intersection westbound on Sheppard Avenue East. The SO drove in between lanes of traffic towards the intersection and turned westbound onto Sheppard Avenue East.
At 7:09:20 p.m., the SO drove westbound in the turning lane of traffic and caught up to the motorcycle at Leona Drive. The motorcycle waited at a red light. There was a passenger on the back of the motorcycle [Witness #1]. As the SO arrived at Leona Drive, the traffic light turned green, and the motorcycle drove ahead through the intersection. The SO followed. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h.
At 7:09:42 p.m., the motorcycle and the police vehicle changed lanes into the curbside lane of traffic as they approached Doris Avenue. The westbound traffic light at Doris Avenue was red. The motorcycle turned northbound onto Doris Avenue without stopping at the red traffic light. The police vehicle made a slow turn onto Doris Avenue without stopping. The posted speed limit on Doris Avenue was 40 km/h. The audio of the ICCS activated. The siren of the police vehicle could be heard. The motorcycle and the police vehicle approached a red traffic light at Greenfield Avenue.
At 7:09:56 p.m., the motorcycle stopped in the curbside lane of traffic behind a civilian vehicle stopped at the red traffic light. The WO directed the SO to “pull up behind him”. Witness #1 dismounted from the motorcycle and walked onto the sidewalk. The Complainant drove in between lanes of traffic, between two civilian vehicles, and through the Greenfield Avenue intersection, which still had a red traffic light. The WO directed the SO to stop the police vehicle. The SO stopped where Witness #1 had dismounted. The WO exited the police vehicle and grabbed Witness #1 by her arm. He escorted her to the police vehicle.
At 7:15:17 p.m., there was a radio broadcast reporting a motorcycle collision at Church Avenue and Doris Avenue. The Complainant had attempted to pick up his motorcycle to leave the scene. The Complainant bled from his face. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officers were with the Complainant. An unmarked police vehicle stopped in front of the SO’s vehicle. It activated its emergency warning lights and drove northbound on Doris Avenue.
At 7:17:25 p.m., TPS Officer #1 arrived at the intersection of Church Avenue and Doris Avenue. He was the first TPS vehicle to arrive at the scene of the collision. OPP vehicles and an ambulance were already on scene. The Complainant sat on the sidewalk near an upright motorcycle.
The SO’s police vehicle remained stationary at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Greenfield Avenue until the end of the ICCS video at 7:42:24 p.m.
TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On July 20, 2024, at 7:09:49 p.m., the SO and the WO turned northbound onto Doris Avenue in their police vehicle.
At 7:10:03 p.m., the WO exited the passenger side of the police vehicle at the intersection of Greenfield Avenue and Doris Avenue. He approached a woman [Witness #1] wearing a motorcycle helmet and standing on the east sidewalk of Doris Avenue. He grabbed her right arm and escorted her to the police vehicle. He advised Witness #1 that she was being detained. The WO asked who the driver of the motorcycle was. She provided the officer with a name.
At 7:17:34 p.m., TPS Officer #1 arrived at the intersection of Church Avenue and Doris Avenue. He spoke with an OPP officer. The Complainant sat on the east sidewalk near an upright motorcycle. Paramedics attended to the Complainant. The OPP officer advised the motorcycle was not the same one the OPP was looking for. The OPP officer said he was en route to the location where Witness #1 was being detained when he came across the motorcycle collision.
At 7:21:10 p.m., TPS Officer #1 took a statement from CW #2.
At 7:29:10 p.m., TPS Officer #1 spoke with a paramedic at the scene. The paramedic advised she did not believe the Complainant was impaired. She said the Complainant told her he had heard a siren and saw emergency lights, which scared him, so he took off.
At 7:45:06 p.m., TPS Officer #1 took a statement from Witness #2. Witness #2 said he heard a sudden bang against his Tesla and then saw a man [the Complainant] on the ground. Witness #2 called 911 and checked on the Complainant. The Complainant stood up and attempted to leave the scene on his motorcycle, but it would not start. He said the police chased him.
TPS Communications Recordings
On July 20, 2024, at 6:47:49 p.m., the OPP communications centre received a call from an unidentified man reporting a motorcycle travelling eastbound on Highway 401 in the westbound direction of traffic near the Yonge Street exit. The motorcycle driver wore a red shirt. Another caller reported the same event but added the motorcycle had exited Highway 401 at Bayview Avenue.
At 6:56:57 p.m., the OPP communications centre contacted the TPS communications centre and advised of a red motorcycle travelling the wrong direction on Highway 401. The OPP requested TPS officers be on the lookout for a red motorcycle which was last seen near Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue. OPP officers patrolled the area searching for the motorcycle.
At 6:59:14 p.m., the TPS communications centre broadcast to TPS officers to be on the lookout for a red motorcycle in the area of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue.
At 7:07:14 p.m., a police officer [the WO] advised he had seen a red motorcycle travelling westbound on Sheppard Avenue towards Bayview Avenue. He said they tried to “catch up” to the motorcycle. The motorcycle was “lane splitting and weaving through traffic”.
At 7:08:17 p.m., the WO advised the motorcycle had driven through a red traffic light. He said his emergency warning lights were not activated and they “were just trying to catch up.”
At 7:08:40 p.m., the WO advised they had caught up to the motorcycle at Kenneth Avenue. He read out the licence plate of the motorcycle and advised there was a male driver [the Complainant] with a female passenger [Witness #1] on the back of the motorcycle.
At 7:09:39 p.m., the WO advised the motorcycle was about to stop at a red traffic light and they would initiate a traffic stop.
At 7:10:09 p.m., the SO advised Witness #1 had dismounted the motorcycle and the Complainant had fled. The WO and the SO remained with Witness #1.
At 7:10:22 p.m., the WO advised he was at Greenfield Avenue and Doris Avenue. The Complainant fled northbound through a traffic light. Witness #1 had dismounted the motorcycle, and the WO and the SO remained with her.
At 7:11:35 p.m., the TPS communications centre advised the OPP communications centre that TPS officers were with Witness #1, who had dismounted the motorcycle the OPP was looking for.
At 7:11:50 p.m., a man [CW #2] called 911 and reported a motorcycle accident on Grandview Way. The driver of the motorcycle [the Complainant] had attempted to leave the scene. An OPP vehicle and paramedic services arrived while CW #2 was on the phone with the dispatcher.
At 7:11:54 p.m., a man [Witness #2] called 911. The only discernable word said by Witness #2 was “ambulance”. Witness #2 appeared to have ended the phone call prematurely.
At 7:17:55 p.m., a TPS officer [TPS Officer #1] reported he was at the scene. The Complainant was with OPP officers and about to be placed on a paramedic stretcher.
At 7:18:33 p.m., TPS Officer #1 reported the motorcycle involved in the collision was not the one the OPP was searching for. He reported the motorcycle involved in the collision was black and white while the motorcycle the OPP was interested in was red.
At 7:23:55 p.m., the SO reported she was still at Greenfield Avenue and Doris Avenue with Witness #1.
At 7:32:44 p.m., TPS Officer #1 reported the Complainant was in custody.
At 7:50:46 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised the Complainant was en route to SHSC.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 23, 2024, and July 30, 2024:
- General Occurrence Report;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy;
- Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
- Notes – the WO;
- BWC footage;
- ICCS footage;
- Communications recordings; and
- Scene photographs.
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP on July 30, 2024:
- ICCS footage; and
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of her notes.
In the evening of July 20, 2024, the Complainant was operating a motorcycle with a passenger, Witness #1, west on Sheppard Avenue East and then north on Doris Avenue. Just south of Greenfield Avenue, the Complainant came to a stop behind another vehicle on Doris Avenue, allowing Witness #1 to dismount, before he accelerated north through a red light. A police cruiser, its emergency lights and siren on, was behind the motorcycle at the time.
The SO was driving the cruiser. Her coach officer, the WO, was sitting in the front passenger seat. While southbound on Leslie Street approaching Sheppard Avenue East, they had spotted the motorcycle travelling west through the intersection and decided to try and stop it. The officers were on the lookout for a motorcycle, which had reportedly travelled the wrong way on Highway 401, that had exited the highway in their area.
The officers did not pursue the motorcycle when it accelerated away on Doris Avenue. By that time, they had obtained the vehicle’s licence plate. Rather, they stopped to question Witness #1. Several minutes later, while still engaged with Witness #1, they learned via radio broadcast of a motorcycle collision on Doris Avenue north of their location.
In the area of Doris Avenue’s intersection with Church Avenue, the Complainant had tried and failed to pass a vehicle, travelling in the curb lane, on its passenger side. The Complainant struck the vehicle, lost control of the motorcycle and crashed.
The Complainant was arrested and transported to hospital where he was reportedly diagnosed with a broken left arm.
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 when the motorcycle he was operating crashed on July 20, 2024. As police had tried to stop the motorcycle shortly 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 her vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.
The SO was within her rights in following the motorcycle and trying to stop it for investigation of a traffic infraction. The motorcycle was located in the area where the suspect vehicle had been seen exiting the highway, and there was some prospect that they were one and the same.
Once engaged, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the SO drove dangerously as she followed the motorcycle west on Sheppard Avenue East and then north a short distance on Doris Avenue. Moreover, the SO did not pursue the Complainant on Doris Avenue after his passenger dismounted and he accelerated away through a red light. In fact, she and the WO were still with Witness #1 when they learned of the collision upwards of a kilometre north of their location.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 14, 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.