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 62-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 25, 2026, at 9:33 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 25, 2026, at approximately 2:59 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a police cruiser attempting to enter Trethewey Drive, North York, from a private driveway. He pulled out into a live lane of traffic and struck an eastbound civilian vehicle. A female passenger in the struck vehicle, the Complainant, was injured and taken by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Humber River Hospital (HRH). At 8:18 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured sternum. The SO was also treated for a minor knee injury and released.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/25 at 10:19 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/25 at 10:27 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

62-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 28, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 28, 2026.

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 27, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the westbound lanes of Trethewey Drive, 70 to 80 metres east of the roadway’s intersection with Black Creek Drive, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services examined the vehicles involved in the collision under investigation.

One was a fully marked TPS Ford Explorer. The cruiser displayed front driver-side, quarter-panel damage, including a dented and scraped bumper, broken headlight and dented quarter-panel.

The second was a white Chevrolet Equinox. The Equinox exhibited heavy front-end damage, including a broken front grille, crumpled hood and dented driver-side, quarter-panel.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – Police Cruiser

At about 2:36 p.m., April 25, 2026, the police cruiser was stationary in a parking lot at the northeast corner of Trethewey Drive and Black Creek Drive.

At about 2:58 p.m., emergency lights were activated on the cruiser and, one second later, the siren was activated.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – Police Cruiser

The SO reached a top speed of 17 km/h during the course of the events in question. The data indicated the police cruiser accelerated from the parking lot, and that the brake was applied approximately half-a-second before impact.

CDR Data – Chevrolet Equinox

Both occupants were wearing seatbelts. Just prior to the collision, the vehicle travelled at 58 km/h. The data indicated the driver reacted approximately 1.5 seconds before impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – Police Cruiser

On April 25, 2026, at about 2:57 p.m., the SO was alone in a stationary police vehicle. His front wipers were engaged intermittently and the pavement was wet. The SO was positioned at a parking lot entrance located on the north side of Trethewey Drive, east of the intersection of Black Creek Drive.

At about 2:58 p.m., the SO activated his siren and pulled into moderate oncoming traffic. Westbound traffic in lane two (the right-turn lane) halted and the SO entered lane one. Shortly, a white Chevrolet Equinox travelling westbound in lane one (the through-lane) collided with the front driver-side of the police vehicle.

Police Communications Recordings

On April 25, 2026, at 2:58 p.m., the SO reported he was involved in a traffic incident at Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive.

EMS were requested at 3:01 p.m. and arrived approximately seven minutes later.

The Complainant was transported to HRH at 3:23 p.m.

The SO suffered pain in his left knee and would be transported to HRH.

At 8:36 p.m., a physician confirmed the Complainant had suffered a small fracture in her sternum.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO and WO #2

On April 25, 2026, at about 2:58 p.m., the SO’s BWC footage started after the collision had occurred. The Equinox’s passenger door was open, and the Complainant was assisted out by the SO while clutching her chest. The police cruiser’s overhead lights were illuminated.

At about 3:00 p.m., Officer #1 arrived and the SO confirmed that the CW was uninjured. Due to a language barrier, the Complainant’s injury could not be clearly communicated, and EMS were requested. The SO stated he had been driving with overhead lights and sirens activated when the Equinox collided with his vehicle.

At 3:27 p.m., the SO explained to WO #2 that he had been positioned in the Trethewey Park East parking lot and had activated his lights and sirens before pulling out to make a left turn. He stated the first westbound lane had stopped, but the Equinox approached quickly in the second lane, resulting in the collision.

At 3:51 p.m., WO #2 obtained a statement from the CW, with his son interpreting. The CW stated that the SO activated his overhead lights only as he crossed the first lane of traffic. He reported travelling at 55 km/h and braking hard but said the SO had already moved in front of his vehicle.

At 3:58 p.m., Officer #2 stated that the SO had a sore knee and was not wearing his seatbelt.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between April 26, 2026, and July 28, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• BWC footage – the SO and WO #2
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• CDR report for TPS cruiser
• GPS data for TPS cruiser
• TPS policy – Service Vehicle Collisions

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HRH between April 30, 2026, and July 28, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with 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 afternoon of April 25, 2026, the CW was operating a Chevrolet Equinox travelling westbound on Trethewey Drive with his wife – the Complainant – in the front passenger seat. They were in the single through-lane – one over from the right-turn lane – approaching Black Creek Drive when a marked police cruiser suddenly appeared in front of them. Unable to avoid a collision, their vehicle struck the front driver-side corner of the cruiser.

The SO was operating the cruiser. Only seconds before, the officer had brought his cruiser to a stop in the driveway of a parking lot on the north side of Trethewey Drive, east of Black Creek Drive. He was facing north at the entrance/exit of the lot when he activated his emergency lights and siren and entered onto the westbound right-turn lane. A vehicle travelling west in that lane came to a stop, yielding to the cruiser. As the cruiser continued forward, in what appeared to be a left-hand turn towards the eastbound lanes of Trethewey Drive, it was struck by the Equinox in the westbound through-lane.

Both vehicles immediately came to a stop after the impact. The SO exited and assisted the Complainant out of the Equinox. She was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of the sternum. The CW did not sustain serious injury.

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

320.13 (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 with a TPS cruiser on April 25, 2026. 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 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 lawfully placed in the parking lot driveway and engaged in the exercise of his duty enforcing the traffic laws with respect to passing motorists. He was also within his rights in attempting a left-turn from the driveway, presumably, to stop a westbound motorist for a roadway infraction. He properly activated his emergency equipment and carefully entered the right-turn lane as an approaching vehicle came to a stop. The SO was less than careful as he continued into his turn. For whatever reason, the officer drove forward into the through-lane and the path of the oncoming Equinox, leaving the vehicle no opportunity to avoid an impact. Perhaps he thought that the CW would take note of his emergency equipment and also come to a stop. However, the officer had only just activated his lights and siren, leaving the CW little time to react. He would have been far better served to ensure the Equinox had come to a stop before entering the through-lane. Notwithstanding the officer’s indiscretion, the case law makes clear that isolated or momentary lapses of care and attention will only rarely amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. With this in mind, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

I note that the SO may have contravened sections 19, 27 and 28 of the Police Code of Conduct in connection with the collision. I will be referring this matter to the Chief of Police for review by his service. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: August 19, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit