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 67-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 12, 2025, at 5:03 p.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 12, 2025, at 12:03 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a police vehicle and had exited the northbound Highway 410 at the Queen Street exit, Brampton, coming to a stop at a red traffic light. As the traffic light turned green, he began to make a right turn to travel eastbound on Queen Street when he collided with a cyclist. The cyclist, the Complainant, fell off the bike. He was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) as a precaution and diagnosed with a small volume intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the brain. The Complainant was to be discharged after 24 hours of observation if no issues arose with his condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/12 at 5:16 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/12 at 6:42 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 12, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 7, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the crosswalk at the end of the Highway 410 off-ramp to Queen Street, Brampton.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

There were three northbound lanes on the Highway 410 off-ramp. The easternmost lane turned east onto Queen Street and the westernmost lane turned west onto Queen Street. The middle northbound lane could turn east or west onto Queen Street. There was a sidewalk in the east-west direction on the south side of Queen Street, which turned into a crosswalk at the Highway 410 off-ramp. The sidewalk was separated from Queen Street by a grassy area. The crosswalk was controlled by a pedestrian traffic light. Queen Street was an east-west street with three lanes of traffic in each direction divided by a concrete median. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights in the north, east and west directions.

At the scene, there was a fully marked Dodge Charger PRP vehicle. Its emergency warning lights and siren were not activated. The vehicle was oriented with the headlights to the northeast in the easternmost lane of the Highway 410 off-ramp. The rear half of the PRP vehicle was within the boundaries of the pedestrian crosswalk on the south side of Queen Street. The front end of the PRP vehicle had crossed over the northern boundary of the pedestrian crosswalk by about 2.5 metres. The PRP vehicle had minor cosmetic damage, which included marks and scrapes on the hood, front bumper and front corners.

Approximately 3.5 metres west of the PRP vehicle was a suspected blood stain on the asphalt, which had been marked out by PRP for identification with an inactive emergency flare.

On the grassy area on the southeast corner of the intersection was a blue 21-speed bicycle, which stood upright and supported by a kickstand. The front of the bicycle was oriented to the south. The bicycle was equipped with a rear luggage carrier over top of the rear wheel. The right luggage carrier mount bracket, the right pedal, the right handlebar, and the seat had minor damage.

All vehicle and pedestrian traffic lights were observed for multiple cycles, and were determined to function normally.

Expert Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation (TCI)

A SIU Reconstructionist attended the scene and completed a TCI report. There was no physical evidence available to identify an exact point of impact on the road. Based on the final rest location of the Complainant on the ground as seen on body-worn camera (BWC) footage, it was believed the point of impact was about five metres west of the east curb. The Complainant travelled approximately two metres west of the point of impact to his final rest location.

There was an unobstructed view for the SO to any approaching bicycle on the sidewalk from the east. Similarly, there was an unobstructed view ahead of the cyclist to the intersection where the SO was in his vehicle.

Due to the low velocity collision and only minor damage sustained to the PRP vehicle, the airbag control module would not have registered an event and, therefore, would not have recorded any pre-crash data.

Given the lack of pre-crash data and no video of the event, speed calculations required numerous assumptions to be made, such as the starting position of the police vehicle behind the stop line, the point of impact, the distance the Complainant was thrown from the bicycle, the height of the centre mass of the Complainant on his bicycle, typical acceleration rate from a stop for the SO, and the time it would take for the SO to realize the collision had occurred before he stopped. Given these assumptions, the estimated speed of the Complainant at the moment of impact was calculated to be approximately 10 km/h and the estimated speed of the SO’s vehicle at the moment of impact was calculated to be 15 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP BWC Footage - SO and WO

On June 12, 2025, at 12:03:17 p.m., the SO activated his BWC. He moved a bicycle from the centre of the roadway and placed it adjacent to the left side of his police vehicle. A man [the Complainant] laid supine on the asphalt in the middle of an intersection [Queen Street and Highway 410 off-ramp]. The Complainant wore a helmet, bicycle shorts, and a green shirt. The SO asked if the Complainant could hear him and the Complainant did not respond.

Starting at about 12:03:59 p.m., paramedic services arrived. The paramedics just happened to drive by and were not dispatched to the scene. The paramedics parked their ambulance nearby and then walked over to the SO and the Complainant. The SO said he struck the Complainant with his police vehicle as the SO made a right turn. The SO said he travelled approximately 10 km/h.

Starting at about 12:08:29 p.m., the Complainant seemed surprised to learn he had been struck by a vehicle.

Starting at about 12:09:56 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the ambulance on a stretcher. The SO walked the bicycle over to the ambulance so it would be transported with the Complainant.

At 12:10:46 p.m., the SO deactivated his BWC.

At 12:17:24 p.m., the WO arrived at the scene. The ambulance was no longer at the scene. The bicycle was upright and parked in front of the SO’s vehicle. Additional police vehicles had arrived and blocked traffic. The WO spoke with the SO. The SO said the scene “had not been touched, but I moved his bike though”. The SO said he exited the highway, and slowed at the intersection and looked to his left to check traffic before he made a right turn on a red traffic light onto Queen Street. As soon as he accelerated to make his turn, the SO looked over and saw the Complainant on his bicycle, who was travelling westbound. The SO said, “I clipped him on the back,” and pointed towards the rear portion of the bicycle. The SO pointed out a small amount of blood on the asphalt. The SO said he tried to talk to the Complainant but “he [the Complainant] was out of it”.

PRP Communications Recordings

On June 12, 2025, at 12:02:55 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance attend the Highway 410 exit at Queen Street because a “pedestrian” [the Complainant] had been struck by his police vehicle. The Complainant was conscious and had scratches and bruises.

At 12:04:07 p.m., the SO advised an ambulance had arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from PRP between June 13, 2025, and July 22, 2025.

• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – the WO and the SO
• BWC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from BCH on June 20, 2025.

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

Just after noon of June 12, 2025, the Complainant was riding his bicycle westward on the south sidewalk of Queen Street approaching a green light at the road’s intersection with the Highway 410 off-ramp. He had just entered the crosswalk when the back end of his bicycle was struck by a vehicle turning right from the off-ramp onto eastbound Queen Street. The impact sent the Complainant tumbling from his bike onto the roadway, striking his head on the pavement in the process.

The SO was operating the vehicle – a marked PRP cruiser – that struck the Complainant. He was at the crosswalk in the easternmost lane of the off-ramp, facing a red light and attempting a right-turn, when he clipped the rear of the Complainant’s bike. The SO promptly exited his cruiser, tended to the Complainant and arranged for an ambulance.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a brain bleed and neck fracture.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

(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 collision with a PRP cruiser on June 12, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the driver of the cruiser – 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 under a duty to refrain from turning right unless he could do so safely. The very fact of the collision in the circumstances of this case suggest he failed in that duty. The Complainant was there to be seen by the officer as he approached the intersection – he was wearing highly visible clothing and there were no sightline obstructions in the area – and it remains unclear why the SO did not yield. Either the SO did not adequately check the sidewalk traffic to his right before he entered his turn or, if he did, he misjudged how close the Complainant was from the crosswalk or how fast he was approaching. In either event, if the SO was not as careful as he should have been, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence that he transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Rather, the turn, which it should be noted was attempted at relatively slow speed, is fairly characterized as a momentary lapse in attention that did not depart markedly from a reasonable standard.

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

Date: October 7, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit