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 man (Complainant #1) and the serious injury of a 55-year-old woman (Complainant #2).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 4, 2025, the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) forwarded the following complaint received by LECA to the SIU. The complaint was authored by Complainant #1.

On Saturday, April 5, 2025, at about 2:40 p.m., Complainant #1 was leaving the parking lot of the Great Canadian Superstore[2] with his wife[3] in the front passenger seat. He had come to a complete stop at the stop sign located at the parking lot south exit when he noticed a Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) SUV speeding with its lights flashing. Complainant #1 waited until it passed and then proceeded to slowly enter the Progress Avenue roadway that ran in an east and west direction. He had made it across two lanes to make a left turn to enter the eastbound lanes and was struck on the left side by an unmarked SUV travelling west at about 80 - 90 km/h in a 50 zone. Complainant #1 crawled out of the vehicle after his wife through the front passenger door. They sat down on the curb and felt dizzy. Complainant #1’s left eye started to swell and he could not see well. Complainant #1 was approached by a person[4] wearing civilian clothing and carrying a gun at his jeans and a badge in his pocket. He apologized and asked if they were okay, and explained he was a police officer and had been in a pursuit. Complainant #1 had possession of dash camera footage of the collision. He was subsequently charged with offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

On December 5, 2025, the SIU called and left a voicemail for Complainant #1, requesting a callback.

On December 8, 2025, the SIU spoke with Complainant #1, who explained that on April 5, 2025, he was examined at the scene by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) but not transported to hospital. Complainant #1 stated he later sought medical attention and was diagnosed with a concussion, along with pain to his neck and back. Complainant #1 was asked to provide medical records to support his concussion diagnosis.

On December 16, 2025, Complainant #1 emailed the SIU a photographed letter from Ajax Chiropractic and Wellness, dated December 15, 2025. The letter outlined Complainant #1 having incurred a concussion, with associated headaches, dizziness, pain, tinnitus and fever, from a motor vehicle collision on April 5, 2025. The SIU contacted Complainant #1 and requested additional medical diagnosis documents.

On February 4, 2026, Complainant #1 emailed copies of his and his wife’s medical records to the SIU, at 1:44 p.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/10 at 8:13 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/26 at 9:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

Complainant #1 56-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 55-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed on February 26, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

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 #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Progress Avenue and the exit lanes from the parking lot of a shopping complex, immediately east of the Best Buy Store, 480 Progress Road, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Source - Toronto Police Service (TPS) Collision Report

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) data associated with the SO’s vehicle indicated that the officer was travelling at about 72 km/h at around the time of the collision.

Expert Evidence

A SIU Collision Reconstructionist, working with scene evidence collected in the course of the police investigation of the incident and other materials, including dashcam video footage and GPS data from the police vehicle, arrived at the following findings and conclusions.

Collision Events

The collision occurred at the south exit to the parking lot at the north side of the Scarborough Town Centre mall, just east of a Best Buy. The exit consisted of two southbound lanes - a dedicated left turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane. There was also an entrance lane adjacent to the exit lanes that allowed traffic to enter the parking lot from westbound Progress Avenue.

Progress Avenue was a four-lane, urban road that ran nominally east - west. In the area of the collision, the speed limit was 50 km/h.

Complainant #1’s vehicle was a Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV. The DRPS vehicle involved in the collision was an unmarked vehicle. The Hyundai was exiting the parking lot in the dedicated left turn lane, attempting to head eastbound on Progress Avenue. The unmarked DRPS vehicle was heading westbound in the left lane at the time.

The Hyundai was initially stopped at the exit stop line before it proceeded south towards the eastbound lanes of Progress Avenue. As the Hyundai entered the left westbound lane, the front of the DRPS unmarked vehicle collided with the left side of the left turning Hyundai.

Video Analysis

The dashcam video provided to the SIU was titled “April 5^th accident dash cam front.mp4”. The video resolution was 1920x1080 pixels and recorded at 30 frames per second. The video, one minute in length, started with the Hyundai navigating the parking lot and approaching the exit to the parking lot. The Hyundai came to a stop for about a second at the 51-second mark, after which it began to accelerate towards Progress Avenue. The Hyundai reached the left westbound lane where it stopped and was struck by the police vehicle. The police vehicle could not be seen in the dashcam video footage; however, braking could be heard.

Body-worn camera (BWC) footage was reviewed, depicting the damage to both vehicles and their final rest positions on the road. This allowed severity and speed assessments to be completed. The Hyundai sustained moderate damage to the driver side, focused around the driver door area. The police vehicle sustained moderate damage to the front end that extended from the left to the right-side bumper. The hood was also buckled from the damage.

Comparing the damage to the DRPS unmarked vehicle with real-world crash investigations with recorded severities, it was concluded that the severity of the incident collision was about 20 km/h. Given that the Hyundai was stopped at impact, the DRPS unmarked vehicle severity was about 20 km/h, and both vehicles moved about four metres to the west post-impact, the impact speed of the DRPS unmarked vehicle was calculated to be about 45 km/h.

GPS Data

The GPS data indicated that the police unmarked vehicle was travelling between 43 to 48 km/h at the time of impact. The DRPS unmarked vehicle started braking about two seconds before impact, with heavy braking for about one second prior to impact. The maximum recorded speed was just before braking began, at 71.96 km/h. Leading up to this top speed, the DRPS unmarked vehicle accelerated from about 20 km/h to about 72 km/h in roughly six seconds. The police vehicle was in the intersection to the east of the impact location when it first started accelerating.

Timing of Events

At five seconds before impact, the Hyundai was stopped at the stop line of the parking lot exit, in the left turn lane, oriented south. The police vehicle was located about 95 metres from impact and accelerating heavily. Its speed was just over 50 km/h.

At four seconds before impact, the Hyundai was accelerating but only moved about one metre from its stopped position. Its speed was about 5 km/h. The police vehicle was located about 75 metres away at this time and under heavy acceleration. Its speed was about 60 km/h.

At three seconds before impact, the Hyundai was still accelerating and was now entering the westbound right turn lane. It was travelling about 10 km/h at this time. The police vehicle was located 55 metres away from the point of impact and still accelerating. It was travelling just under 70 km/h at this time.

At two seconds before impact, the Hyundai was in the westbound right lane and travelling about 15 km/h. The police vehicle was located about 35 metres from impact and travelling about 72 km/h.

At one second before impact, the Hyundai was in the westbound left lane and slowing down. The police vehicle was about 15 metres away and braking heavily. It was travelling just under 70 km/h.

At impact, the Hyundai was stopped and in the westbound left lane. The police vehicle was fully braking and slowed to about 45 km/h. The impact occurred between the front end of the DRPS unmafked vehicle and the left side of the Hyundai.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

DRPS Communications Recordings

Starting at about 1:41 p.m., April 5, 2025, DRPS dispatch broadcast a priority one call at the Pickering Town Centre, 1355 Kingston Road. A woman was said to have been followed to that location by a male. The male in question was prohibited from possessing firearms and had a record of assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

Starting at about 2:25 p.m., officers broadcast that the female was heard screaming and kids were heard crying.

Starting at about 2:30 p.m., broadcasts were made indicating a search was on for the male involving unmarked vehicles.

Starting at about 2:51 p.m., the female was said to have called police to say she was okay and heading home. A male was heard in the background.

Starting at about 2:55 p.m., broadcasts were made indicating an intention to surveil a vehicle and, if possible, box it in. It was noted that the female and her child were on board the vehicle in question.

Starting at about 2:57 p.m., there was talk about using the York Regional Police helicopter to assist. Broadcasts were also made inquiring about the level of risk for the persons in the vehicle in question, and whether they were being held against their will. Information was relayed that the woman and her child were being held against their will, and they were very fearful of the male.

Starting at about 3:03 p.m., it was noted that the TPS had spoken with the female, and that she was at a restaurant at the Scarborough Town Centre and that TPS officers were heading there. She indicated that she was not with the male.

Starting at about 3:11 p.m., a broadcast indicated that the male was out on foot at the Pita Pit on Kennedy Road and Progress Avenue. The female advised that she was, in fact, in the vehicle with the male the whole time and that he was now running away.

Starting at about 3:13 p.m., an officer [the SO] broadcast that he had just been involved in a collision and needed an ambulance.

Complainant #1’s Dashcam Footage

Complainant #1 was captured driving eastbound through a parking lot of the Superstore, located at 1755 Brimley Road. The weather appeared to be overcast and rainy, and the windshield wipers of Complainant #1’s vehicle could be seen moving back and forth across the windshield.

Starting at about 2:12:36 p.m.,[6] April 5, 2025, two unidentifiable police vehicles were captured travelling west on Progress Avenue with emergency lights activated. Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 could be heard having a discussion as he drove through the parking lot.

Starting at about 2:12:45 p.m., Complainant #1 encountered other vehicle traffic while driving through the parking lot.

Starting at about 2:12:56 p.m., Complainant #1 came to a stop at the parking lot exit, facing a southerly direction, behind a white Mercedes van.

Starting at about 2:13 p.m., a DRPS marked SUV, with emergency lights and siren activated, travelled from left to right on the recording, in a westerly direction on Progress Avenue.

Starting at about 2:13:04 p.m., the DRPS cruisers were off screen. The Mercedes van that was in front of Complainant #1 commenced a left-hand turn and moved across two lanes of westbound travel, successfully completing the turn.

Starting at about 2:13:11 p.m., a silver SUV travelling westbound on Progress Avenue crossed in front of Complainant #1’s vehicle.

Starting at about 2:13:14 p.m., Complainant #1 commenced a left-hand turn onto Progress Avenue. He drove out of the parking lot and crossed over three lanes of traffic.

Starting at about 2:13:18 p.m., the sound of a horn was heard, and Complainant #1 was heard saying, “Oh shit,” after which his vehicle came to a stop and the sound of a collision was heard.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the DRPS between February 25, 2026, and April 14, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• GPS data for the SO’s vehicle and other DRPS vehicles
• In-car camera (ICC) footage
• Call Summaries
• Involved Officers List
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• DRPS policies – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits; Police Vehicle Operations and Safe Arrival; Member Involved Collisions

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between February 25, 2026, and February 27, 2026:

• Names of all TPS officers that attended scene of motor vehicle collision
• Occurrence Report
• Notes - WO #6
• Police communications recordings
• ICC and BWC footage
• Civilian video taken from inside involved vehicle
• Collision Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained medical records for Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 between December 16, 2025, and February 4, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of April 5, 2025, Complainant #1 was operating a Hyundai in the parking lot of a shopping complex north of the Scarborough Town Centre, Toronto. His wife – Complainant #2 – was with him in the front passenger seat. The two had finished shopping and were looking to make a left turn onto Progress Avenue from a set of the parking lot’s exit lanes. The intersection was not controlled by traffic lights. Complainant #1 successfully travelled south over the first couple of westbound Progress Avenue lanes, and was stopped momentarily looking to complete his turn into the eastbound lanes, when his vehicle was struck by an unmarked DRPS SUV.

The SO was operating the unmarked police vehicle. He was involved at the time in a police operation seeking to locate a woman and her child suspected of being held against their will by a male. The officer applied his brakes seconds before impact but was unable to avoid a collision. The time was about 3:13 p.m.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were examined on scene by attending paramedics. Neither was transported to hospital. Weeks later, both were diagnosed with a concussion based on symptoms attributed to the motor vehicle 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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a collision involving a DRPS vehicle. 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 Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’s injuries.

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 engaged in the exercise of his duties, part of a police response to a priority call involving the possible abduction of a woman and her young child, at the time of the events in question. While concerns about the pair were being allayed as the officer approached the site of the collision, the officer had cause to arrive at their reported location sooner rather than later as the male suspect was still outstanding and said to be fleeing on foot in the area.

With respect to the manner in which the SO drove en route to the collision, I am unable to reasonably conclude that he transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The SO would perhaps have been better advised to slow down upon learning that the woman and her child were no longer in danger, particularly in light of the fact that it was raining and he was operating an unmarked vehicle without emergency equipment and, therefore, without the ability to warn surrounding traffic of his presence. A lower speed would have afforded him a greater opportunity to see the danger ahead and take evasive action. It also remains unclear why the SO was unable to avoid a collision. Perhaps he was not keeping a proper lookout as he was making his way westbound on Progress Avenue, or it may well be that Complainant #1 travelled into his path without giving the officer time to react, or perhaps some combination of the two. This uncertainty in the evidence, coupled with a speed - 70 km/h – that was not a gross departure from the 50 km/h speed limit, means that the SO’s driving cannot fairly be characterized as a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances.

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

Date: June 26, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit