Another TPS Cover-Up: Cyclist Doored by Cop, Blamed by Investigator

In July of 2025, The Biking Lawyer LLP was contacted by a person who was doored while cycling in downtown Toronto.

Sadly, this is an all too frequent type of call we receive at our office. People on bikes in cities across Ontario know the hazards of doorings all too well. We have successfully settled countless dooring claims for injured people.

A dooring is when a motorist (or passenger) opens their door into a live lane of traffic without first ascertaining if it safe to do so. This is illegal pursuant to section 165 of the Highway Traffic Act:

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

[…]

Penalty

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $300 and not more than $1,000. 2015, c. 14, s. 49.

Dooring claims are essentially a “no liability claim.” Meaning, it is clear in these cases who is at fault and there is rarely any dispute. However, in our client’s case there was a unique circumstance: the motorist who did the dooring was a cop from Toronto Police Services (TPS)!

On a bright sunny day in July, the officer opened his door into our client’s path on King Street West as they were traveling home. Unfortunately, our client hit the ground and seriously injured their hand.

After being doored, by a cop, and then questioned by multiple officers, it’s natural that our client may have been in shock. However, TPS officers on scene did not insist that an ambulance attend and sent our client home. This was our first indication that this incident was being treated “differently.”

[Later Body Worn Camera footage received by our office showed our client asking for a bottle of water to clean their hand wound and drink, the officers laughed and sent the injured cyclist to Starbucks for a “glass of water.”]

Considering their ongoing pain, our client went to the hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a hand fracture. Doctors spent several days considering whether surgery was necessary given the nature of the break. Thankfully, the doctors ruled that out.

However, our client still experiences daily pain, not to mention the psychological impacts of being doored.

Once retained, I reached out to the investigating officer, Constable Samson Andrade, and advised that my client had indeed suffered a fractured wrist and asked what, if any, charges had been laid against the officer who doored our client. We never received a response regarding the charges.*

Hearing nothing from TPS, we initiated proceedings on our client’s behalf, treating this as if it were a standard dooring claim. We gathered medical records, applied for Accident Benefits, filed the Statement of Claim, and made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to TPS.

Last week, after finally receiving and reviewing the results of that FOI, I was shocked and angered by what I read. Appallingly, the investigating officer determined that our client to be at fault for the collision, noting that our client’s “speed was too fast for the condition”.

The speed limit on King Street West is 40KM/H. It was broad daylight.

Our client travelled with the flow of traffic at an estimated (but likely inflated) speed of 20KM/H. It remains entirely unclear how, in any world, a person on a bike going 20KM/H on King Street would be going above the speed limit (in any case our client didn’t have a speedometer and they didn't point a radar gun at the cyclist while moving, so it’s all circumstantial).

The investigating officer did a very brief interview with the responsible officer who, when questioned, stated, “I checked my side mirror and saw it was clear so I proceeded to open the door fully, at this time a cyclist clipped the driver door…”

Officer Statement

As any driver knows, when you are about to open your door into a live lane of traffic, you check your rearview mirror, your sideview mirrors, and YOUR BLINDSPOT. There is no indication that the officer was asked if he checked his blind spot (deficient investigation) or if he did, what he saw. Certainly, if he had checked his blind spot, he would have seen our client and not opened his door. This is basic driving safety 101 and most (should be all) drivers who fail to look before opening their doors and hit a cyclist are subject to a charge and fine. Astonishingly (though not surprisingly), not so in this case.

Not only did the investigating officer not charge the driver, he took active steps to blame the cyclist.

Even reading the officer’s notes, it’s clear there is an anti-cyclist bias; for example, he wrote, “not wearing a helmet.”

Firstly, it is not a legal requirement for adults to wear bike helmets; secondly, a bike helmet does not, for one second, influence the possibility of you being doored. It could save your noggin’ but it ain’t gonna prevent the dooring from happening. Helmets aren’t wizard hats.

As I sat with all that I read, I began to realize the investigating officer’s name was familiar. Constable Samson Andrade. I had heard that name before.

Just over a year earlier, another one of our clients was hit in a bike lane while travelling along College Street by a motorist turning left. Officer Andrade investigated that case as well, and he did properly charge the driver in that case. However, Officer Andrade made sure to drive to St. Michael’s Hospital and wait for our client to get out of the ICU to hand them a ticket for “cycling without a helmet.” No such offence exists. Upon an email from me, the head of TPS Traffic Services quickly rescinded the ticket. We subsequently filed a police complaint citing anti-cyclist bias.

What could have been characterized as a one-off mistake by Constable Andrade seems to be a pattern of behaviour indicative of anti-cyclist bias.

Here we now have two clear cases. Once again, we will be filing a complaint, wherein we will likely demand that TPS review all of Constable Andrade’s traffic collision investigations that involve cyclists to determine if other cases were similarly mishandled. We have dealt with the fallout of Constable Andrade’s faulty investigations twice now, and we suspect they are indicative of a larger systemic issue.

This cover-up has real and serious implications for our client. TPS has prejudiced our client’s civil claim and lawsuit against the TPS. How convenient.

They revictimized the victim.

It also speaks to a broader anti-cyclist bias we have for years raised alarm bells about not just with TPS but with police services across Ontario.

We believe anti-cyclist bias and the subsequent TPS actions are linked to wider issues of corruption, violence, poor policing, and other systemic issues recent shocking investigations have brought to light (on top of years of organizing by Black, Indigenous, racialized, Queer and Trans, and disabled communities).

We ask that Mayor Chow and City Council rein in the bloated and unreasonably expensive police budget and demand accountability. We need bike lanes. We need social housing.

We need affordable living. We don’t need corrupt cops blaming our clients and creating a climate of fear for cyclists and other community members.

If you’ve been involved in a negative interaction with police, reach out: info@thebikinglawyer.ca

Read our Guide to Doorings and our Guide to Cyclist Interactions with Police.

Stay safe out there friends.

*Due to the wrist fracture subsequently identified the SIU invoked their mandate. However, the SIU only determines criminal culpability and while negligent we do not think there is a reasonable possibility that the SIU will find criminal negligence on the part of the officer involved. No criminal charges were ultimately recommended by the SIU.