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 an 18-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 13, 2025, at 1:06 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 13, 2025, at 10:37 a.m., a stolen vehicle was reported travelling east on Highway 401 in the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry area. OPP officers activated emergency lights and the stolen vehicle failed to stop. A tire deflation device was successfully deployed but the vehicle continued to drive east on Highway 401. The involved police officers stopped, reported their mileage, and then continued to drive eastbound at normal patrol speed. They located the suspect vehicle, which had left the roadway at the 4^th Line Road exit ramp, and arrested the Complainant. He was transported to Cornwall Community Hospital by ambulance in critical condition and diagnosed with a dislocated shoulder.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/13 at 1:29 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/13 at 4:24 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

18-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 13, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 17, 2025, and March 25, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on April 3, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the eastbound lanes of Highway 401, beginning in and around the area of Summerstown Road, Summerstown, and ending in and around 4^th Line Road, Bainsville.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On March 13, 2025, at 8:00 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the eastbound Highway 401 at Mile Marker 813, which was the location where two tire deflation devices had reportedly been deployed. The devices were on the sides of the roadway and under guard by the OPP. The speed limit along this section of Highway 401 was 110 km/h.

At 9:30 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the 4^th Line Road off-ramp of the eastbound Highway 401, near Mile Marker 825, in Bainsville. The off-ramp had been closed to traffic since the incident and was secured adequately with traffic cones. The off-ramp was one lane of traffic which curved to the south and exited to the south side of Highway 401. The posted speed limit on the off-ramp was 30 km/h. On the east boundary of the off-ramp lane were reflective delineator signs along the curve of the road.

A Land Rover had come to rest in the ditch between the eastbound off-ramp and the eastbound on-ramp.

Image 1 - Road markings indicating the location where the Land Rover left the off-ramp into the ditch between the eastbound off-ramp and the eastbound on-ramp on the south side of Highway 401.

At Mile Marker 813 was a fully extended tire deflation device in the south ditch, which had seven missing spikes. There was no pull rope attached. In the median ditch between the eastbound and westbound direction of traffic was a fully extended tire deflation device with a pull rope on the north side of the device. It had eight missing spikes.

At the beginning of the 4^th Line Road off-ramp were marks from a vehicle wheel rim that continued into the curve of the off-ramp and then into the east ditch beside the off-ramp. There were gouges in the ground of the east ditch consistent with a vehicle rollover. A vehicle had come to rest on its right side in the east ditch, facing a western direction. The vehicle was a white 2020 Land Rover SUV. It had extensive damage consistent with a vehicle rollover. The left front tire was shredded from the rim. The rim showed signs it had been driven on. The vehicle was towed from the ditch and flipped to its correct orientation. Once flipped, the left rear tire was found to be deflated; however, this could have been caused in the pulling action during the vehicle recovery. There was a sticker on the rear hatch area indicating there was some pre-existing damage that had been reported to the police.

The Land Rover was not equipped with an airbag control module supported for data download by the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval system.

On the off-ramp were two OPP vehicles - a fully marked Dodge Charger assigned to SO #2, and a fully marked Chevrolet Tahoe assigned to SO #1. Both vehicles were oriented in a southern direction along the curve of the off-ramp. There was no obvious damage to either of the OPP vehicles. The emergency warning systems on both vehicles were tested and found to be fully operational.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - SO #1’s and SO #2’s Cruisers

From calculations of a GPS data point at the spike belt location to his last GPS data point at the collision site, it was determined SO #2 travelled at an average speed of approximately 155 km/h to arrive at the collision site.

From calculations of a GPS data point at the spike belt location to his last GPS data point at the collision site, it was determined SO #1 travelled at an average speed of approximately 150 km/h to arrive at the collision site.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BWC Footage

The footage was obtained from the BWCs assigned to WO #3, SO #2, Officer #1, WO #2, WO #6, Officer #2, Officer #3, WO #5, and SO #1.

On March 13, 2025, starting at about 10:53:43 a.m., SO #1 parked his vehicle and met with WO #3 on the side of a highway [south side of the eastbound Highway 401 near Lancaster]. There was another OPP vehicle on the north side of the highway [SO #2]. They positioned spike belts on each side of the road and laid the pull string across the lanes of traffic.

Starting at about 11:06:38 a.m., WO #3 was approximately ten metres from the roadside. SO #1 crouched at the side of the road on the south side of the eastbound lanes and SO #2 did the same on the north side. A white SUV [Land Rover operated by the Complainant] approached from the west. An OPP vehicle [WO #5] with its emergency lights activated was also captured.

Starting at about 11:06:48 a.m., SO #2 and SO #1 each pulled a spike belt across the roadway. The Land Rover passed over the spike belts. The tires squealed. The Land Rover continued eastbound. SO #2 and SO #1 each cleared their spike belt from the roadway.

Starting at about 11:07:10 a.m., WO #3 and SO #2 entered their marked vehicles and travelled eastbound.

Starting at about 11:08:34 a.m., SO #2 updated the dispatcher that the spike belt was cleared from the road, his direction of travel was east, and his emergency lights were not activated.

Starting at about 11:12:11 a.m., SO #2 advised the dispatcher that the Land Rover was “grounded at 4^th Line Road”.

Starting at about 11:12:20 a.m., SO #2 exited his vehicle on an off-ramp [at 4th Line Road] and ran into a ditch. He passed the Land Rover, which was on its right side, and ran up a small embankment onto the on-ramp.

Starting at about 11:12:28 a.m., SO #2 shouted, “Police, don’t move,” as he ran towards the Complainant, who was about 50 metres from him. SO #2 pointed his firearm at the Complainant. Another OPP officer [WO #1] ran towards the Complainant from the opposite direction. As SO #2 ran closer, the Complainant was on his knees with his arms in the air.

Starting at about 11:12:36 a.m., WO #1 approached the Complainant and pushed him to the ground onto his stomach. WO #1 knelt on the Complainant’s left side. SO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s right wrist and brought the arm behind the back. The Complainant cried out in pain. WO #1 held the left arm behind the back. WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back.

Starting at about 11:13:01 a.m., WO #1 rolled the Complainant onto his left side. There was a pool of blood on the ground where his face had been, and his face was covered in blood. The Complainant begged for his arm to be released because he could not feel it. WO #1 removed the handcuffs.

Starting at about 11:13:40 a.m., SO #2 requested that the dispatcher have paramedic services attend the scene.

Starting at about 11:29:25 a.m., paramedic services arrived.

Starting at about 12:22:38 p.m., the Complainant was at the hospital with Officer #2. The Complainant reported to the physician that his shoulder was dislocated when he was handcuffed.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

The footage came from the vehicles assigned to SO #2, Officer #2, Officer #4, Officer #1, and WO #5.

On March 13, 2025, starting at about 10:38:25 a.m., SO #2 travelled eastbound on Highway 401.

Starting at about 10:51:32 a.m., the officer parked his vehicle on the north shoulder of the eastbound Highway 401 [now known to be where the spike belts were deployed]. There was another OPP vehicle on the south shoulder parked across the highway from SO #2.

Starting at about 11:06:50 a.m., a white SUV [Land Rover] skidded into view at a high rate of speed and its tires squealed. Five seconds later, a fully marked OPP vehicle [WO #5] entered into view with emergency lights activated. It followed the Land Rover in the left lane of traffic. One second later, a black transit-style van [WO #1] entered into view and travelled eastbound in the right lane of traffic.

Starting at about 11:07:08 a.m., SO #2 travelled eastbound in the left lane of traffic with his siren activated.

Starting at about 11:08:04 a.m., Officer #2 was parked on the side of the eastbound Highway 401 near 1^st Line Road. The Land Rover passed him in the left lane of traffic at a high rate of speed. A tire detached from the Land Rover and rolled through the centre ditch and onto the westbound lanes of traffic. Officer #2 briefly followed the Land Rover and then stopped on the side of the highway near where the detached tire had come to a rest.

Starting at about 11:08:39 a.m., Officer #2 was passed by WO #1 and two marked OPP vehicles [SO #1 and SO #2]. Shortly after, additional marked and unmarked police vehicles also passed.

Starting at about 11:12:08 a.m., SO #2 exited the highway at exit 825. He stopped and exited his vehicle. He ran past the Land Rover, which was on its side, up an embankment, and then north out of camera view. A man in plainclothes [WO #4] ran after SO #2. Additional police officers arrived.

OPP Communications Recordings

The SIU received radio communications and phone calls from the OPP. The radio transmissions were not time or date-stamped. Some of the times noted below were taken from corresponding events in the Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report and, as such, are approximations.

On March 13, 2025, starting at about 10:36:06 a.m., SO #1 reported OPP officers following a Land Rover confirmed by Halton Regional Police Service to be stolen from Oakville. WO #1 and multiple other officers assigned themselves to the call.

Starting at about 10:38:29 a.m., a dispatcher called the OPP Provincial Communications Centre Officer #5 and asked her to monitor the call.

An unidentified OPP officer in an unmarked Chevrolet Tahoe said he was following the Land Rover in the right lane with no emergency warning systems activated. There were additional covert vehicles also following the Land Rover.

Starting at about 10:43:38 a.m., an OPP officer reported the roads were dry and visibility was clear, with light traffic.

Starting at about 10:46:11 a.m., an OPP officer reported the spike belts were to be set up at Raisin River.

Starting at about 11:05:07 a.m., an OPP officer [WO #5] reported that the Land Rover was travelling in the left lane of traffic at 108 km/h. Emergency warning lights were activated.

Starting at about 11:06:59 a.m., an OPP officer reported “successful spike”.

Starting at about 11:08:28 a.m., it was reported the Land Rover was travelling on its front left rim.

Starting at about 11:09:44 a.m., WO #5 reported the Land Rover was continuing eastbound at 154 km/h. WO #5 pulled his vehicle to the side of the road. He said covert vehicles would continue to follow at “highway speeds”.

Starting at about 11:12:03 a.m., it was reported “no units have eyes on vehicle anymore.”

Starting at about 11:12:32 a.m., it was reported the Land Rover had “ramped off at 4^th Line Road”.

Starting at about 11:13:01 a.m., it was reported a person [the Complainant] was in custody.

Starting at about 11:14:02 a.m., paramedic services were requested to attend.

Video Footage from Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Starting at about 11:11:05 a.m., March 13, 2025, a white vehicle [Land Rover operated by the Complainant] passed under the Old Highway 2 bridge and approached exit 825 in the off-ramp lane. The front left driver side appeared low to the ground. The vehicle left the camera frame to the east.

Starting at about 11:11:55 a.m., a marked OPP vehicle [SO #2] passed under the same bridge with no emergency warning lights activated. Seven seconds later, a black transit-style van [WO #1] passed under the same bridge with no emergency lights activated.

Starting at about 11:12:12 a.m., a marked OPP vehicle [SO #1] passed under the same bridge with no emergency warning lights activated. Additional marked and unmarked police vehicles followed afterwards.

Starting at about 11:28:06 a.m., an ambulance approached the off-ramp with emergency lights activated.

Video Footage from Esso Gas Station

The SIU received a video from an Esso gas station located at 6115 4^th Line Road, Bainsville. The video was not time or date-stamped.

The video began with a white Land Rover [the Complainant] in the eastbound off-ramp lane at the 4^th Line Road exit of the highway. At two seconds of the video, the Land Rover turned sideways and slid into the ditch where it then rolled over. At seven seconds of the video, the Land Rover came to a rest east of where it had exited the roadway on the shoulder of the off-ramp. Smoke rose from the vehicle.

At 15 seconds of the video, a person [the Complainant] ran from the Land Rover in an eastward direction. At 31 seconds of the video, an OPP vehicle [SO #2] arrived on the off-ramp. The driver’s door opened, and the video ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 14, 2025, and May 9, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Arrest Report
• Technical Collision Investigation Report
• ICCS Videos
• BWC Videos
• Radio communications
• Scene photographs
• GPS data for SO #1’s and SO #2’s cruisers
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #6, WO #7, and WO #4, and WO #5

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 13, 2025, and April 7, 2025:

• Diagram from the Complainant
• Dashcam videos from CW #2
• Dashcam videos from CW #1
• Video footage from the MTO
• Video footage from Esso Gas Station
• The Complainant’s medical records from Ottawa Civic Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the morning of March 13, 2025, the OPP was alerted to a report of a stolen vehicle – a Land Rover – travelling eastbound on Highway 401. Unmarked OPP cruisers maneuvered into position on the highway and surveilled the Land Rover. It was decided that spike belts would be deployed ahead of the Land Rover in the area of Mile Marker 813.

The Complainant was operating the Land Rover, alone in the vehicle. A distance east of Summerstown Road, noticing a cruiser behind him with its emergency lights activated, the Complainant began to pick up speed. He was travelling as fast as 150 km/h when he came across spike belts that had been laid across the two eastbound lanes. Unable to avoid them, the Complainant drove over the belts. His front driver side tire was damaged by the belts, and possibly even his rear driver side tire, but the Complainant was able to continue eastbound at speed. Approximately 12 kilometres from the spike belts, the Complainant lost control of the Land Rover attempting to exit onto 4^th Line Road. The Land Rover entered the ditch on the east side of the off-ramp and rolled before it came to a stop on its side.

The spike belts had been deployed by SO #1 and SO #2. The two had entered their cruisers after the Land Rover passed their location and accelerated after the Complainant, eventually coming across his crashed vehicle.

The Complainant was arrested near the site of the collision and transported to hospital. He was diagnosed with facial lacerations and a dislocated right shoulder.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

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.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was diagnosed with serious injuries following a motor vehicle collision in Bainsville on March 13, 2025. As the vehicle the Complainant was operating had traversed OPP spike belts shortly before it crashed, the SIU was notified of the incident. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the subject officials, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision.

SO #1 and SO #2 were in the exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in the collision. The evidence indicates that the Complainant was subject to arrest for being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

The use of the spike belts, in my view, constituted a reasonable apprehension tactic in the circumstances. By that time, it was clear that the Complainant had no intention of stopping for the cruiser behind him with its emergency lights on. Conditions were also ideal for the use of spike belts. The roadway was dry and in good condition, traffic was light, and the eastbound lanes of the highway were separated from the westbound lanes by a wide median, mitigating the risk of an out-of-control vehicle entering onto the opposing lanes of traffic.

With respect to the collision, it is apparent that the Complainant is solely responsible. Though the subject officials travelled at well over the speed limit after the Land Rover once it had crossed the spike belts, they were not near the Complainant when he entered onto the off-ramp, lost control of his vehicle and crashed. That is to say, there is no suggestion that the officers unduly pushed the Complainant into an accident. Nor is there any evidence that the officers’ speeds directly imperiled other users of the highway. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that either SO #1 or SO #2 transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when they drove after the Complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[3] The file is closed.

Date: July 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit