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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 23, 2026, at 7:48 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 23, 2026, at 12:06 a.m., an OPP officer – the Subject Official (SO) - was pursuing a stolen vehicle that was detected by the officer’s Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system. The SO followed the vehicle eastbound through the intersection of Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto. At the same time, the Complainant was travelling northbound on Jane Street through a green light when her vehicle was struck by the SO’s police vehicle. She was transported to the Etobicoke General Hospital (EGH) and diagnosed with a broken left-sided rib.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/23 at 7:54 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/23 at 9:32 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 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 between July 31, 2026, and August 7, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On July 23, 2026, SIU forensic services attended a collision scene in the area of Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street, Toronto. Jane Street was a north-south road with two lanes in each direction. The road widened at the intersection to allow for additional turn lanes. At the intersection, there was a raised island separating the north and south lanes. The speed limit was not posted in this area and was an assumed 50 km/h zone. The roadway surface was straight and level, with visible road markings. There were sidewalks on both sides of the street that met the curb. There were streetlights on both sides of the street. The area was mostly commercial property.

Sheppard Avenue West was an east-west road with two lanes in each direction. The road widened at the intersection to allow for additional turn lanes. At the intersection, there was a raised island separating the east and west lanes. The road was posted as a 50 km/h zone. It was straight and level, with visible road markings. There was a sidewalk on the north side of the street. There were streetlights on both sides of the road. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights in all directions. There were marked crosswalks controlled by pedestrian traffic lights. The southeast portion of the intersection was closed to vehicular traffic and the eastern pedestrian crosswalk across Sheppard Avenue West on Jane Street was closed to pedestrian traffic.

There were two vehicles involved in the collision. One was an unmarked OPP 2024 four-door, grey Dodge Durango. It had emergency lights recessed in the vehicle but did not have any roof-mounted lights. It also had an in-car camera (ICC) mounted near the windshield rearview mirror, pointed forward, and was equipped with a dash-mounted moving radar unit. No air bags had been deployed on the police vehicle, but it did have front end damage and had suffered a fluid leak. The seatbelt was retracted and was not in the locked position. It came to rest in the eastbound lanes of Sheppard Avenue West, facing the raised median island with the front left wheel on the east side crosswalk.

The other vehicle was a 2015 four-door Honda Civic. It had sustained damage on the driver’s side of the vehicle in the vicinity of the driver’s door. The driver’s side air bags had been deployed. A dash camera was installed on the interior front windshield.

There were tire marks, scrapes on the road surface, and debris west of the resting positions of the vehicles. It was apparent the area of impact was in the southeast quadrant of the intersection.

Expert Evidence

The following findings were reached in the SIU collision reconstructionist’s review of the incident.

Video Analysis – Honda Dash Camera and Event Data Recorder (EDR) Data

The video began with the Honda about 180 metres south of the intersection in the curb lane. Six seconds into the video, the Honda was located about 80 metres from the intersection. The eastbound police vehicle first became visible at this time as it emerged from behind the trees and foliage at the left side of the frame. The Honda began to enter the intersection (front end begins to cross the stop line) about one second before impact. Steering and braking were noted in the video to begin about 0.4 seconds before impact. The police vehicle was visible at the left side of the frame as the Honda neared and entered the intersection. Its emergency lights were activated the entire time. The EDR of the Honda recorded the speed of the Honda as about 58 km/h in the seconds leading to the vehicle entering the intersection. The EDR also recorded that the Complainant first touched the brake at one second before impact, with harder braking happening about 0.5 seconds before impact. In addition, steering started about 0.5 seconds before impact.

Video Analysis – Police Dodge Durango ICC

At 11:58:33 p.m., July 22, 2026, the police vehicle began to accelerate forward and change lanes from the eastbound curb lane to the eastbound passing lane. Its lights were activated at this time. The police vehicle reached the west side of the Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street intersection about six seconds later [11:58:39 p.m.], slowing down as northbound pedestrians crossed its path. The driver then “chirped” his siren and began to accelerate aggressively into the intersection. Impact occurred at 11:58:44 p.m. The northbound Honda, eventually struck by the police vehicle, entered the right side of the frame as the police vehicle first reached the west side of the intersection. The Honda stayed in the view of the camera the entire time up to impact.

Pre-Impact Events

Six seconds before impact, the Honda was located about 80 metres from the intersection (90 metres from impact) and travelling about 58 km/h. The police vehicle was approaching the west side of the intersection. The police vehicle began to emerge from behind the foliage at the southwest corner of the intersection at this time. Its lights were activated at the time and it would have been visible to a northbound driver. In addition, the Complainant’s Honda became visible to an eastbound driver.

Five seconds before impact, the Honda was located 77 metres from impact and still travelling 58 km/h. The police vehicle was just entering the intersection at this time and travelling 13 km/h.

Two seconds before impact, the Honda was located 30 metres from the intersection and travelling about 56 km/h. The police vehicle was located about 15 metres from impact and was just starting to accelerate heavily. It was travelling about 19 km/h at this time. One second before impact, the Honda was just beginning to enter the intersection (about 14 metres from impact) and was travelling 55 km/h. The Complainant lifted her foot from the accelerator to the brake around this time, but the Honda was not slowing yet. A small right steer was also started at this time. The police vehicle was located just under 10 metres from impact and still accelerating heavily. It was travelling 36 km/h at this time.

At impact, the Honda was travelling about 47 km/h. The Complainant had applied hard braking for about 0.5 seconds before impact and had just started to steer hard to the right when the collision occurred. The police officer first applied the brakes 0.7 seconds before impact, with heavy braking/ABS starting about 0.5 seconds before impact. The police vehicle was travelling about 27 km/h at impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On July 22, 2026, starting at about 11:59 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle and went to the Complainant, asking if she was okay. She did not respond. The SO said, “Give me a moment,” and went back to his police vehicle. He reported on the radio that an incident had occurred at Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West, and noted the collision was not related to “the stolen vehicle”. He added that the Toronto Police Service (TPS) had arrived. The SO returned to the Honda and again asked if the Complainant was okay. The Complainant appeared to answer in a faint tone and the SO told her he would get her an ambulance. Officer #1 approached and asked if the SO was okay. He told her he was good but was worried about the Complainant. Officer #1 went over to the Honda driver’s door and said, “Hello.” The SO went to the front passenger side and opened the door. The Complainant was seen on her seat, and her body was slightly slanted towards the front passenger seat. The SO told her Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were coming. Officer #1 told the SO she would take care of the Complainant and asked him to go and take care of himself.

On July 23, 2026, starting at about 12:03 a.m., the SO went over to the Honda and asked Officer #1 how the Complainant was doing. Officer #1 told him that the Complainant was okay but that she had pain on her side. The Complainant was now seen seated on the front passenger seat.

ICC Footage - The SO’s Police Vehicle

On July 22, 2026, at 11:52:55 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was seen travelling eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West. A black vehicle travelling eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West was a distance ahead.

Between about 11:53:02 p.m. and 11:58:32 p.m., the SO dealt with a traffic offence in the area of Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street. He was parked behind a black vehicle.

At 11:58:33 p.m., the SO pulled out from behind the black vehicle and proceeded eastbound in the passing lane on Sheppard Avenue West. He drove towards the intersection, which had pedestrians crossing from the southside of the road to the northside. The east and westbound traffic lights on Sheppard Avenue West were red. The north and southbound traffic lights on Jane Street were green. The SO reached the pedestrian crossing, activated his emergency lights, and sounded the police vehicle’s siren four times. The SO’s police vehicle edged slightly to the right and accelerated into the intersection with the emergency lights still activated, but with no sirens on.

At 11:58:44 p.m., a Honda travelling northbound on Jane Street appeared at the intersection. As it entered the intersection, the SO’s police vehicle struck the Honda on the driver’s side in a T-bone collision. The Honda spun around and came to rest facing west. The SO’s police vehicle came to rest almost diagonally to the Honda, facing east. The SO pulled his police vehicle forward and stopped almost parallel to the Honda.

At 12:00:49 a.m., July 23, 2026, the SO questioned himself on how the incident could have happened.

Video Footage - Esso Gas Station at Southeast Corner of Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West

Eight minutes and 17 seconds into the recording, a car travelling eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West appeared on the curb lane and stopped near the intersection. A police vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] with its emergency lights activated pulled up and stopped behind the car. The north and southbound traffic lights on Jane Street were red but soon turned green and the traffic began to move. The east and westbound traffic on Sheppard Avenue West came to a stop.

At about 13 minutes and ten seconds into the recording, the north and southbound traffic lights on Jane Street were still green and the traffic in the lanes was still moving. The east and westbound traffic lights were red. The OPP vehicle pulled away from behind the car into the middle lane on Sheppard Avenue West and began to approach the intersection with its emergency lights still activated.

At about 13 minutes and 17 seconds into the recording, the OPP vehicle proceeded into the intersection. A Honda [now known be driven by the Complainant] travelling northbound on Jane Street arrived at the intersection and was struck by the OPP vehicle in a T-bone collision.

TPS Communications Recordings

On July 22, 2026, at 11:58 p.m., a TPS officer reported to the dispatcher that an OPP officer notified them of a stolen black Ford F150 truck travelling eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West.

At 11:59 p.m., a TPS officer contacted the dispatcher and reported a collision involving the OPP at Sheppard Avenue West and Jane Street. He requested an ambulance for a female [the Complainant] who was unconscious inside her car.

On July 23, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., EMS were requested for the Complainant, who was conscious and breathing.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between July 29, 2026, and August 19, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Driver Training Records – the SO
• ALPR Report – Stolen Vehicle Alert
• ALPR still images of licence plate
• Remotely Piloted Aircraft System images
• Collision scene images
• Notes – WO #2
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Police communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 23, 2026, and July 28, 2026:

• Video footage from Esso Gas Station
• Dash camera footage from the Complainant
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report, Collision Report and Involved Officers List from TPS
• BWC footage - WO #1 (TPS)
• Notes – WO #1 (TPS)
• Video footage from Toronto Transit Commission
• Ambulance Call Report and Incident Report from Toronto EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from EGH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant 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 July 22, 2026, the Complainant was driving her Honda vehicle northbound on Jane Street. Her speeds were reasonable and she obeyed all rules of the road as she neared the Sheppard Avenue West intersection. The weather was clear, the roadway was dry and there was a moderate amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the intersection. She entered the intersection on a green light and was struck by an eastbound police vehicle.

The SO was operating the police vehicle – a Dodge Durango. Minutes earlier, the officer had been stopped just west of the intersection, in the eastbound curb lane, behind another vehicle he had pulled over for a traffic offence. It was in the course of that traffic stop that the ALPR on the SO’s cruiser had detected a possibly stolen westbound vehicle as it past their location. The officer alerted Toronto police, wrapped up his traffic stop and re-entered his cruiser to go after the vehicle in question. He approached the intersection with his emergency lights on, slowed but did not stop at the red light he was facing, and accelerated eastward into the intersection. He had cleared the southbound lanes of Jane Street when he struck the driver’s side of the Honda in the northbound curb lane.

The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured rib. The officer was not seriously injured.

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 an OPP cruiser on July 22, 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.

I accept that the SO is largely at fault for the collision. He ought to have stopped completely before entering the intersection, and then only continued through the intersection when it was safe to do so. That said, he did have his emergency lights on and sounded his siren several times, giving notice to traffic in the area of his presence. He had also slowed to minimal speed waiting for southbound and northbound traffic to clear before picking up his speed. Regrettably, it appears he simply failed to see the Complainant travelling north and was unable to avoid a collision as she travelled past his path. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO’s indiscretions are fairly characterized as a momentary lapse of attention that did not amount to 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.

Before closing the file, I note for the record possible contraventions by the SO of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct in relation to the collision. I will refer this matter to the OPP Commissioner’s Office for their review. 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: October 22, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit