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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 17, 2025, at 3:32 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 16, 2025, at 11:08 p.m., TPS were informed of an attempted carjacking on Northtown Way, Toronto. Several males had reportedly fled the area in a white BMW X5 following the unsuccessful carjacking. Shortly after, a second carjacking, involving the same individuals, was reported in the area of the Shops at Don Mills, Toronto. A Rolls Royce vehicle had been stolen, and both the Rolls Royce and BMW X5 fled the scene. TPS plainclothes officers located the vehicles travelling in tandem southbound on the Don Valley Parkway onto the westbound Gardiner Expressway. Shortly before midnight, both vehicles exited the Gardiner Expressway at Spadina Avenue, before immediately getting back on. Officers initiated a traffic stop, blocking both vehicles. At 11:59 p.m., the Rolls Royce broke free of the roadblock and fled. The lone occupant of the BMW, the Complainant, exited the BMW and ran from the vehicle. A short foot chase ensued, which ended after the Complainant jumped over the guardrail of the Gardiner Expressway and fell to the roadway below, Lake Shore Boulevard, near Small Street. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). He was diagnosed with fractures to both legs.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/17 at 4:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/17 at 6:30 a.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”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 17, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #1 was interviewed on June 25, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the east and westbound lanes of the Gardiner Expressway, in and around where the highway travelled over Small Street, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The Gardiner Expressway was a multi-lane highway oriented in a general east-west direction. The events in question began on the eastbound lanes of the highway, above Small Street, and continued in a northern direction across all lanes of traffic to the far north barrier.

Figure 1 - An arial view of the Gardiner Expressway, above Small Street. The orange arrow indicates where the BMW was contained, and the foot pursuit began, and the red arrow indicates where the Complainant jumped over the highway barrier.

SIU forensic services examined the scene and took photographs.

Figure 2 – Image depicting the height from which the Complainant fell from the highway barrier to the ground below, a distance of approximately 10.9 meters.

Expert Evidence

The SIU collision reconstructionist determined no air bags were deployed in any of the vehicles involved in the impacts at the blockade, consistent with the collisions having occurred at low speeds and being minor in nature. The data showed the Complainant was at a stopped position in the BMW and depressing the accelerator pedal 100 percent. He was still pressing the accelerator pedal 100 percent when the first collision occurred. The second collision occurred from the side, within ten seconds of the first collision.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BWC Footage

On June 16, 2025, starting at about 11:42 p.m., WO #2 was driving at speeds around 150 km/h. The vehicle eventually came to a stop, and he exited. The Complainant was captured jumping over the centre barrier that divided the eastbound lanes from the westbound lanes of the Gardiner Expressway. The SO was the closest officer to him, about one-and-a-half lanes behind the Complainant. WO #1, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #4 were slightly behind the SO. They all jumped the centre barrier in pursuit of the Complainant. The Complainant ran across all westbound lanes and leaped over the far north barrier. The SO was still the closest to him, about two lane-widths behind the Complainant when the Complainant disappeared over the barrier. WO #3 shone his flashlight to the ground below, where the Complainant lay motionless on the ground. Officer #1 and Officer #2 ran down an on-ramp to the street below and located the Complainant, on the ground and yelling in pain. Officer #3 arrived in a police cruiser, pulling up close to the Complainant. The officer handcuffed the Complainant. The Complainant complained his legs were broken. Officer #2 requested EMS.

TPS ICC Footage – WO #3’s Police Vehicle

The video began on June 16, 2025, at 11:43 p.m., as WO #3 drove eastbound on the Gardiner Expressway. Emergency lights could be seen in the distance ahead. Several vehicles were stopped on the right shoulder and in the right lane. WO #3 drove around them as a white BMW was trying to push forward through the unmarked police vehicles. WO #3 pulled sharply in front of the BMW and blocked it. Loud voices were heard outside the vehicle yelling, “Get on the ground.” The front of WO #3’s vehicle was oriented towards the south side barrier.

TPS Radio Communications

On June 16, 2025, at 11:07 p.m., a radio broadcast announced that police had received a call from a man, reporting his car had been stolen. The dispatcher reported a handgun was involved.

At 11:27 p.m., a police officer reported they were following a BMW from a distance. It was reported the BMW was eastbound on the Gardiner Expressway. A foot pursuit was called shortly after, following which EMS were requested. The Complainant had jumped over the highway barrier and fallen.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS:

• Communications recordings
• Computed-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #4, WO #2, WO #3, Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #4 and Officer #3
• ICC footage – WO #3’s cruiser
• Notes - WO #1, WO #3, WO #2 and WO #4
• TPS policies – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; and, Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On August 18, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH
• Crash Data Retrieval data from BMW and six police vehicles

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, 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 or the release of his notes.

In the evening of June 16, 2025, TPS received reports of two carjackings involving a firearm. The second of the calls involved a Rolls Royce that had been stolen by three males in the area of the Shops at Don Mills. The males had fled the area in the Rolls Royce and a BMW X5.

Emergency Task Force (ETF) and Major Crimes Unit officers located the vehicles travelling south on the Don Valley Parkway towards the Gardiner Expressway. The plan was to follow the vehicles with a police helicopter and wait for the suspects to exit before attempting an arrest. A helicopter, however, was not available.

The Rolls Royce and BMW eventually came to a stop on the south shoulder of the eastbound lanes of the Gardiner Expressway, in and around the area where the highway travelled over Small Street. The ETF commanding officer, WO #1, who was also involved in tracking the vehicles, called for a takedown at this time.

Police vehicles formed a blockade around the Rolls Royce and BMW. The driver of the Rolls Royce was able to push through the blockade and escape eastward on the Gardiner Expressway. The driver of the BMW – the Complainant – also tried to push his way past the police cruisers, but was unsuccessful. He exited the BMW and fled on foot northward across the highway.

Led by the SO, officers chased the Complainant across the east and westbound lanes of the Gardiner Expressway. The SO was about two lane-widths behind when the Complainant jumped over the barrier bordering the northernmost westbound lane. There was a significant drop to the ground below on the other side of the barrier – approximately ten metres. Officers made their way to the Complainant on the ground and arrested him.

Paramedics transported the Complainant to the hospital where he was diagnosed with multiple fractures to both legs and spine.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from height in Toronto on June 16, 2025. As he was fleeing from arrest 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 injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In my view, there was not.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant was a suspect in two recent carjackings involving a firearm, the SO and his fellow officers were within their rights in attempting to arrest him for robbery.

I am also satisfied that the officers, including the SO, comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety as they ran after the Complainant on the highway. They had cause to pursue him aggressively given the violent crimes that had just been committed, and there was a real risk that he would escape if they did not chase him across the highway. At the same time, they shouted at the Complainant to stop and gave him ample opportunity to desist before he climbed over the barrier and fell from height. On this record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law during the brief foot chase that culminated in the Complainant’s fall and injuries.

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

Date: October 15, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit