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 an 18-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 28, 2026, at 1:55 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 28, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., an officer was driving his assigned police vehicle northbound on Albion Road through the intersection at Kipling Avenue. The Complainant, travelling westbound on Albion Road, struck the police vehicle. Preliminary information indicated that the Complainant drove through a red light. The Complainant was taken by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Sunnybrook Hospital (SH). At 1:09 p.m., the attending physician advised that the Complainant had been admitted and intubated; the extent of his injuries was unknown.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/28 at 2:04 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/28 at 4:30 p.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”)

18-year-old male; not interviewed; declined

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed; declined

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Not interviewed; dash camera footage reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 28, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Albion Road, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On April 28, 2026, at 4:30 p.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene at Kipling Avenue and Albion Road. The intersection was controlled by traffic signals, which were determined to be functioning properly.

Albion Road was a four-lane, east-west roadway, consisting of two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. At its intersection with Kipling Avenue, the roadway widened to accommodate dedicated turning lanes and bus bays.

Kipling Avenue was a four-lane, north-south roadway, consisting of two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. At its intersection with Albion Road, the roadway widened to accommodate dedicated turning lanes and bus bays.

The scene was photographed and mapped.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

Starting at about 10:13 a.m., April 28, 2026, Officer #1 was travelling northbound on Kipling Avenue. The speed of the police vehicle ranged between 73 and 85 km/h. Traffic at the time appeared to be minimal. As Officer #1 approached Albion Road, he changed lanes from the curb lane to the left lane. A grey-coloured Honda was captured travelling westbound on Albion Road in the left lane, approaching Kipling Avenue. The Honda passed two vehicles that were stopped in the right lane. The traffic signal for the northbound police cruiser was green. The police cruiser and the Honda reached their respective crosswalks and, approximately one second later, the front of the police cruiser collided with the driver’s side of the Honda. The collision pushed the Honda’s passenger side into a traffic signal pole on the north side of the intersection.

Starting at about 10:14 a.m., Officer #1 broadcast over the radio that he had been involved in a collision and requested EMS. He advised that the Complainant was trapped in the car and appeared to be unconscious.

Civilian Dash Camera Footage

CW #4 was travelling southbound on Kipling Avenue as he approached Albion Road. A dash-mounted camera in his vehicle captured the collision from approximately 100 metres away. The footage clearly captured that the traffic signal governing northbound and southbound traffic on Kipling Avenue was green.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Officer #1’s BWC was activated following the collision. The footage appeared to show Officer #1 assessing the driver of the Honda and assisting arriving EMS personnel.

Police Communications Recordings

The recordings captured communications related to the emergency response following Officer #1’s report of the collision.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between April 28, 2026, and May 22, 2026:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Civilian dash camera footage – CW #4
• ICC footage - Officer #1
• BWC footage - Officer #1
• Persons Report - the Complainant
• Entity List
• Photographs

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

In the morning of April 28, 2026, Officer #1 was operating a marked TPS cruiser northbound on Kipling Avenue. He was in the passing lane when he entered the intersection at Albion Road and struck a westbound Honda.

The Complainant was operating the Honda. He was in the passing lane of Albion Road when he entered the intersection against a red light and was struck by the cruiser.

The Complainant suffered serious injuries in the collision, the precise nature and extent of which remain unknown. He was intubated at hospital and spent time in the Intensive Care Unit.

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 28, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the driver of the cruiser – Officer #1 - 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 Officer #1 operated his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

Officer #1’s speeds as he approached and entered the intersection were above the speed limit by some 25 to 35 km/h. Perhaps, had he been driving at a slower rate of speed in keeping with the speed limit, he could have noticed the Honda and taken action to avoid a collision. That said, I am unable to reasonably conclude that Officer #1 constituted a danger on the roadway. There is no evidence of erratic driving by the officer, loss of control or any other conduct suggestive of dangerous, careless, unsafe or reckless operation of the vehicle. It is also the case that the Complainant, not Officer #1, was the proximate cause of the collision. The collision would not have happened had the Complainant come to a stop at the red light.

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

Date: August 21, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit