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 injury of a 56-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 8, 2025, at 3:11 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a serious injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on March 8, 2025, at 8:55 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was responding to an assault that had just occurred and driving a marked cruiser on Danforth Avenue with emergency lights and siren activated. As the SO approached Oak Park Avenue, a Lincoln Aviator vehicle made a left [eastbound] turn onto Danforth Avenue and collided with the cruiser. The Complainant was a passenger in the Lincoln. She was taken to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) and diagnosed with a nose fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/08 at 4:03 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/08 at 4:49 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 9, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 9, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official (WO)

WO Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the intersection of Danforth Avenue and Oak Park Avenue, Toronto.

Danforth Avenue was a two-lane asphalt road for eastbound and westbound traffic. Oak Park Avenue was a two-lane asphalt road for northbound and southbound traffic, and met Danforth Avenue in a “T” intersection.

Figure 1 - Danforth Avenue looking east with Oak Park Avenue intersecting on the north (left)

Forensic Evidence

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage & Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

Starting at about 8:51 a.m., March 8, 2025, the SO was driving on O’Connor Drive near Bermondsey Road. He turned on the emergency lights and siren, made a U-turn, and continued southwest on O’Connor Drive. The SO drove through the intersection of O’Connor Drive and Dohme Avenue on a green traffic signal at 63 km/h. He continued southwest reaching a maximum speed of 66 km/h. The SO slowed to almost a complete stop at Curity Avenue on a red traffic signal and then proceeded through the intersection. He continued on O’Connor Drive reaching a maximum speed of 66 km/h. The SO slowed to almost a complete stop at St. Clair Avenue East on a red traffic signal and proceeded through the intersection. He continued on O’Connor Drive reaching a maximum speed of 72 km/h.

Starting at about 8:52 a.m., as the SO approached Glenwood Crescent, he entered the oncoming lane and passed stopped traffic at a speed of 69 km/h. He slowed and passed through the intersection of Glenwood Crescent on a green traffic signal and continued southwest reaching a maximum speed of 79 km/h.

At the intersection of Woodbine Avenue, the SO entered the oncoming lane passing stopped traffic and turned left onto southbound Woodbine Avenue on a green traffic signal.

Starting at about 8:53 a.m., the SO was southbound on Woodbine Avenue in a 40 km/h zone. There was a signalized pedestrian crossover at Plains Road and the SO’s speed was 74 km/h.

The SO came to an almost complete stop at Cosburn Avenue on a red traffic signal, continuing southbound. At Barker Avenue he entered the oncoming lane and passed a stopped TTC bus and vehicles at 74 km/h before slowing to 66 km/h.

Starting at about 8:54 a.m., the SO approached Mortimer Avenue, entered the oncoming lane, passing stopped vehicles. He drove through a green light at the intersection and continued southbound.

The SO approached Danforth Avenue on a red traffic signal and stopped, before turning east on Danforth Avenue. The speed limit was 40 km/h and he passed slower moving traffic by entering the oncoming lane.

Starting at about 8:55 a.m., the SO was eastbound at the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Danforth Avenue and Gledhill Avenue/Patricia Drive. He reached a maximum speed of 72 km/h as he was about 350 metres eastbound on Danforth Avenue from Woodbine Avenue to Gledhill Avenue/Patricia Drive. The traffic signal light changed to green, and the SO passed a TTC bus and other eastbound traffic that was stopped. The SO continued eastbound towards Oak Park Avenue passing a long line of stopped traffic in the westbound lane.

The SO approached Oak Park Avenue. Westbound traffic was congested and stopped. The SO entered the intersection at 72 km/h when the CW’s Lincoln Aviator suddenly emerged from between two stopped westbound vehicles. The CW was southbound and turned left into the path of the SO.

At 8:55:15 a.m., the collision occurred.

Figure 2 – Still images from the SO’s ICC as he was eastbound on Danforth Avenue approaching Oak Park Avenue

Figure 3 – Still image from the SO’s ICC as the CW was turning from Oak Park Avenue onto Danforth Avenue

TPS Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data - The SO’s Cruiser

In the five seconds immediately prior to the collision, the SO was eastbound on Danforth Avenue between Gledhill Avenue and Oak Park Avenue, at a speed between 72 and 73 km/h. The accelerator pedal was applied steadily. The brakes were not applied, and the steering was straight.

Between one-half-second prior to the collision and the moment the collision occurred, the SO applied the brake and steered sharply to the right. The cruiser decelerated to 68 km/h at impact.

CDR Data - The CW’s Lincoln Aviator

About five seconds prior to the collision, the CW drove at about 11 km/h, then about 10 km/h. He was applying neither the brake nor the accelerator. The steering wheel was turned to the right as he straightened from having turned from behind a car that was stopped ahead on Oak Park Avenue at Danforth Avenue. As observed on the Toronto Honda video footage (infra), the CW was southbound on Oak Park Avenue in the northbound lane just north of Danforth Avenue. He was about 15 metres north of the area of impact and about one metre north of the southbound stop line.

About four seconds prior to the collision, the CW drove at about 10 km/h. The brake was off. The accelerator was depressed 21 percent. He passed a car, drove over the stop line, and entered the intersection.

About three seconds prior to the collision, the CW drove at about 12 km/h. The brake was off. The accelerator was depressed 17 percent. The CW drove through the pedestrian crosswalk and was about even with the north edge of Danforth Avenue, about nine metres from the area of impact.

About two seconds prior to the collision, the CW drove at about 13 km/h. The brake was briefly depressed. The accelerator was not depressed. The CW began to steer to the left. The CW was about six metres north of the area of impact and about even with the bicycle lane on the north side of Danforth Avenue.

About one second prior to the collision, the CW drove at 11 km/h. He was neither on the brake nor the accelerator. The steering wheel was turned to the left. The CW crossed the westbound lane of Danforth Avenue, as seen in the Toronto Honda video (infra), in between two stopped westbound cars, about three metres north of the impact area. When the collision occurred, the CW drove at a speed of 11 km/h and steered sharply to the left. He was applying neither the brake nor the accelerator.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Toronto Honda - 2400 Danforth Avenue

Starting at 9:01:56 a.m. [video time-stamp about seven minutes ahead of actual time], March 8, 2025, the CW was captured driving a Lincoln Aviator stopped behind a white vehicle. Both were travelling southbound on Oak Park Avenue. A stopped black vehicle westbound on Danforth reversed making a gap between vehicles. The CW entered the oncoming lane of Oak Park Avenue, passed the white car, failed to stop at the stop sign of Danforth Avenue and drove between stopped westbound vehicles on Danforth Avenue to turn left. The SO’s cruiser was eastbound on Danforth Avenue with its emergency lights activated. The driver’s front corner of the SO’s cruiser struck the passenger front corner of the CW’s Lincoln Aviator.

TPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On March 8, 2025, starting at about 8:46 a.m., the TPS communications centre received information from a caller of a motor vehicle collision and an assault. There was a commotion heard in the background and one of the involved drivers was reportedly leaving the scene.

Starting at about 8:50 a.m., TPS officers were dispatched to an ‘assault in progress’ call for service.

Starting at 8:55 a.m., March 8, 2025, the SO notified TPS dispatch of a collision involving his vehicle at Danforth Avenue and Woodbine Avenue.

Starting at 8:56 a.m., March 8, 2025, the CW advised the TPS communications centre that he was involved in a collision with a cruiser on Danforth Avenue and Gledhill Avenue.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 8, 2025, to March 29, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Names of civilian witnesses
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• CAD Report
• Communication recordings
• CDR data – involved vehicles
• GPS data - TPS cruiser
• Notes - the SO and the WO
• Policy - Use of Service Vehicles and Service Vehicle Collisions

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 10, 2025, and March 13, 2025:

• Video footage from Toronto Honda
• The Complainant’s medical records from MGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a civilian witness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of March 8, 2025, the Complainant was the front seat passenger in a Lincoln Aviator operated by the CW. The vehicle was travelling southbound on Oak Park Avenue to make a left-turn on Danforth Avenue. Westbound vehicular traffic on Danforth Avenue was backed up but one of the vehicles had reversed a distance creating an opening at the Oak Park intersection. The CW maneuvered onto the northbound lane to overtake a southbound vehicle ahead of him and entered into the opening without first stopping at a stop sign. He continued southwards and was turning left onto the eastbound lane of Danforth Avenue when the Aviator was struck by an eastbound vehicle.

The vehicle was a cruiser with the SO behind the wheel. The officer was travelling upwards of 70 km/h, his emergency equipment activated, responding to the scene of a reported assault.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following the incident and diagnosed with a broken nose.

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 128(13)(b), Highway Traffic Act – Police Vehicles and Speeding

128 (13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision with a TPS cruiser on March 8, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and 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 in the lawful execution of his duties responding to a serious call for service involving a recent assault. As such, he was entitled to speed pursuant to section 128(13)(b) as long as he did not unduly danger the safety of the public around him. The SO was, in fact, in excess of the 40 km/h speed limit as he approached the scene of the collision, but not, I am satisfied, in contravention of the latitude afforded officers. For starters, the SO had his lights and siren operating, giving advance notice to motorists and pedestrians in the vicinity of his cruiser’s presence. He was also travelling in a lane that was relatively clear of traffic at the time. Lastly, at speeds of slightly more than 70 km/h, the officer had not lost the ability to safely control his vehicle (as was evidenced by the SO’s driving from the moment he was dispatched). It is true that the SO might have been able to react to avoid the collision had he been travelling at a slower speed. That said, the evidence indicates that the collision had more to do with the CW’s failure to make a left-turn in safety than any speed on the part of the officer. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the manner in which the SO operated the cruiser 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: June 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit