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 16-year-old male (“Complainant #1”), a 16-year-old female (“Complainant #2”), a 15-year-old female (“Complainant #3”), and a 49-year-old male (“Complainant #4”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 26, 2024, at 1:30 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 25, 2024, at 10:25 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and his coach officer, the Witness Official (WO), were conducting mobile traffic enforcement in a marked TPS police vehicle. They were travelling southbound on Brimley Road, near Danforth Avenue, when they observed a Honda CRV travelling northbound at a speed of 96 km/h in a posted 50 km/h zone. The SO activated his police vehicle’s emergency lighting; however, the Honda accelerated away. The SO pulled over, stopped, and reported the incident to his dispatcher. A short distance away, the Honda proceeded into the intersection of Brimley Road and Eglinton Avenue against a red light and struck an Audi Q7 before continuing into a vacant bus shelter. The Honda’s occupants had to be extricated by Toronto Fire Services (TFS). They were transported by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). Complainant #2, a passenger in the rear seat, was admitted with a brain bleed. The Audi Q7 had two occupants. The driver was transported to hospital. The Honda was later determined to be stolen and involved in other criminality prior to the collision.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/26 at 1:55 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/26 at 3:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 16-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 16-year-old female; not interviewed (declined)

Complainant #3 15-year-old female; not interviewed (declined)

Complainant #4 49-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between November 26, 2024, and December 2, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 26, 2024, and December 2, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on December 21, 2024.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on December 2, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on Brimley Road, in the area of 451 Brimley Road, continued north in the northbound lanes of Brimley Road, and concluded on Brimley Road at and around its intersection with Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On November 26, 2024, at 4:25 a.m., SIU investigators arrived at Eglinton Avenue East and Brimley Road, Toronto. They met with Officer #1 from the TPS Collision Reconstruction Unit. Officer #1 advised that the police vehicle involved in the incident was parked on Brimley Road south of the intersection. The police vehicle could be seen, parked in the northbound curb lane several hundred metres south of the intersection of Brimley Road and Eglinton Avenue East. Photography of the scene was commenced, and scans were taken for a planned drawing.

The scene at Brimley Road, north of the intersection at Eglinton Avenue East, had been properly secured and guarded by several TPS police officers. Eglinton Avenue East travelled in an east/west direction with Brimley Road intersecting in a north/south direction. Both roadways were four-laned, paved and level. Pavement markings were visible and in good condition. Street lighting was present in the intersection and traffic control lighting appeared to be functioning normal on arrival.

There were two vehicles within the confines of the secured area.

Vehicle 1 was a Honda CRV. This vehicle was oriented in a westerly direction in the northbound curb lane of Brimley Road north of the intersection. There was extensive collision damage to the entire vehicle.

Vehicle 2 was an Audi Q7. This vehicle was oriented in an easterly direction in the southbound lanes of Brimley Road, north of the intersection. There was collision damage to the passenger side rear corner of the vehicle.

Tire and scrape marks on the pavement suggested the collision occurred at the northeast quadrant of the intersection and continued north on Brimley Road scattering debris post-impact.

Figure 1 – The scene of the collision

At 5:28 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at Brimley Road and Boyce Avenue to examine the police vehicle. The vehicle was a Ford Explorer, which was a marked police vehicle displaying TPS graphics adopted by the TPS. It was equipped with emergency lighting, which was not activated at the time of examination as the vehicle was parked and turned off. The exterior surfaces of the vehicle were examined and no collision evidence or paint transfer suggesting contact with both vehicles 1 and 2 was found. The emergency lighting and siren were found to be functional.

Forensic Evidence

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

At 10:26:09 p.m., November 25, 2024, the police cruiser was stationary in a private driveway, which led to the City of Toronto, Brimley Yard, 451 Brimley Road. This was on the east side of Brimley Road near Lombardy Crescent, just north of a railroad underpass, upwards of 500 metres south of Eglinton Avenue. Brimley Road was four lanes in width with two northbound and two southbound lanes. The speed limit was posted about 500 metres south of this location as 50 km/h. The SO’s vehicle’s flashing emergency lights and siren were not activated.

At 10:28:37 p.m., the location was the same as the previous location. The flashing emergency lights were now activated, and the siren was not on.

At 10:28:52 p.m., the police vehicle was northbound on Brimley Road just north of Stavely Road, about 400 metres south of Eglinton Avenue, at a rate of speed of 85 km/h. The flashing emergency lights were activated. The siren was not on.

At 10:28:56 p.m., the SO’s vehicle was northbound on Brimley Road near an industrial complex at 491 Brimley Road, about 300 metres south of Eglinton Avenue, at a rate of speed of 79 km/h. The flashing emergency lights were on. The siren was not on.

At 10:30:12 p.m., the SO’s vehicle was stationary on Brimley Road about 25 metres south of Boyce Avenue. This was about 75 metres south of Danforth Road and about 260 metres south of Eglinton Avenue. The flashing emergency lights were activated. The siren was not on.

Between 10:28:37 p.m. and 10:30:12 p.m., the SO’s vehicle travelled northbound on Brimley Road from where it had been stationary near Lombardy Crescent, towards Eglinton Avenue, for about 315 metres, and then stopped near Boyce Avenue. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – The SO’s Police Vehicle

The video started on November 25, 2024, at 10:28:11 p.m., with a westbound street view of Brimley Road from the east side of the roadway [now known to be 451 Brimley Road]. The video was from the TPS fully marked vehicle driven by the SO. It was dark, with street light illumination. There was light rain and the windshield wipers on the police vehicle were activated. Brimley Road had two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound separated by a solid yellow line. The two northbound lanes were separated by intermittent, white lines.

At 10:28:35 p.m., the emergency lights activated, and the SO’s vehicle pulled forward.

At 10:28:38 p.m., a silver SUV [now known to be a Honda CRV] entered the left camera frame travelling northbound on Brimley Road.

At 10:28:40 p.m., the audio track kicked-in as the police vehicle turned right, northbound, onto Brimley Road. The CRV travelled in the passing lane and accelerated away from the police vehicle.

At 10:28:42 p.m., the SO said, “It’s a stolen vehicle.” The WO said, “I don’t know if it’s that one. Yep, it is.”

At 10:28:50 p.m., the WO said, “Give me the radio.” The SO said, “Did he run that light?” The WO said, “Yeah he did, stop, pull it over.”

At 10:28:56 p.m., the SO directed the police vehicle to the curb and slowed, and the WO began to call the dispatcher.

At 10:28:58 p.m., two bangs sounded, and the WO gasped and said, “Oh no!” Due to the distance of the CRV, the lighting conditions, and the rain, it was not clear what had happened, but with a maximum zoom on the footage, objects [now known to be the CRV and an Audi] moved around the northbound lanes in the distance in tandem with the bangs.

At 10:29:03 p.m., the WO informed the dispatcher, “We just had an ALPR [Automatic Licence Plate Reader] hit, also a speeding, also I think it got into a collision, for a marker when you’re ready. [Licence plate number provided]. Can we get a 41 or a 43 Division to come to our location, we had to pull over because we did not pursue the vehicle and we are stopped at Boyce and Brimley Road.”

At 10:29:46 p.m., the WO informed the dispatcher, “It looks, it ran two red lights, and it looked like it would have been north of Eglinton on Brimley, we cannot see if the vehicle is still on the road, and we don’t know what it hit.” The SO’s vehicle remained stationary, and the video ended on November 26, 2024, at 1:22 a.m.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On November 25, 2024, at 10:31:24 p.m., the video opened with a view from the interior of a TPS vehicle from the WO’s BWC. The police vehicle was stopped in the curb lane [now known to be northbound Brimley Road] with the emergency lights activated. The SO occupied the driver’s seat, and the WO occupied the passenger seat.

At 10:31:55 p.m., the audio activated, and the WO spoke with a pedestrian who informed them of a collision up the road [now known to be Brimley Road and Eglinton Avenue East]. A police vehicle stopped at the driver’s side of the parked police vehicle, and the WO informed the driver they had to remain parked and directed the police vehicle to continue northbound.

At 10:32:21 p.m., the WO showed the SO the radar and said, “He was doing 96 when you read.” The SO said, “I know,” and looked ahead. The WO reassured the SO and encouraged him to remain calm.

At 10:33:26 p.m., the WO said, “The red-light camera caught it.”

At 10:33:28 p.m., the WO turned off the police vehicle radio and said, “I am not going to let you listen to that right now.”

At 10:34:01 p.m., the WO said, “We pulled over, and if it ran the red light, just understand that we can’t take any of our equipment off…”

At 10:34:40 p.m., the SO said, “I’m going to lose my job.” The WO consoled the SO, who thought he had done something wrong.

At 11:07:14 p.m., a sergeant approached the driver’s window and asked if they were okay.

At 11:07:29 p.m., the sergeant asked, “Is this where you guys were parked? Were you stationary, were you driving?” The WO said, “We were driving. We were parked up at 451 Brimley, that’s where we do our speed enforcement, he registered a, at the time it was 98 by the time he took his finger off it was 96, so activate the lights to stop him, the guy was flying, all I know that it was a silver vehicle, I couldn’t even tell you the make, model. And then I saw the light was red, the camera flashed.” The police officer said, “Which one, the first light was red?” The WO said, “Danforth, told him, pulled over right away, and he just kept going and then we heard the bang, crash, and saw the light, don’t know what he hit, don’t know what was up ahead, don’t know anything, and then we put it over right away.”

Communications Recordings

At 10:28:42 p.m., November 25, 2024, the SO said, “It’s a stolen vehicle.” The WO said, “I don’t know if it’s that one. Yep, it is.”

At 10:28:50 p.m., the WO said, “Give me the radio.” The SO said, “Did he run that light?” The WO said, “Yeah he did, stop, pull it over.”

At 10:28:56 p.m., the WO called the dispatcher.

At 10:28:58 p.m., two bangs sounded, and the WO gasped and said, “Oh no!”

At 10:29:03 p.m., the WO informed the dispatcher, “We just had an ALPR hit, also a speeding, also I think it got into a collision, for a marker when you’re ready. [Licence plate number provided]. Can we get a 41 or a 43 Division to come to our location, we had to pull over because we did not pursue the vehicle and we are stopped at Boyce and Brimley Road.”

At 10:29:46 p.m., the WO informed the dispatcher, “It looks, it ran two red lights, and it looked like it would have been north of Eglinton on Brimley, we cannot see if the vehicle is still on the road, and we don’t know what it hit.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between November 26, 2024, and December 4, 2024.

• Communications recordings
• GPS data – the SO’s police vehicle
• ICCS footage
• Driver Training - the SO
• Witness List
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes – the WO and the SO
• Collision Report
• Collision Reconstruction List
• Complainant #1 – TPS Background
• Policies – Transportation Collisions; Life Threatening Injury/Fatal Collisions; and, Suspect Apprehension Pursuit

Upon request, the SIU obtained a Stolen Vehicle Report from Peel Regional Police on December 9, 2024.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 23, 2024, and January 22, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Reports from EMS
• Medical records - Complainant #1 - SHSC
• Medical records - Complainant #4 - Scarborough Centenary Hospital

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of November 25, 2024, the SO was stopped on the driveway of 451 Brimley Road, facing west towards the roadway, performing speed enforcement. With him in the passenger seat of their marked cruiser was his coach officer, the WO. At about 10:30 p.m., the SO clocked a northbound vehicle - a Honda CRV - travelling at 96 km/h using his laser speed measuring device. The speed limit in the area was 50 km/h. The officer activated his emergency lights and entered onto the northbound lanes of Brimley Road intending to pull the Honda over for a speeding infraction. As the SO started to accelerate northbound, his vehicle’s ALPR indicated that the Honda had been reported stolen.

The Honda contained five occupants. It continued to travel north at speed, failing to stop for the cruiser behind it, and crossed the roadway’s intersection with Danforth Road (about 400 metres north of 451 Brimley Road) on a red light. Approximately 200 metres further north, the Honda entered the Eglinton Avenue East intersection on a red light and struck an Audi. The Audi had just made a right turn onto Brimley Road from westbound Eglinton Avenue East.

The Honda continued northward after the collision and stopped after striking a vacant bus shelter on the east side of Brimley Road. The Audi was sent spinning into the southbound lanes of Brimley Road, where it came to rest.

Shortly after the Honda had disregarded the red light at Danforth Road, the SO slowed, pulled to the side and stopped about 20 metres south of Boyce Road, south of Eglinton Avenue East.

The driver of the Audi – Complainant #4 – suffered torn shoulder ligaments in the collision and an injured appendix, which had to be removed. From the Honda, Complainant #1 suffered a concussion, Complainant #2 sustained a brain bleed and had her spleen removed, and Complainant #3 broke her spine.

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.

On November 26, 2024, the TPS notified the SIU of a motor vehicle collision the day before, in which at least one person had been seriously injured, that occurred shortly after a TPS officer had attempted to pull over one of the vehicles involved in the crash. The SIU initiated an investigation naming 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 in attempting to stop the Honda for a traffic infraction. He had measured its speed at almost twice the legal limit. Moreover, he had cause to initiate a pursuit of the Honda when shortly after entering onto the roadway to stop it, his ALPR detected that the vehicle was stolen.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due regard for public safety. He activated his emergency lights and accelerated past the legal limit, as one would expect as the officer attempted to catch up, but quickly discontinued pursuit after the Honda sped through a red light at Danforth Road. That decision was a wise one. He had witnessed an extremely dangerous act and did not want to add any further impetus for reckless behaviour on the part of the Honda’s driver. By that point, he had been travelling northward for no more than about 300 metres and 20 seconds, during which time there is no indication of the officer having imperiled other traffic on the roadway.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no evidence to suggest the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his brief engagement with the Honda. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit