SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OVD-118


This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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 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.

Mandate Engaged

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 death of a 62-year-old woman (“Complainant #1”) and the serious injury of a 38-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On April 19, 2023, at 3:38 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At approximately 2:20 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was on patrol when she noticed a pick-up drive by her. The SO began to follow the pick-up truck in the vicinity of Chesterfield Avenue and Thompson Road. The pick-up truck driver knew they were being followed and took off at a high rate of speed. Near Adelaide Street South and Thompson Road, there was a collision between the pick-up truck and another vehicle. The female driver [2] of the pick-up truck ran away from the collision on foot and was apprehended. The female driver of the uninvolved vehicle was killed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/19/2023 at 5:14 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/19/2021 at 6:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 62-year-old female; deceased
Complainant #2 38-year-old man; declined to be interviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 19, 2023 and April 21, 2023.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Investigative Delay

During the month of May, the case remained stagnant due to the lead investigator’s unavailability.


The Scene

The events in question transpired over a stretch of roadway in London starting in the area of the intersection of King Edward Avenue and Veronica Avenue, travelling south on King Edward Avenue, then west on Russell Avenue, north on Marlborough Avenue, west on Veronica Avenue, south on Gladstone Avenue and west on Thompson Road until the site of a collision at the intersection of Thompson Road and Adelaide Street South.
The area surrounding the route was primarily residential with schools on Thompson Road, close to Adelaide Street.

Physical Evidence

The following were the vehicles involved in the incident.

Vehicle 1 - 2022 GMC 3500HD Pick-up

The vehicle was found at the southwest corner of the intersection in contact with a fence and a pick-up truck parked in the driveway at 187 Thompson Road.

Vehicle 2 - Ford F150 Pick-up

The vehicle was found west of the intersection and south of the roadway.

Vehicle 3 - 2016 Dodge Charger

The vehicle was a marked police vehicle displaying graphics adopted by the LPS. It was equipped with emergency lighting and siren that were found to be functional. The exterior surfaces of the vehicle were examined, and found to be unremarkable. There was no collision damage suggesting contact with another vehicle.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

The SO commenced her travels from Veronica Avenue and King Edward Avenue, travelling south on King Edward Avenue at 4.8 km/h. The SO turned right on Russell Avenue. The intersection was not controlled by a stop sign.

The SO continued west on Russell Avenue at 9.8 km/h, then turned right on Marlborough Avenue. The intersection was controlled by a stop sign. The SO travelled through the intersection at 6.5 km/h.

The SO continued north on Marlborough Avenue at 15.7 km/h, then turned left on Veronica Avenue through a yield sign. She continued west on Veronica Avenue, then turned left on Gladstone Avenue. The intersection was controlled by a stop sign. The SO travelled through the intersection at 9.3 km/h.

The SO continued south on Gladstone Avenue, reaching a speed of 12.6 km/h, then turned right on Thompson Road. The intersection was controlled by a stop sign. The SO travelled through the intersection at roughly 8.9 km/h.

After turning onto Thompson Road, the SO came to a stop for 20 seconds. The SO stopped approximately 618 metres away from the collision scene prior to it happening.

During the SO’s following of the GMC truck, the SO reached a top speed of 16.4 km/h and maintained an average speed of 8.7 km/h. The posted speed limit for Thompson Road was 40 km/h.

The SO travelled through three intersections controlled by stop signs. The investigator thoroughly reviewed the speeds when travelling through the residential area fixed with the three stop signs and one yield sign. The investigator noted the average speed through the stop sign controlled intersections was 8.2 km/h, suggesting that the SO might have rolled through the stop signs.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Police Radio Communications

On April 19, 2023, starting at about 2:21:26 a.m., the SO advised dispatch that a white GMC truck had fled from her, last observed going westbound on Thompson Road. The dispatcher broadcast, “All cars, the SO just had a white GMC truck take off from them, last seen westbound on Thompson from Adelaide.”

The SO then broadcast across the radio, “Yeah, it’s been in an accident here.” The SO advised she had a female [now known to be CW #3] in custody. A male police officer announced, “We need emergency medical services Code 1 here, there’s a male [now known to be Complainant #1] trapped in this vehicle.”

Police officers subsequently paired-up to search for Complainant #2 and CW #2.

Video Footage - 151 Thompson Road

The camera was located on the northeast corner of the building and overlooked east across a parking lot towards the intersection of Adelaide Street South and Thompson Road.

Starting at about 2:20:52 a.m., April 19, 2023, a pick-up truck [operated by Complainant #1] travelled south on Adelaide Street South. The traffic lights facing westbound traffic on Thompson Road were red. A vehicle [known to have been driven by Complainant #2] travelled westbound on Thompson Road and did not stop at the intersection with Adelaide Street South. It collided with the southbound vehicle. There were no other vehicles in the area.

Starting at about 2:21:08 a.m., a vehicle [now known to be operated by the SO] approached the intersection westbound on Thompson Road and came to a stop.

Video Footage - 267 Thompson Road

On April 19, 2023, starting at about 2:20:41 a.m., a white pick-up truck towing a large box trailer [known to have been operated by Complainant #2] was captured travelling westbound on Thompson Road at a high rate of speed. The headlights on the truck and trailer were on. [4]

Starting at about 2:21:21 a.m., a marked police vehicle [operated by the SO] travelled westbound on Thompson Road. The speed of the vehicle appeared to be at or close to the posted speed limit. There were no emergency lights activated on the police vehicle.

Video Footage - 65 Marlborough Avenue

The camera faced south towards Russell Avenue.

On April 19, 2023, starting at about 2:19:50 a.m., a white vehicle turned north on Marlborough Avenue from Russell Avenue and proceeded north at a moderately high rate of speed towards Veronica Avenue. The vehicle was believed to be operated by the SO.

Video Footage - 69 Marlborough Avenue

On April 19, 2023, starting at about 2:20:51 a.m. a marked LPS Dodge Charger travelled north on Marlborough Avenue towards Veronica Avenue. There were no emergency lights or siren turned on. The vehicle had its normal headlights functioning.

Video Footage - 72 Marlborough Avenue

On April 19, 2023, starting at about 2:17:58 a.m., a pick-up truck towing a trailer was observed east on Russell Avenue at Marlborough Avenue towards King Edward Avenue.

Starting at about 2:19:53 a.m., a white marked Dodge Charger [operated by the SO] turned north on Marlborough Avenue from Russell Avenue and passed by the front of the residence.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between April 24, 2023 and April 27, 2023:
  • Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
  • Communications recordings;
  • GPS data – The SO’s cruiser;
  • Scene and evidence photographs;
  • General Occurrence Reports;
  • Notes and Will-say - SO;
  • Video footage - 151 Thompson Road;
  • Video footage - 267 Thompson Road;
  • Video footage - 240 Thompson Road; and
  • Video footage - Shell.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources on between April 19, 2023 and April 24, 2023:
  • Video footage - 65 Marlborough Avenue;
  • Video footage - 69 Marlborough Avenue;
  • Video footage - 72 Marlborough Avenue; and
  • Video footage – 269 Thompson Road.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was her legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

In the early morning hours of April 19, 2023, the SO was patrolling the area around King Edward Avenue and Veronica Avenue when a white pick-up truck caught her attention. Suspicious with the vehicle’s seemingly slow speed, the officer decided to follow it to determine if its occupants resided in the neighbourhood. The SO travelled behind the pick-up truck on side streets at slow speeds until Thompson Road, where the pick-up truck turned to travel west from Gladstone Avenue. Thereafter, watching as the pick-up truck accelerated from her out of view, the SO pulled over, stopped, and reported what had occurred.

Complainant #2 was the operator of the pick-up truck. Aware that he was being followed by a police cruiser, Complainant #2 fled westbound from the officer on Thompson Road, disregarding several stop signs and entering the roadway’s intersection with Adelaide Street South on a red light.

At the same time, Complainant #1 was operating a pick-up truck south on Adelaide Street South. She entered the intersection on a green light and was struck by the vehicle Complainant #2 was operating. The time was 2:20 a.m. Complainant #1 died at the scene.

The SO eventually came to the site of the collision after resuming her travel and reported what had happened. She arrested an occupant of the fleeing pick-up truck – CW #3.

Complainant #2 fled from the wreckage. He was later captured and taken into custody.

Relevant Legislation

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous operation causing bodily harm or death

(3) 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 the death of another person.

Analysis and Director's Decision

Complainant #1 passed away on April 19, 2023, from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision in London. As her vehicle was struck by another vehicle fleeing from a LPS officer, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The LPS officer – the SO – was identified as 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 and Complainant #1’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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 her cruiser, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO was engaged in the lawful execution of her duty at the time of the incident. She decided to follow a hunch about a vehicle that seemed to be operating suspiciously, and followed it to ascertain whether it had any legitimate business in the area. As it turned out, her instinct proved right. The pick-up truck Complainant #2 was driving was, in fact, stolen.

I am satisfied that the SO comported herself with due care and regard for public safety throughout her brief engagement with the pick-up truck. She followed it at slow speed and decided, wisely, in my view, against pursuing the vehicle after it accelerated away from her on Thompson Road. Thereafter, the officer made her way safely to the site of the collision, and reported what had occurred. Though there is some evidence that the SO may have travelled through one or more stop signs without stopping, there is nothing to suggest that anyone was placed at any risk by this conduct. On this record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported herself other than lawfully in her engagement with the pick-up truck operated by Complainant #2, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.

Date: August 17, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) Now identified as the passenger of the vehicle. [Back to text]
  • 3) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
  • 4) Thompson Road was known to be a 50 km/h area with two lanes in each direction, a centre turn lane, and a bicycle lane on each side of the road. [Back to text]


The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.