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 death of a 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 29, 2024, at 6:50 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on September 29, 2024, at about 6:00 a.m., the Subject Official (SO)

was driving an OPP unmarked vehicle and struck a pedestrian [now known to be the Complainant] as he was walking on Highway 169, Bala.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/29 at 7:07 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/29 at 10:51 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

25-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 29, 2024.

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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between October 8, 2024, and October 28, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The OPP’s Reconstruction Report was received by the SIU from the OPP on March 17, 2025.

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on March 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Muskoka Road 169 in the area of the Bala Bay Inn, 3063 Muskoka District Road 169, Bala.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic and collision reconstructionist investigators attended the scene. Muskoka Road 169 was straight and generally level. There was a slight rise in the road for northbound vehicles approaching an area of impact. There was a single northbound lane and a single southbound lane with a double solid yellow centre lane marking. There were solid white fog lines and shallow concrete gutters on the west and east side of the road. The road was lined on both sides with commercial properties and there were no sidewalks. There was not a marked pedestrian crossing at the collision scene. The collision occurred in dark environmental conditions. There were overhead streetlights. There were lighted business signs including from the Bala Bay Inn and the TD Canada Trust Bank, both of which were on the west side of the road. There was a speed limit sign of 50 km/h posted about 250 metres south of the collision scene. About 250 metres further south of the speed limit sign, the speed limit changed from 60 km/h to 50 km/h. There were no pre-impact tire marks on the road. There was a small field of vehicle debris in the northbound and southbound lanes, between where the Complainant was found and the area of impact. The area of impact was on the west side of the northbound lane about 10 or 12 metres south of where a Jeep was stopped and about 45 metres south of the intersection of Muskoka Road 169 and Musquash Road.

Figure 1 - Northbound view of scene

Figure 2 - Southbound view of scene

A 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee, with no markings, was located at the scene. There was collision damage to the driver’s side front corner, windshield, and “A” pillar.

Figure 3 - Collision damage to the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s driver’s side front corner

Figure 4 - Collision damage to the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s windshield

On October 5, 2024, SIU forensic investigators re-attended the scene to retrace the route driven by the SO under similar road, weather and lighting conditions. The vehicle used during the exercise was a Jeep Wrangler with headlights set to low beam. The approximate speed travelled was 50 km/h, except for video clip 6, where the speed was more than 50 km/h to activate the speed warning sign. The video captured the lighting conditions on Muskoka Road 169 at approximately 5:52 am.

Forensic Evidence

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Report

SIU investigators completed the CDR retrieval on the Jeep Grand Cherokee at the scene and received a result of ‘no collision event’. There were no data available in relation to an impact.

Berla iVe Data (Cherokee Infotainment System)

The download of the device returned no useful data from the time of the incident in question.

Expert Evidence

Passenger / Light Duty Vehicle Mechanical Inspection Report

A mechanical inspection of the 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee found it to be in good operating condition.

SIU Technical Motor Vehicle Collision Investigation and Reconstruction Report

Speed Determinations

In the absence of CDR, Berla iVe, and Global Positioning System (GPS) data for the Jeep Grand Cherokee, a SIU Collision Reconstructionist used data gleaned from video footage, Google Maps and the SIU scene drawing to determine the following with respect to the SO’s and the pedestrians’ rates of speed prior to and at the time of impact.

As per the video, the Complainant and the CW walked on the road for about 15 metres in about nine seconds. That was calculated to be a rate of about 1.6 metres per second, or 6 km/h, which was consistent with, or slightly quicker than, the average walking speed of a pedestrian.

As per the video, the Jeep travelled about 125 metres in six seconds after Muskoka Road 169 straightened out and as it approached the collision scene. That calculated to an average rate of speed of about 75 km/h.

The Jeep then travelled from about 80 metres south of the collision scene to about 60 metres south of the collision scene in about three or four seconds. That calculated to an average rate of speed of about 72 km/h.

Approaching the area of impact, the Jeep drove about 40 metres in about two seconds, which calculated to an average rate of speed of 72 km/h.

The Jeep drove about 16 metres in one second to the area of impact. That calculated to a rate of speed of about 54 km/h as the Jeep decelerated.

After impact, the Jeep came to an immediate, controlled stop about 10 to 12 metres north of the area of impact.

The SO’s rate of speed approaching the collision was consistent with the distance (about 26 metres) in which the Jeep stopped. Given that distance, it was calculated that had the SO braked hard when she was about 16 metres from the Complainant, the rate of speed of the Jeep was 72 km/h when she braked, and she had slowed to about 44 km/h when the Complainant was struck.

Conclusions

The SO was northbound on Muskoka Road 169 entering the community of Bala. She drove through two gentle curves, which were about 125 and 500 metres south of the collision scene. The posted speed limit had decreased from 60 km/h to 50 km/h. It was a posted Community Safety Zone. In the final curve and about 250 metres south of the collision scene, the speed limit was again posted as 50 km/h.

The Complainant and the CW left the Bala Bay Inn and walked on the north driveway to Muskoka Road 169 intending to cross the road. They walked at a normal pedestrian rate of speed. The roadway was clear of traffic.

The Complainant and the CW reached the west edge of the road. The SO was about 180 metres away to the south and the road had not yet straightened out. She was driving at a rate of speed calculated to be about 75 km/h. She would not likely have had a view of the Complainant and the CW.

The SO continued northbound at about 70 to 75 km/h.

The Complainant stepped onto the road in the southbound lane and began to cross. It was about nine seconds prior to the collision.

About three seconds after the Complainant stepped onto the road, the road ahead of the SO straightened out to a primarily commercial neighbourhood with one lane for northbound traffic and one lane for southbound traffic. The road was dry, level, in good condition, and lit by overhead streetlights. There were no view obstructions.

As the Complainant and the CW crossed the southbound lane, a light flickered from the CW’s cell phone. Neither looked back to the south.

The SO continued northbound at a rate of speed of about 70 km/h.

The Complainant and the CW ought to have been visible to the SO as she approached them. Likewise, as they walked on the road, the Complainant and the CW ought to have been aware of the Jeep approaching northbound by the sound or by the headlights. They continued to walk in the southbound lane and were heading generally northeast.

About two seconds prior to the collision, the Complainant stepped onto the centre line between the southbound lane and the northbound lane. The SO was about 40 metres away. As per the video footage, the Jeep’s headlights clearly lit up the Complainant and the CW. The CW turned his head and looked towards the Jeep. About one second later, the Complainant stepped into the northbound lane while the SO was about 16 metres away.

As he walked, the Complainant turned and looked towards the Jeep. He stopped, or tried to stop, walking. The SO braked hard. She did not steer in an evasive manner. The Jeep slowed to about 44 km/h.

About nine seconds after the Complainant and the CW stepped onto the road and started to cross, and at least six seconds after they ought to have been visible to the SO, the Complainant was struck by the front left corner of the Jeep and projected forward and onto the ground.

OPP Reconstruction Report

The findings of the report were materially consistent with the findings of the SIU reconstruction work. Of note, the report noted: “Based upon the headlamp mapping for the exemplar vehicle in relation to the studied illumination requirements for recognition of objects at nighttime, at 50 km/h, drivers in substantially similar situations would have required more distance to brake to avoid the collision than was available from the expected point of recognition of the impending hazard to the area of impact.”

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Muskoka Power Sports and Recreation

On September 29, 2024, starting at 5:51:44 a.m.,[3] the Complainant and the CW were walking on the west side of Muskoka Road 169 north of the driveway to the Bala Bay Inn. There was a light source which flickered on and off consistent with a cell phone believed to be in the CW’s hand as he walked. A Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by the SO was northbound on Muskoka Road 169. There were two gentle curves in the road between about 125 and 500 metres south of the collision scene.

Starting at 5:51:45 a.m., the Complainant [who appeared to be on the right side of the CW] stepped across a shallow concrete gutter and onto the white solid fog line on the west side of the road and then onto the southbound lane. The Complainant and the CW started to cross the road on a diagonal of 45 degrees or less.

Starting at 5:51:46 a.m., the Complainant was walking northbound on the west side of the southbound lane.

Starting at 5:51:48 a.m., the Complainant was walking northbound in about the centre of the southbound lane.

Starting at 5:51:50 a.m., the Complainant was walking northbound on the east side of the southbound lane, close to the centre line.

The SO was northbound, appearing to be between 60 and 80 metres south of the area of impact.

Starting at 5:51:52 a.m., the Complainant crossed the southbound lane and stepped with his left foot on the yellow double solid centre line. The CW, who was still in the southbound lane, turned his head over his right shoulder and looked south. Headlights from the SO’s vehicle illuminated the Complainant and the CW. The CW was to the left of the Complainant.

The SO was northbound about 40 metres south of the area of impact.

Starting at 5:51:53 a.m., the SO was about 16 metres from the Complainant and the CW.

The Complainant stepped into the northbound lane with his right foot. He had his right hand up to his face. He then stepped further into the northbound lane. The Complainant turned his head and looked towards the approaching Jeep and abruptly stopped.

Starting at 5:51:54 a.m., the SO passed through the area of impact, which was deemed to be the point of impact. The CW was standing in the southbound lane just west of the solid double centre line. The brake lights of the Jeep were on. The Jeep passed and the Complainant was upright and spinning in the southbound lane before tumbling northbound on the ground across the southbound lane. The Complainant tumbled to a stop along the solid white fog line on the west side of the road.

Starting at 5:51:56 a.m., the Jeep stopped east of and about even with the final resting position of the Complainant. The brake lights went off.

Starting at 5:52:00 a.m., the SO got out of the Jeep and ran to the Complainant.

OPP Communication Recordings

On September 29, 2024, at 5:52:35 a.m., the OPP Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) received a 911 call from a man [the CW] advising a person [the Complainant] was hit on the road. The CW was asked if an ambulance was required, and a woman [the SO] replied that it was.

The phone call was transferred to the ambulance communications centre while the PCC communicator remained on the line. When the ambulance communicator answered, the SO said that the Complainant was hit by a car. She provided the location and indicated the Complainant was still conscious, but barely. The communicator asked what happened, with the SO responding, “I was coming down, I’m the one that hit him. I was coming down 169, Bala, two males walking down…” She was driving, “70.” The Complainant was a pedestrian in the middle of the street.

The ambulance communicator disconnected, and the PCC communicator continued and obtained the SO’s name and vehicle information. She provided appropriate answers and spoke quickly but clearly. It was not established on the phone call that the SO was a police officer, or that the vehicle she was driving was a police vehicle.

On September 29, 2024, starting at 5:53 a.m., officers were dispatched in connection with a motor vehicle collision. WO #1 and WO #2 acknowledged the call and information obtained in the 911 telephone call was provided.

Starting at 6:09 a.m., paramedics and the fire service were at the scene. The Complainant was vital signs absent.

Starting at 6:15 a.m., WO #1 was on scene and the Complainant had been transported by ambulance.

Records - Miscellaneous

The SO’s Cell Phone Usage

The account details summary for the SO’s OPP cell phone was obtained for the reporting period of September 29, 2024, between 5:45 and 6:05 a.m. The summary indicated there were five outgoing calls placed between 6:02:48 and 6:05:06 a.m., and no usage at the time of the collision (5:51 a.m.).

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between September 29, 2024, and March 20, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved OPP police officers;
• Civilian Witness List;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Communications recordings;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report;
• Cell phone summary;
• OPP Reconstruction Report;
• Notes: WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2; and
• Scene photographs.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between September 30, 2024, and March 20, 2025:

• Passenger / Light Duty Vehicle Mechanical Inspection Report from TFX International;
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service;
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Of
• Berla iVe download (infotainment system); and
• Video footage from Muskoka Power Sports and Recreation.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with a civilian eyewitness and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes.

At about 5:50 a.m. of September 29, 2024, the Complainant, in the company of the CW, was leaving the premises of the Bala Bay Inn, 3063 Muskoka District Road 169, Bala. The two walked eastward towards Muskoka Road 169, the CW slightly to the left (north) of the Complainant, and entered onto the roadway intending to cross it. The Complainant had just walked into the single northbound lane when he was struck by a northbound vehicle. The CW promptly called 911.

The vehicle – a 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee – was being operated by the SO, who was on duty and in transit to a temporary northern assignment. The officer immediately stopped the Cherokee after the collision and ran to render assistance to the Complainant.

Paramedics arrived on scene. The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to blunt impact head trauma.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Death

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(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.

The Complainant passed away on September 29, 2024, from injuries suffered in a collision with a motor vehicle in Bala. As the motor vehicle was an unmarked police vehicle being operated by a police officer, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. 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 Complainant’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 vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

While it remains unclear why the collision occurred, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the evidence available to the SIU that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. Her speed as she approached the point of impact with the Complainant is subject to legitimate scrutiny. Had the SO been travelling at or near the 50 km/h speed limit, she would have had more time to react to the Complainant’s presence on the road and take evasive action than her actual speed, upwards of 70 km/h, permitted (albeit, there is evidence the officer would not have been able to stop in time even had she been driving at 50 km/h). That said, weighed in the balance with the totality of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the officer’s speed amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. The SO’s speed was more than it ought to have been, but not grossly so. And the surrounding circumstances were largely extenuating – the Cherokee’s headlights were on, there was little prospect of pedestrians on the road given the time of day, the weather was clear, the roads were dry, and the area where the collision occurred was mostly commercial with some artificial lighting.

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

Date: March 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit