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 26-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 25, 2025, at 1:52 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 25, 2025, at 6:18 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a fully marked PRP cruiser travelling north on Torbram Road, Brampton, when he attempted to stop a white Chevrolet Impala for a suspected Highway Traffic Act licence plate infraction. The suspected driver of the Impala – the Complainant – refused to stop and accelerated away. In response, the SO pulled to the curb and stopped. As the Impala continued north on Torbram Road, it entered the intersection at Peter Robertson Boulevard against a red traffic signal and struck the side of a black Toyota Crown sedan. The SO arrived a short time after the collision. Emergency Medical Services were called to the scene. The Complainant was transported to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) and diagnosed with a fractured vertebra.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/25 at 2:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/25 at 3:06 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 10, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 26, 2025, and April 10, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on April 17, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on March 27, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Peter Robertson Boulevard, between Bramalea Road and Torbram Road, Brampton.

Physical Evidence

The collision occurred at the intersection of Torbram Road and Peter Robertson Boulevard, Brampton. Torbram Road was a multi-lane paved road. There were two lanes in each direction, and the road widened at Peter Robertson Boulevard to allow for a left turn lane. There were traffic islands at the intersection dividing the two-way traffic. The road markings were visible. There were raised curbs and streetlights, and the intersection was controlled by traffic signals. There were pedestrian crosswalks joining the corners. The road was governed by a 60 km/h speed limit.

Peter Robertson Boulevard was an east-west multi-lane paved road. There were two lanes in each direction, and the road widened at Torbram Road to accommodate a left turn lane. There were traffic islands at the intersection dividing the two-way traffic. The road markings were visible. There were raised curbs and streetlights, and the intersection was controlled by traffic signals. The road was governed by a 50 km/h speed limit.

There were three vehicles within the intersection.

Vehicle 1 was a PRP marked Dodge Charger. It was equipped with full emergency lights and clearly identifiable as a police cruiser. It was parked in a southeast direction on Peter Robertson Road, just east of the intersection with Torbram Road. It was undamaged and appeared not directly involved in the collision.

Vehicle 2 was a white Chevrolet Impala. The licence plates appeared to be fraudulent as they were paper. The vehicle came to rest on the south boulevard of Peter Robertson Boulevard, just east of the intersection. It was heavily damaged to the left side, roof, and right rear corner. The windshield was smashed, and the driver’s door had been removed from the car. Both the left and right-side airbags had deployed in the collision.

Vehicle 3 was a black Toyota Crown. It came to rest facing the traffic island separating the north and south traffic, on the southside of the intersection. It was heavily damaged to the front end. Both the left and right-side airbags, the steering wheel and driver’s knee airbags had deployed.

The area of impact was in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. There were tire marks from the area of impact leading to the white Chevrolet Impala that came to rest on the southeast corner of the intersection. The tire marks indicated the Impala struck a streetlight breaking it at the base. The vehicle then knocked over a large decorative concrete block. It was apparent that the Impala was eastbound on Peter Robertson Road and collided with the southbound Toyota Crown. The Impala then slid into the streetlight pole and concrete block.

Forensic Evidence / CFS Submissions and Results

The SIU Reconstructionist Report

There were two scuff marks in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Peter Robertson Boulevard and Torbram Road that were in line with the eastbound lane’s dashed white line and the passing lane for southbound traffic. A set of curved, intertwining tire marks extended from about six metres east of the scuff marks about 18 metres to the east. The streetlight pole was knocked down and a concrete pillar on the boulevard southeast of the intersection was knocked over. The Chevrolet Impala came to rest adjacent to the concrete pillar facing northwest. The Toyota came to rest in line with the south median, facing south.

Scene Diagram

Source: SIU

The report arrived at the following conclusions:

1. The police cruiser started by heading southbound in the commercial parking lot at the northeast corner of Peter Robertson Boulevard and Bramalea Road.

2. The police cruiser turned left onto Peter Robertson Boulevard and accelerated to about 90 km/h as it entered the intersection at Coachwhip Road. This was a signalized intersection. It was unknown if the light was green or red when the police cruiser entered this intersection.

3. The police cruiser then entered a gradual left curve in the road while maintaining a speed of around 90 km/h.

4. As the police cruiser began to enter the gradual right curve of Peter Robertson Boulevard, prior to entering the intersection at Sunny Meadow Boulevard, it accelerated to just under 100 km/h.

5. The police cruiser entered and exited the Sunny Meadow Boulevard intersection at speed. This intersection was controlled by traffic signals. It was unknown if the light was green or red when the cruiser entered this intersection.

6. The police cruiser then began to negotiate another gradual left curve on Peter Robertson Boulevard. The cruiser slowed to 72 km/h at this time.

7. The road then straightened out and the police cruiser entered the intersection at Barleyfield Road at about 90 km/h. This intersection was controlled by traffic signals. It was unknown if the light was green or red when the police cruiser entered this intersection.

8. At the east end of the intersection, the cruiser’s in-car camera (ICC) footage began, and a Chevrolet could be seen in the distance. It appeared in the video that the Chevrolet was about 160 metres ahead of the cruiser at that time.

9. When the motor vehicle collision occurred, the police cruiser was travelling about 80 km/h and was nearing the intersection with Poppy Bloom Avenue. It was located about 190 metres away from the Chevrolet at this time.

10. The police cruiser then slowed gradually as it approached the intersection with Torbram Road, coming to a stop in the intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recordings

On March 25, 2025, an automated call from a crash response program located in the Chevrolet operated by the Complainant called 911 to report a collision at Torbram Road and Peter Robertson Boulevard. A Toyota agent called 911 to report a collision with a Toyota operated by CW #1.

The SO informed the dispatcher he had come upon a collision at Torbram Road and Peter Robertson Boulevard. He asked for an ambulance because the Complainant could not feel his back.

ICC Footage - the SO’s Cruiser

On March 25, 2025, at 6:18:29 a.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Peter Robertson Boulevard with his emergency lights activated. A Chevrolet operated by the Complainant travelled about 100 metres in front of the SO’s police cruiser.

At 6:18:35 a.m., the Chevrolet entered the intersection of Peter Robertson Boulevard and Torbram Road on a solid red light. A Toyota operated by CW #1 travelled southbound on Torbram Road, striking the Chevrolet.

At 6:18:37 a.m., the Chevrolet struck a pole, bringing it down, and collided with a concrete decorative block, after which it spun onto the south side of Peter Robertson Boulevard. The SO slowed his police cruiser and entered the intersection on a solid red light. The emergency lights were activated.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - the SO

On March 25, 2025, at 6:18:54 a.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Peter Robertson Boulevard and approached the intersection of Torbram Road and Peter Robertson Boulevard. The north-south light was solid green, and the SO entered the intersection on a solid red for eastbound traffic. As the SO travelled into the intersection, the emergency lights reflected off the Torbram Road sign. He stopped his police cruiser eastbound in the northbound lanes of Torbram Road.

At 6:19:10 a.m., the SO exited and directed two men to stay where they were. The Complainant rested, moaning on the ground, and CW #2 stood on the sidewalk.

At 6:19:30 a.m., the SO called for an ambulance.

At 6:34:28 a.m., the ambulance arrived. The SO informed the WO that the Complainant was speeding and the SO, “Lit him up.” The WO asked the SO to go over everything again. The SO reported he had followed behind the Complainant for “a bit” and when he “lit him up, that’s when the accident happened”. The SO pointed towards the intersection and said, “I was pretty far back, like a hundred metres, and he accelerated.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between March 25, 2025, and June 2, 2025:

• Incident History
• Incident Details Report
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Global Positioning System data for PRP cruiser
• Crash Data Retrieval data
• Collision Reconstruction Report
• Directives - Vehicle Pursuit, and Stopping and Approaching a Suspect Vehicle
• Previous contacts with the PRP – the Complainant
• Occurrence Report
• Notes – the WO
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the BCH on April 23, 2025.

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

In the morning of March 25, 2025, the SO was on patrol in a marked cruiser when he observed a vehicle – a Chevrolet Impala – exiting a parking lot onto eastbound Peter Robertson Boulevard in the area of Bramalea Road. Believing the licence plates on the vehicle to be obstructed, and seeing the Impala enter the roadway without its headlights on, the officer decided to stop it for a possible traffic infraction. The SO began to follow the Chevrolet eastbound on Peter Robertson Boulevard and accelerated in an effort to close the gap.

The Complainant was operating the Chevrolet Impala. With him in the front passenger seat was an acquaintance – CW #2. Shortly after entering onto Peter Robertson Boulevard, the Complainant started to accelerate and overtook one or two vehicles using the westbound lanes. He entered the intersection of Torbram Road on a red light, struck a southbound vehicle, and eventually came to rest at the southeast corner of the intersection.

The SO was about 190 metres west of the Chevrolet when the collision occurred. He arrived at the intersection and exited his cruiser to render assistance.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured vertebra. Neither his passenger nor the lone occupant of the vehicle he struck was seriously injured in the collision.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on March 25, 2025. As the vehicle he was operating was being pursued by a PRP cruiser at the time, 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 Complainant’s injury.

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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights when he decided to stop the vehicle for a possible traffic infraction given the condition of its licence plates and the failure of the driver to operate the vehicle’s headlights.

Whether the SO had cause to continue the pursuit beyond its initial stages is less clear. The officer accelerated to almost twice the 50 km/h speed limit at points in the pursuit. Some of this acceleration was understandable at the outset if the SO was going to catch up to the Toyota. It was less so as the pursuit continued, particularly as it appears the officer travelled at speed through a red light without first stopping at Sunny Meadows Boulevard. By that point, it might be that public safety considerations were prohibitive of a continued pursuit. Also noteworthy was the failure of the SO to radio that he was in pursuit. That deprived a third-party senior officer of the opportunity to order the termination of the pursuit in light of public safety. On the other hand, the SO did have his emergency lights activated for the second half of the pursuit, alerting traffic to his presence and speed. And there is no evidence that other traffic on the roadway was directly imperiled by the officer’s driving, or that the SO was so close to the Chevrolet as to prevent the Complainant from safely stopping ahead of the red light at Torbram Road had he been so inclined. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any transgressions on the part of the SO amounted in their totality to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.

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

Before closing the file, I note for the record what appears to be evidence of possible misconduct on the part of the SO, namely, travelling through a red light at speed, without first stopping, in potential violation of sections 2, 19 and 27 of the Code of Conduct (O. Reg. 407/23). Pursuant to this office’s statutory obligation under section 35.1 of the

Special Investigations Unit Act, I will be referring this matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency for action as they deem appropriate.

Date: July 18, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit