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 35-year-old man (“Complainant #1”), the serious injuries of a 61-year-old man (“Complainant #2”), and the serious injuries of a 68-year-old woman (“Complainant #3”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 1, 2024, at 1:38 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision by Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3.

According to the OPP, on November 30, 2024, at 10:57 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a marked police cruiser on Richmond Street, Arva, when he attempted to pull over a vehicle. The driver refused to stop and sped off. The vehicle crossed over the centre line and collided head-on with another vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The cruiser was not directly involved in the collision. The driver of the vehicle that sped off was extricated and sustained life-threatening injuries. A woman in the vehicle that was struck also sustained life-threatening injuries while a man sustained life-altering injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/01 at 2:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/01 at 4:43 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 35-year-old male; deceased

Complainant #2 61-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #3 68-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed on December 4, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 1, 2024, and December 4, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The Scene

The events in question began on Richmond Street, a distance north of Medway Road, Arva, continued south on Richmond Street, and concluded on Richmond Street in and around its intersection with Croydon Drive.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Richmond Street, also known as Highway 4, was a paved four-lane road oriented in a northwest and southeast direction. Croydon Drive, a two-lane paved road oriented in an east/west direction, intersected Richmond Street from the west. A single streetlight illuminated the intersection.

Complainant #1’s vehicle – a Nissan – was in the northwest ditch facing south. Complainant #2’s Mazda was in the southbound lane of Richmond Street facing north. The SO’s cruiser was also in the southbound lane but facing south.

The SO’s cruiser was a Dodge Durango. The emergency lighting and siren were functional. The dash-mounted radar had a speed locked-in at 104 km/h.

Forensic Evidence

The following evidence was obtained:

• Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) data from Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’s vehicles; and
• Global Positioning System (GPS) data and in-car camera (ICC) footage from the SO’s cruiser.

CDR Data - Nissan

The system recorded two deployment events. The first event was believed to be the collision between Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’s vehicles. The second was likely when Complainant #1 entered a ditch.

Five seconds prior to the collision, Complainant #1 was driving at 122 km/h. The accelerator pedal was depressed to 81 percent and Complainant #1 was steering straight.

Between five seconds prior to the collision and two seconds prior to the collision, Complainant #1’s speed increased from 122 km/h to 129 km/h.

Two seconds prior to the collision, Complainant #1’s accelerator pedal was not depressed, nor was the brake pedal. Between two seconds prior to the collision, and when the collision occurred, Complainant #1 steered to the left, then to the right and back to the left, and then again to the right. At the time of the collision, Complainant #1’s speed was 126 km/h. About three seconds later, Complainant #1 entered the ditch at a speed of 112 km/h.

CDR Data – Mazda

Between five seconds and about three seconds prior to the collision, Complainant #2’s speed decreased from about 72 km/h to 69 km/h.

About two seconds prior to the collision, the engine throttle was zero percent, consistent with Complainant #2 taking his foot off the accelerator pedal.

About one and one-half seconds prior to the collision, Complainant #2 applied the brakes. The speed decreased from about 67 km/h to about 42 km/h at impact.

OPP GPS Data and ICC Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

Starting at 10:56:02 p.m., November 30, 2024, the SO was stationary on the east side of Richmond Street, about 75 metres north of Medway Road. There was a 60 km/h speed limit sign for southbound traffic on Richmond Street about 300 metres north of Medway Road. Complainant #1 was captured approaching southbound on Richmond Street. As he passed the officer’s location, the SO turned on the cruiser’s emergency lighting, pulled onto Richmond Street, and followed Complainant #1 southbound.

Starting at 10:56:10 p.m., the SO drove through the intersection of Richmond Street and Medway Road on a green signal with the vehicle’s flashing emergency lights on. The taillights of Complainant #1’s vehicle were in the distance as he approached Croydon Drive.

Starting at 10:56:15 p.m., the SO was through the intersection of Richmond Street and Medway Road, about 25 metres south of the intersection, and accelerated to 96 km/h.

Starting at about 10:56:16 p.m., the collision occurred. About nine seconds had elapsed from when Complainant #1 drove through the intersection of Richmond Street and Medway Road. The SO was about 200 metres south of Medway Road and about 150 metres away from the collision when it occurred.

Starting at 10:56:22 p.m., the SO was southbound on Richmond Street about 275 metres south of Medway Road. His speed was 61 km/h.

Starting at 10:56:58 p.m., the SO was southbound on Richmond Street just north of Croydon Drive and about 325 metres south of Medway Road. His speed was 13 km/h.

Starting at 10:56:35 p.m., the SO was stopped at the collision scene of Richmond Street and Croydon Drive.

Expert Evidence

OPP Collision Reconstruction Report

The report was consistent with a finding that Complainant #1 drove southbound at a maximum speed of 129 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, passed another vehicle, lost control, and collided head-on with the northbound vehicle of Complainant #2.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings – Radio

Starting at 10:56 p.m., November 30, 2024, the SO advised the OPP Provincial Communications Centre of a motor vehicle collision at Richmond Street and Croydon Drive, the result of a failed traffic stop.

Starting at 11:00 p.m., the SO advised he had attempted a traffic stop on a stunt driver. The vehicle fled, slid around another vehicle, and collided with a vehicle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between December 1, 2024, and February 18, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List;
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Collision Reconstruction Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• GPS data from the SO’s cruiser
• CDR data from Complainant #1’s and Complainant #2’s vehicles
• Policy: Suspect Apprehension Pursuit and Traffic Enforcement.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from other sources between December 12, 2024, and January 10, 2025:

• Complainant #2’s and Complainant #3’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #2 and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

The SO was on patrol and operating a marked cruiser in the evening of November 30, 2024. While stationary on the east side of Richmond Street, a distance north of Medway Road, a Nissan vehicle passed him at speed travelling south. The officer activated his emergency lights, pulled onto the roadway, and accelerated after the Nissan.

The Nissan was operated by Complainant #1. Complainant #1 continued at speeds upwards of 100 km/h south on Richmond Street. Approaching Croydon Drive, some 350 metres south of Medway Road, he pulled into the northbound lanes to overtake southbound traffic. He subsequently re-entered the southbound lanes and collided head-on with a Mazda travelling north.

Complainant #2 was operating the Mazda. Complainant #3 was his passenger. He was driving northbound on Richmond Street when he observed the Nissan in his lane on a collision course. Complainant #2 drove to the left onto the southbound lanes to avoid an impact, and was struck by the Nissan as it too re-entered the southbound lanes.

The SO arrived at the collision site about ten seconds after it occurred. He was about 150 metres north of the collision scene at the point of impact.

Complainant #2 suffered multiple fractures, as did Complainant #3, who also sustained a brain bleed. Complainant #1 was taken to hospital and remained on life support until December 4, 2024.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that Complainant #1’s death was attributable to multiple blunt impact trauma.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or 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.

(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.

(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.

Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Arva on November 30, 2024. Complainant #1 would later succumb to his injuries. As an OPP officer was pursuing one of the vehicles involved in the crash shortly before it occurred, 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 collision.

The offences that arises for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing death contrary to sections 320.13(2) and (3), respectively, of the Criminal Code. As offences of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offences are 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.

The evidence suggests that the SO was attempting to stop the Nissan for a speeding infraction. Given the evidence of the Nissan’s speed derived from the SO’s speed measuring device and ICC, and the data extracted from the Nissan’s CDR, the SO had cause to believe the Nissan was travelling far in excess of the 60 km/h speed limit that governed the area.

I am also satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law during his brief pursuit of the Nissan. While the officer reached a top speed of 96 km/h shortly after pulling onto the roadway and travelling through the Medway Road intersection, there is no indication that the SO’s speed – short-lived and mitigated by the officer’s use of emergency lights – imperiled other drivers on the roadway. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the SO unduly pushed Complainant #1. The incident was over in a matter of seconds from the moment the officer first entered onto the roadway, and he was well-back of the Nissan when the crash occurred. On this record, it is apparent that Complainant #1 is alone responsible for the collision that took his life and seriously injured Complainant #2 and Complainant #3.

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

Date: March 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit