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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 14, 2026, at 12:11 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 13, 2026, loss prevention agents followed the Complainant through HomeSense, 1840 The Queensway, Toronto, as he concealed items on his person. The Complainant fled the store making no attempt to pay for the concealed merchandise. TPS officers assigned to the Retail Crime Unit were notified by loss prevention and responded. They followed the Complainant through the parking lot and maneuvered a police vehicle to block his path. The cruiser and the Complainant made contact, and he fell to the ground and was arrested. The Complainant was transported to Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and diagnosed with two right foot toe fractures.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/14 at 7:38 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/14 at 12:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 14, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 21, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on May 25, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the parking lot in front of the HomeSense, 1840 The Queensway, Toronto.

1840 The Queensway was a commercial shopping mall. The HomeSense exit faced east and led from a walkway to the parking lot.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic service examined the police cruiser involved in the incident under investigation – a marked 2021 Ford Explorer. There were no signs of impact to any of the exterior body panels.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from 1840 The Queensway

The Complainant was captured carrying a laundry basket and walking on the pedestrian sidewalk away from HomeSense. As he neared the parking lot, a man and woman approached [loss prevention investigators - the CW and a colleague] and took hold of him. The Complainant dropped the basket and a backpack he was wearing and fled into the parking lot. He ran between a row of parked vehicles as a TPS vehicle [the SO and WO] entered the parking lot. The police vehicle, its emergency lights activated, approached from the Complainant’s left, and he turned to his right and continued running. The front passenger door partially opened as the cruiser followed him. The police vehicle pulled up beside the Complainant and turned right. The front passenger door opened and the Complainant fell to the ground. The SO and WO took custody of him.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO and WO

On May 13, 2026, starting at about 6:47 p.m., the SO drove into the parking lot of HomeSense from the northeast. The Complainant was running southwest through the parking lot and was partially visible through the windshield and passenger door window. The WO partially opened the front passenger side door while the vehicle was in motion. The SO turned the steering wheel to the right when the Complainant disappeared from view. The police vehicle stopped and the Complainant was on the ground and missing his right shoe. The police officers took him into custody.

TPS Communications Recordings

At 6:49 p.m., May 13, 2026, the SO and WO advised the TPS communications centre that they were involved in an arrest-related occurrence near HomeSense, 1840 The Queensway. Emergency Medical Services were requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 15, 2026, and June 1, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• BWC footage
• Video footage from 1840 The Queensway
• Scene photographs
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes - the WO
• TPS policies – Arrest; Incident Response (Use of Force/De-Escalation)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from EGH on May 29, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other eyewitnesses (police and non-police), 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 May 13, 2026, the SO was on patrol operating a marked cruiser. His partner and front seat passenger was the WO. The officers, part of the TPS Retail Crime Unit, were in the area of The Queensway when they received a call from loss prevention officers at a HomeSense. Two men were reportedly concealing merchandise in a laundry basket.

The Complainant was one of the men reported by HomeSense security. He exited the store, dropped a basket he was carrying, and fled from two loss prevention officers attempting to detain him. The Complainant ran in a southwest direction across the parking lot and soon became aware of a marked cruiser tracking him. The cruiser pulled up alongside the Complainant and the front passenger side of the vehicle collided with the Complainant, who tumbled to the ground upon impact.

The officers exited their cruiser, handcuffed the Complainant to the back, and contacted paramedics.

The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed with fractures of the right foot.

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.

Section 334, Criminal Code - Punishment for Theft

334 Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft

(a) if the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen is more than $5,000, is guilty of

(i) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or

(ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or

(b) if the value of what is stolen is not more than $5,000, is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on May 13, 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 Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

One of the offences 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.

With information that the Complainant had committed retail theft, I am satisfied that the SO and WO were within their rights in attempting to take him into custody for an offence under section 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

As for the manner in which the SO operated the cruiser, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The officer’s speeds were moderate (in the range of 30 to 40 km/h) and there is no evidence of any third-party traffic being directly endangered by the cruiser. The only real issue for scrutiny is whether the SO intentionally drove into the Complainant or whether he was attempting to maneuver in front of the Complainant to cut him off. If the former, the tactic was arguably an instance of dangerous driving in light of the Complainant’s relative vulnerability and the significant risk of serious injury. While the latter is not without some risk of its own, it is far less dangerous and something less than a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. As was his legal right, the SO did not avail himself of an interview with the SIU to provide his account of what he was doing. That said, there is evidence from the video footage that the collision might well have been the product of the SO and the Complainant simultaneously swerving into each other’s paths. Given the ambiguity of the evidence on this important point, the evidence of an intentional impact is insufficiently cogent to warrant being put to the test by a court.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[3] The file is closed.

Date: August 28, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit