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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 30, 2026, at 7:28 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, the Complainant, driving a vehicle southbound on William R. Allen Road (W.R. Allen Road), made a left turn on a green traffic signal to proceed eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West. A TPS officer driving a police vehicle northbound on W.R. Allen Road entered the intersection and collided with the Complainant’s vehicle. the Complainant was transported to North York General Hospital (NYGH) and diagnosed with a fractured right ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/30 at 7:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/30 at 9:28 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

77-year-old female; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 4, 2026.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 5, 2026.

.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 19, 2026

Witness Official

WO Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

Service Employee Witnesses

SEW #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed on June 23, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of William R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

William R. Allen Road was a multi-lane paved highway that travelled north and south with a speed limit of 60 km/h. It intersected with the traffic light-controlled intersection of Sheppard Avenue West, with left turn lanes for both north and southbound traffic.

Forensic Evidence

TPS Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – The SO’s Vehicle

Five seconds before the collision, the accelerator pedal was depressed 88 percent of full, and the steering wheel was straight. The rate of speed was 62 km/h.

Between four and one-half seconds before the collision and one and one-half seconds before the collision, the accelerator was applied at a decreasing percentage from 73 to 37 percent. The rate of speed gradually increased from 71 to 87 km/h.

About one second before the collision, the accelerator pedal was released, the brake was applied, and the rate of speed was 89 km/h.

One-half second before the collision, the anti-lock brake system activated consistent with heavy braking, and the steering wheel was turned to the right. At impact, the rate of speed was 71 km/h.

Mechanical Inspection Reports

The SO’s vehicle

On June 5, 2026, the vehicle was examined by an Automotive Service Technician for TPS and the results provided to SIU. The author of the report concluded there was no deficiency found.

The Complainant’s vehicle

On June 5, 2026, the vehicle was examined by an Automotive Service Technician for TPS and the results provided to SIU. The author of the report concluded there was no deficiency found.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - City of Toronto[3]

A white SUV was captured in the W.R. Allen Road southbound left turn lane. It entered the intersection from the left turn lane and stopped as oncoming traffic passed. The traffic light was green. The Complainant’s vehicle was stopped behind the SUV in the left turn lane. A TPS parking enforcement vehicle was stopped behind the Complainant. The white SUV moved a short distance forward and the Complainant followed. The white SUV began to turn left across the northbound lanes towards eastbound Sheppard Avenue West. The Complainant moved forward along the path just vacated by the SUV. The Complainant stopped in the intersection and turned slightly to the east. The camera suddenly swung to the south and the subsequent crash was not captured.

Dashcam Footage – the Complainant’s vehicle

The Complainant was in the southbound left turn lane of W.R. Allen Road behind a white SUV. The traffic light was green. The SUV slowly entered the intersection and the Complainant followed. The SUV turned left across the northbound lanes of W.R. Allen Road towards the eastbound lanes of Sheppard Avenue West. The Complainant moved forward and turned slightly to the east before appearing to stop. The Complainant then appeared to move a short distance further into a left turn. A northbound white SUV entered the intersection and stopped in front of the Complainant. Audio in the cabin of the vehicle captured a woman saying, “Thank you. Thank you.” The Complainant commenced a left turn across the northbound lanes as the SO’s vehicle entered the intersection northbound. The vehicles collided.

TPS Communications Recordings

On May 30, 2026, starting at 4:18 p.m., SEW #1 advised the TPS communications centre by radio that he was involved in a motor vehicle collision at W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue West. SEW #1 had been in the intersection waiting to turn left behind another vehicle [the Complainant] when a northbound vehicle [the SO] struck the Complainant as she turned left. The Complainant’s vehicle had spun and struck SEW #1 vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 30, 2026, and June 19, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Event Details Report
• Police communications recordings
• CDR Report - involved police vehicle
• Video footage - City of Toronto
• Dashcam video footage – the Complainant’s vehicle
• Scene photographs
• Mechanical Inspection Reports
• Notes – SO, WO, SEW #1 and SEW #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from NYGH on June 8, 2026.

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

In the afternoon of May 30, 2026, the Complainant was driving a vehicle southbound on Allen Road, intending to turn left onto eastbound Sheppard Avenue West in the City of Toronto. She maneuvered into the left turn lane and proceeded into the intersection on a green light as the vehicle ahead of her completed its left turn. The Complainant entered into her turn prematurely, causing a northbound vehicle in the passing lane of Allen Road to come to a stop a short distance in front of her vehicle. Continuing her turn, the Complainant was struck by a vehicle travelling north in the lane adjacent to the passing lane.

The SO was operating the northbound vehicle – an unmarked TPS cruiser. He entered the intersection at speeds in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit and collided with the Complainant’s vehicle.

The Complainant suffered a fracture to her left ankle in the collision.

Section 320.13(2), Criminal Code of Canada – 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 involving a TPS cruiser on May 30, 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 evidence indicates that sightline obstructions played a role in the collision for both parties. That said, the SO had the right of way at the intersection and the Complainant ought not have entered into her left turn before ensuring she could do so safely. The officer, who was speeding, might have left himself more time to react to the Complainant’s vehicle had he been travelling slower. Be that as it may, the SO’s singular indiscretion in the circumstances of this case is not enough to render his driving 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: September 11, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit