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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 4, 2025, at 3:28 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 31, 2025, at 3:59 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) conducted a traffic stop at King Steet West and Bathurst Street, Toronto. The officer opened his police vehicle door and a cyclist, the Complainant, collided with it. TPS Traffic Services, Toronto Emergency Medical Services and Toronto Fire Department were called to the scene. The Complainant declined medical attention and cycled away. The incident was captured by the cruiser’s in-car camera system (ICCS). On August 4, 2025, at 2:15 p.m., the Complainant e-mailed TPS Traffic Services and reported that he had sought medical attention after the collision. He had been diagnosed with a fracture in his hand and a cast was applied.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/08 at 1:56 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/08 at 4:13 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 12, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 28, 2025

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 19, 2025, and August 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the westbound lanes of King Street West, between Portland Street and Bathurst Street, Toronto. The closest approximate address was 636 King Street West.

King Street West had one westbound lane and one eastbound lane, with an additional lane on each side of the street for parked vehicles. There were streetcar tracks that travelled through the centre of King Street West. The posted speed limit on King Street West was 40 km/h. The road surface was paved asphalt.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

ICCS Footage – Cruisers of the SO and WO #1

On July 31, 2025, starting at about 3:53:21 p.m., a police vehicle – the SO – was captured travelling towards King Street West. The vehicle turned right to go eastbound on King Street West before turning around to go westbound. As it turned around, a vehicle was captured passing through Portland Street.

Starting at about 3:53:59 p.m., the sound of a siren was heard, lasting about one second. The vehicle in front of the SO activated its right turn signal and moved to the side of the road.

Starting at about 3:54:08 p.m., the vehicle and the SO’s police vehicle stopped in front of 636 King Street West.

Starting at about 3:54:37 p.m., the SO opened his vehicle door. A man - the Complainant - fell over next to the police vehicle and landed on the road in the adjacent westbound lane. No bicycle was seen. The Complainant was not wearing a helmet.

Starting at about 3:54:42 p.m., the Complainant stood up. The SO approached the Complainant and guided him towards the sidewalk. The SO approached the stopped vehicle and spoke inaudibly to the driver for two seconds, after which he returned to the Complainant.

Starting at about 3:55:10 p.m., the SO moved the Complainant’s bicycle off the road.

Starting at about 3:55:43 p.m., the Complainant held his right hand up to the SO and wiggled his fingers.

Starting at about 3:55:59 p.m., the stopped vehicle drove away. The SO sat in his police vehicle for several minutes while the Complainant sat on the sidewalk.

Starting at about 4:13:10 p.m., a police vehicle - WO #1 - arrived and parked behind the SO.

Starting at about 4:18:30 p.m., WO #1 spoke with the Complainant and appeared to inspect his right hand.

Starting at about 4:21:25 p.m., another police vehicle - WO #2 - arrived.

Starting at about 4:26:01 p.m., fire services arrived. A firefighter assessed the Complainant’s right hand.

Starting at about 4:35:56 p.m., the Complainant rode away on his bicycle.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO, WO #1 and WO #2

On July 31, 2025, starting at about 3:54:09 p.m., the SO was captured sitting in the driver seat of his TPS vehicle, typing on his computer. The driver side window was rolled halfway down.

Starting at about 3:54:35 p.m., the SO opened his door fully. A man [the Complainant] struck the opened door and fell to the ground in the westbound lane adjacent to and ahead of the police vehicle. The SO exited his vehicle. There was a vehicle stopped on the side of the road in front of the SO’s vehicle. The Complainant stood up. His shoe had fallen off. There was a bicycle on the ground beside the driver side front tire of the cruiser. The SO immediately apologized to the Complainant and asked if he needed an ambulance. The Complainant shook his head and said, “No.” The SO directed him to sit on the sidewalk. The emergency warning lights on the front of the SO’s vehicle were on. The SO asked if the Complainant was injured. The Complainant showed the SO his right hand, which was bleeding. The SO moved the Complainant’s bicycle out of the roadway. The SO used his radio and requested that a sergeant attend the scene.

Starting at about 3:56:12 p.m., the SO spoke to an unidentified sergeant on his cell phone. He told the sergeant that he was on a traffic stop when a cyclist struck his door as he exited his police vehicle. He told the sergeant the cyclist fell off his bicycle and had a scratch to his right hand, but he had declined medical attention. The SO asked if a traffic sergeant should attend the scene.

Starting at about 4:18:17 p.m., WO #1 took a statement from the Complainant. The Complainant said he was travelling [westbound] on the right side of the road at approximately 20 km/h. He said the SO suddenly opened his door, and it was too late when the Complainant saw the door, so he slammed into it and fell. The Complainant said his finger might be broken. WO #1 offered to call an ambulance. The Complainant agreed to have an ambulance called as long as it would not take long.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 13, 2025, and August 27, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) Report
• Notes – WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• ICCS footage
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Montreal General Hospital on August 14, 2025.

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

In the afternoon of July 31, 2025, the SO, on patrol in a marked cruiser and travelling west on King Street West towards Bathurst Street, pulled over a vehicle in the curb lane of the roadway. His emergency lights were on. As the officer opened his door to exit the cruiser, a westward cyclist collided with it.

The Complainant was the cyclist. He had no opportunity to avoid the collision once the cruiser’s door opened in front of him. The Complainant tumbled to the roadway, breaking a bone in his right hand in the process. Firefighters responded to the scene to assess the Complainant.

The Complainant eventually left the scene without seeking medical attention. The following day, while in Montreal, he attended hospital and was diagnosed with his injury.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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

(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 159 (1), Highway Traffic Act – Stop on Approach of Vehicle with Flashing Lights or Bell or Siren Sounding

159 (1) The driver of a vehicle, upon the approach of a vehicle mentioned in clause (a) of the definition of “emergency vehicle”, with its bell or siren sounding or with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light, or upon the approach of a public utility emergency vehicle with its bell or siren sounding or its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light, shall immediately bring such vehicle to a standstill,

(a) as near as is practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway and parallel therewith and clear of any intersection; or

(b) when on a roadway having more than two lanes for traffic and designated for the use of one-way traffic, as near as is practicable to the nearest curb or edge of the roadway and parallel therewith and clear of any intersection.

Section 159 (1), Highway Traffic Act – Opening of Doors of Motor Vehicles

165 (1) No person shall,

(a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other person or vehicle; or

(b) leave a door of a motor vehicle on a highway open on the side of the vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than is necessary to load or unload passengers.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a collision with a TPS cruiser on July 31, 2025. 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 injury.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties at the time of the collision, having just pulled over a vehicle, presumably, for investigation of a Highway Traffic Act infraction.

I am satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in relation to the unfortunate collision between his cruiser’s door and the Complainant. There is no suggestion that the officer stopped his cruiser in a dangerous location. And the officer did have his emergency lights activated, giving notice to the travelling public around him to exercise additional caution around his vehicle. Indeed, pursuant to section 159.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, traffic approaching a cruiser with its emergency lights on are obliged to slow down and proceed with caution, moving into another lane if the maneuver can be made safely. It does not appear the Complainant complied with that obligation. On the other hand, the SO was also required, by virtue of section 165(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, to refrain from opening his door without first ensuring that it was safe to do so. The officer does not appear to have exercised sufficient precautions in this regard. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the SO’s indiscretion is fairly characterized in the circumstances as a singular, momentary lapse of attention that does not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, much less a marked and substantial one.

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

Date: December 2, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit