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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 21, 2025, at 7:17 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 21, 2025, at 12:56 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was conducting speed enforcement on Kingston Road, Scarborough, when he observed a vehicle travelling at a high speed. The officer activated the cruiser’s emergency lights and siren and attempted to stop the vehicle, which went through a red light and struck another vehicle. The driver of the speeding vehicle, the Complainant, was transported to Scarborough General Hospital (SGH) and admitted for observation relating to a brain bleed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/21 at 7:23 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/21 at 9:30 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”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 23, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (unable to locate)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 23, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The Scene

The events in question began on Kingston Road, in the area of the roadway’s intersection with Beechgrove Drive, and continued west on Kingston Road until its intersection with Lawrence Avenue East, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

In the area of the events in question, Kingston Road aligned in a general northeast and southwest direction, and Lawrence Avenue aligned in a general east / west direction. The posted speed limit on Kingston Road was 60 km/h. The intersection was controlled by operational traffic lights.

SIU forensic services attended the scene and photographed the involved vehicles. A video recording of the route the vehicles had taken to the collision site was also completed.

SIU forensic services examined a Honda Civic, a Polestar and the SO’s police cruiser. The Honda and Polestar were extensively damaged while the cruiser had no apparent collision damage.

Image 1- Honda Civic, driven by the Complainant

Image 2- Polestar driven by CW #1

Image 3- Cruiser driven by the SO

Forensic Evidence

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

On September 21, 2025, at 12:40 a.m., the SO started driving from Beechgrove Drive onto westbound Kingston Road. His speed accelerated to 116 km/h and reached a peak speed of 137 km/h before dropping to around 129 km/h. The SO’s speed dropped to 105 km/h as the cruiser approached Lawrence Avenue East. The pursuit had lasted about a minute, with an average speed of 101 km/h and a top speed of 137 km/h.

Crash Data

The Honda recorded two impacts, the first with the Polestar and the second with a pole. The Honda’s brake was applied about two-and-a-half seconds prior to

the collision, after which the Honda slowed from 143 km/hr to 102 km/h.

About five seconds prior to the collision, the Polestar travelled between 57 to 62 km/h. At no time prior to the collision did the driver of the Polestar press down on the brake.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Police Cruiser

On September 21, 2025, at 12:40 a.m., the SO was on Beechgrove Drive, at the intersection of Kingston Road. He activated the emergency lights and sirens in his cruiser as a Honda Civic travelled in a southwesterly direction on Kingston Road. The SO pulled onto Kingston Road behind the Honda and started to pursue it. He provided regular information updates to the police communication centre. Initially over a hundred metres or so behind the Honda, the cruiser slowly closed the gap between the vehicles to approximately five car lengths.

The traffic was minimal, and the roads were dry.

The Honda and cruiser travelled through three intersections on green lights. Just prior to the intersection of Lawrence Avenue East, the SO appeared to slow and the distance between the vehicles increased. The Honda entered the intersection on a red light as a Polestar entered the intersection travelling east on a green light.

At 12:41 a.m., about 50 seconds from the commencement of the pursuit, the Polestar collided with the passenger side of the Honda, which caused the Honda to slide sideways into a pole on the centre island.

CW #3 was crossing the road at the time and was narrowly missed by the Honda.

The SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and provided assistance to the Complainant and the occupants of the Polestar. Other officers arrived about two minutes later and assisted in removing the Complainant from the Honda.

TPS Photograph

TPS provided a single undated photograph of the speed detection device used by the SO, showing a captured speed of 111 km/h.

Video Footage from McDonald’s Restaurant, 4435 Kingston Road

The footage was captured by a camera situated at the restaurant at the northeast corner of the Kingston Road and Lawrence Avenue East intersection.

On September 21, 2025, at 11:34 p.m.,[3] a Honda Civic travelled in a southwesterly direction on Kingston Road, headed towards Lawrence Avenue. The vehicle travelled into the intersection through a red light. Due to the distance of the camera, the subsequent collision was not visible on the footage, apart from a cloud of dust. The cruiser driven by the SO arrived at the intersection with emergency lights activated.

TPS Communications Recordings

On September 21, 2025, at 12:40 a.m., the SO advised that a vehicle had not stopped for him, and the driver was wanted for stunt driving. Thirty-five seconds later, he reported the vehicle had travelled through a red light and was in a collision. A request was made for EMS.

At about 1:13 a.m., the Complainant was taken to SGH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between September 22, 2025, and October 9, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Mechanical report and crash data from involved non-police vehicles
• ICC footage – the SO
• Body-worn camera footage – the SO
• Photograph of speed measuring device
• GPS data - the SO’s cruiser
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• TPS policies dealing with arrest and vehicle pursuits

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between September 26, 2025, and October 8, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Video footage from a McDonald’s Restaurant
• The Complainant’s medical records from SGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that 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 early morning of September 21, 2025, the Complainant was operating a stolen Honda Civic westbound on Kingston Road. Travelling in excess of the 60 km/h posted speed limit, the Civic came to the attention of the SO as it approached the intersection at Beechwood Drive. With the SO behind him, his cruiser’s lights and siren activated, the Complainant continued to accelerate westbound well in excess of 100 km/h. Approximately 1.7 kilometres and 50 seconds into the pursuit, the Civic entered into the Lawrence Avenue East intersection against a red light and was struck by an eastbound vehicle – a Polestar. The vehicles came to rest in the intersection.

The SO had been performing speed enforcement on Kingston Road at Beechwood Drive when he clocked the Civic travelling at 111 km/h. The officer maneuvered in behind the Civic and pursued it at speed until the collision at the Lawrence Avenue East intersection. Arriving at the intersection a couple of seconds later, the SO exited his cruiser and rendered assistance to the parties involved in the collision.

The Complainant was arrested and taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a brain bleed. The occupants of the Polestar were not seriously injured in the collision.

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.

Section 172(1), Highway Traffic Act – Stunt Driving Offence

172 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, on a bet or wager or while performing a stunt.

Section 172(2), Highway Traffic Act – Penalty

172 (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition, the court shall make an order suspending the person’s driver’s licence,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not less than one year and not more than three years;

(b) on a second conviction under this section, for not less than three years and not more than 10 years; or

(c) on a third or subsequent conviction under this section, indefinitely.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a car crash in Toronto on September 21, 2025. As he was being pursued by a TPS officer at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The TPS officer – 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 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 deciding to stop the Civic. With evidence at his disposal that the Civic had exceeded the speed limit by more than 50 km/h, the officer had cause to believe the Complainant had committed the offence of stunt driving contrary to sections 172(1) and (2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

I am also satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law during his pursuit of the Civic. The officer properly reported through his radio that he was pursuing the Civic for stunt driving and provided regular updates regarding traffic and roadway conditions. That information allowed supervising officers at the communications centre to monitor the pursuit and decide whether it should be discontinued. The SO did reach a top speed in the range of 138 km/h on a couple of occasions, more than twice the legal speed limit. Some of that speed would have been expected if the officer was going to attempt to stop the Civic given the speed at which the Complainant was travelling. Moreover, but for the very end of the pursuit, there was no vehicular traffic on the westbound lanes of Kingston Road, the roadway was dry and in good repair, and the officer used his emergency lights and siren throughout, providing notice of the cruiser and pursuit to third-parties in the vicinity. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s speed, in the context of a relatively short pursuit in distance and duration, amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

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

Date: January 15, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit