SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TVI-329

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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 30, 2024, at 10:01 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 30, 2024, at approximately 2:50 a.m., a uniform TPS officer was patrolling on Dunlop Avenue in Toronto when his automated licence plate recognition (ALPR) device registered a hit on a stolen vehicle parked on the side of the road. The police officer called for back-up. Two police vehicles subsequently attempted to box-in the vehicle, but the driver took off making contact with the crash bars on one police vehicle. The stolen vehicle only made it a short distance up the road before it struck a parked vehicle. The driver fled on foot and was not located. A female passenger remained in the vehicle and was examined by emergency medical services. She suffered only minor bumps. At approximately 7:50 a.m., the driver of the vehicle – the Complainant – attended Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) emergency department for an injury to his left wrist. TPS responded to the hospital. At 8:40 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured left radius.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/30 at 11:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/30 at 11:55 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 30, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 30, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a stretch of roadway on Dunlop Avenue, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On July 30, 2024, at 11:55 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene on Dunlop Avenue. Dunlop Avenue was aligned in an east/west direction and was a two-lane paved roadway within a residential area. There were concrete curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.

The plan drawing above illustrates the collision scene. A Mercedes mounted the south curb on Dunlop Avenue where the curb strikes are indicated in the drawing. A tire mark resulted on the sidewalk from the Mercedes’ return to Dunlop Avenue. The Mercedes travelled eastbound less than 100 metres before it struck parked Hyundai #2 located on the south side of Dunlop Avenue.

Figure 1 – The collision between the Mercedes and Hyundai #2

Figure 1 – The collision between the Mercedes and Hyundai #2

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 2:49:42 a.m., July 30, 2024, police noted a Mercedes Benz with someone inside the vehicle.

At 2:50:13 a.m., the ALPR device registered a hit for a stolen vehicle.

At 2:52:45 a.m., an officer broadcast that officers would stop and approach the vehicle.

At 2:53:08 a.m., it was broadcast that police officers would try to pin the vehicle.

At 2:54:30 a.m., the police officers confirmed there was a male sleeping inside the vehicle.

At 2:54:56 a.m., the vehicle fled from the police officers.

At 2:55:09 a.m., a police officer noted, “We are not in pursuit, the vehicle crashed into parked vehicle, and we are approaching.”

At 2:56:19 a.m., police noted there was a female in the vehicle and, at 2:56:50 a.m., it was noted the male was not being pursued.

At 3:02:33 a.m., it was broadcast that there had been no contact between the police vehicles and the subject vehicle. The vehicle had mounted the curb and took off after being pinned.

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

The footage commenced as Officer #1 sat in the driver’s seat of a TPS police vehicle. He was partnered with Officer #2.

At 2:53:33 a.m., July 30, 2024, Officer #1 drove the police vehicle eastbound on Dunlop Avenue. Emergency lights from another TPS police vehicle [now known to be occupied by Officer #3 and Officer #4] were observed through the front windshield.

At 2:53:51 a.m., Officer #1 exited his police vehicle and the audio from his BWC activated. The two marked police vehicles pinned the front and back ends of a Mercedes adjacent to Dunlop Park. Both police vehicles were positioned on the south side of Dunlop Avenue. They faced each other with their emergency lights activated. It was dark outside with minimal artificial lighting.

At 2:53:58 a.m., Officer #4 exited the driver’s side while Officer #3 exited the passenger side of their police vehicle. They walked westbound toward the Mercedes.

At 2:54:00 a.m., Officer #1 approached the Mercedes from the west with his flashlight pointed at the driver’s side of the vehicle. He said, “No, he’s sleeping, he’s sleeping, he’s sleeping.” The Mercedes’ driver’s side windows were up, darkly tinted, and foggy.

At 2:54:03 a.m., the police officers surrounded the Mercedes. Officer #1 and Officer #4 were positioned on the driver’s side of the Mercedes, back and front ends, respectively. Officer #2 and Officer #3 were positioned on the passenger side of Mercedes, back and front ends, respectively.

At 2:54:04 a.m., Officer #3 shone his flashlight at the Complainant in the driver’s seat and said, “Hey, show me your hands. Get out of the car.”

At 2:54:08 a.m., Officer #1 radioed, “There is a male sleeping inside the vehicle.”

At 2:54:09 a.m., Officer #3 said, “Police, get out of the car.” He held his firearm in his right hand and flashlight in his left hand.

At 2:54:23 a.m., Officer #3 said, “Toronto Police, get out of the car.”

At 2:54:28 a.m., Officer #1 used his right hand to point his firearm at the driver’s side of the vehicle.

At 2:54:35 a.m., Officer #1 used his left hand to try to open the driver’s door.

At 2:54:38 a.m., Officer #1 said, “Toronto Police, show us your hand, show us your hand. Show us your hand, hands.” He pointed his firearm and shone his flashlight at the driver’s side windows as he stood directly outside the vehicle. The CW occupied the back seat of the Mercedes. Officer #1 said, “Open the fucking door.”

At 2:54:44 a.m., the Complainant accelerated the Mercedes forward and slightly to the right.

At 2:54:45 a.m., Officer #1 said, “Watch out, watch out.” Officer #3 moved to avoid the Mercedes. The Complainant drove over the south curb and struck parked Hyundai #1.

At 2:54:48 a.m., Officer #1 radioed, “Vehicle just ran away from us.”

At 2:54:49 a.m., the Complainant drove the Mercedes at a high rate of speed eastbound on Dunlop Avenue.

At 2:54:53 a.m., the Complainant’s Mercedes struck parked Hyundai #2 on the south side of Dunlop Avenue. The collision created loud sounds, which included squealing tires and a vehicle alarm.

At 2:55:00 a.m., Officer #1 radioed, “We are not in pursuit, vehicle just crashed into a parked vehicle. We are approaching it.” The police officers ran east towards the collision.

At 2:55:24 a.m., Officer #1 shouted, “Show us your fucking hands, right now,” as he positioned himself beside a truck’s passenger door. He pointed his firearm and flashlight in the direction of the collision.

At 2:55:41 a.m., Officer #1 radioed, “Male suspect… running east.”

At 2:56:04 a.m., Officer #1 shouted, “There’s a female inside the car, female inside the car.”

The Mercedes sustained extensive front end damage on the passenger side. The vehicle shifted approximately 150 degrees and pointed southeast. The Hyundai #2 shifted approximately 90 degrees and pointed south.

At 2:56:13 a.m., the Mercedes’ front passenger door was open. Officer #1 pointed his firearm at the CW, who sat in the back seat of the Mercedes. He said, “Show us your hands, show us your hands, hands.” The Complainant had extricated himself from the Mercedes and fled on foot.

At 2:57:20 a.m., Officer #3 radioed, “…we have a female in custody, it looks like she’s got a head injury, can we get DAS?”

At 2:57:47 a.m., Officer #1 radioed a description of the Complainant.

At 3:02:22 a.m., Officer #1 radioed, “So we have pinned the vehicle, however, there was no contact on the vehicle, the vehicle then took off, mounted a curb, and took off, and that’s when it crashed into the other vehicle that was parked.”

At 3:10:29 a.m., Officer #1 returned to the collision site where Officer #4 and Officer #3 had the CW in custody. She sat on the curb with her hands handcuffed behind her back. She had a head injury.

BWC Footage – Officer #3

Officer #3’s BWC was consistent with the footage from the BWC of Officer #1. In addition, the officer’s footage captured the following.

At 2:54:43 a.m., the Complainant used his left hand to crank the steering wheel to the right. He then accelerated the Mercedes over the south curb onto the grass and sidewalk. Officer #3 quickly shuffled to the left and dodged the vehicle.

At 2:54:46 a.m., the Mercedes struck the passenger side of parked Hyundai #1, which included the back bumper and side doors.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Officer #1’s Cruiser

At 2:53:33 a.m., July 30, 2024, a westbound TPS police vehicle activated its emergency lights and stopped at the front driver’s side of a parked vehicle. An eastbound TPS police vehicle turned southbound and stopped at the back driver’s side of a black Mercedes.

At 2:53:44 a.m., the eastbound TPS police vehicle activated the emergency lights.

At 2:54:32 a.m., the back brake lights of the Mercedes lit up.

At 2:54:35 a.m., Officer #1 tried to open the driver’s side door.

At 2:54:46 a.m., the front left of the Mercedes struck the back right bumper of parked Hyundai #1 and continued eastbound.

Video Footage - Residence #1

On July 30, 2024, at 1:54:51 a.m. (video time-stamp), the footage commenced.

At 1:54:54 a.m., a collision was captured. A black Mercedes collided with Hyundai #2 parked on the south side of Dunlop Avenue.

At 1:54:55 a.m., the Mercedes shifted approximately 150 degrees and came to a complete stop, pointing southeast. Hyundai #2 shifted approximately 90 degrees and came to a stop pointing south.

At 1:55:00 a.m., taillights from both vehicles flashed and debris from the collision could be observed on the street.

At 1:55:26 a.m., the Complainant extricated himself from the Mercedes and fled eastbound on Dunlop Avenue.

At 1:56:09 a.m., Officer #4 walked into the camera view in the middle of Dunlop Avenue with his flashlight illuminated.

At 1:56:35 a.m., Officer #1 walked eastbound on the grass adjacent to Dunlop Avenue in search of the Complainant.

At 1:56:43 a.m., the CW extricated herself from the Mercedes.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 30, 2024, and August 1, 2024:

BWC footage - Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3 and Officer #4;

ICC footage - Officer #1’s police vehicle and Officer #3’s police vehicle;

General Occurrence Report; and

CAD Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 30, 2024, and September 3, 2024:

  • Video footage - Residence #2;
  • Video footage - Residence #1; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records from MGH.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a civilian witness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of July 30, 2024, Officer #1 and Officer #2, on patrol in a marked police cruiser, came across a stolen vehicle. The vehicle was parked facing east along the south curb of Dunlop Avenue, at the western edge of Dunlop Parkette. The officers called for assistance and were soon joined by Officer #3 and Officer #4 in another cruiser. They planned to position their vehicles in front and behind the stolen vehicle, after which they would approach it to arrest the driver.

The driver was the Complainant. In the backseat was his girlfriend, the CW. They were both asleep and awoke to the emergency lights of the cruisers. The Complainant ignored repeated direction from the officers to step outside. Instead, he placed the vehicle in gear and drove over the south curb, onto a grass boulevard and sidewalk, before returning to the roadway, striking a parked vehicle in the process. The Complainant accelerated eastbound on Dunlop a distance of about 100 metres before he struck another parked vehicle and came to a stop.

The Complainant exited the stolen vehicle. He fled but was arrested later that morning when he checked himself into hospital. He had sustained a fractured left wrist in the collision.

The officers drove to the site of the collision and arrested the CW. She had not suffered any serious injuries.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on July 30, 2024. As he was fleeing from arrest at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any TPS officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision.

The officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for being in possession of a stolen vehicle. Aside from positioning their vehicles in front and behind the stolen vehicle, and directing that the Complainant put his hands up and step outside, there was little else to the officers’ brief involvement in this matter. On this record, while his pending arrest was the impetus for his flight from police, the Complainant is alone responsible for the collision and the injury he incurred in it.

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

Date: November 27, 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.