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 injuries of a 52-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 15, 2025, at 11:32 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 7:25 a.m., a motor vehicle collision occurred at 590 Melbourne Road in Chippewas of the Thames First Nation. A stolen vehicle - a Chevrolet Sierra pick-up truck - had been seen by a First Nations constable. He reported the matter but made no attempt to stop the vehicle. The Subject Official (SO), positioned ahead of the stolen vehicle, deployed a tire deflation device (TDD). It appeared two uninvolved civilian vehicles initially drove over the TDD initially and pulled over. The stolen vehicle then drove over the TDD and continued driving, colliding head-on with another uninvolved civilian vehicle. The driver of the stolen vehicle, believed to be Civilian Witness (CW) #3, fled on foot and police had started a canine track. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, the Complainant, was transported to Strathroy Hospital and diagnosed with a fractured neck and concussion. He was being transferred to the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/15 at 12:08 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/15 at 2:01 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 15, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 15, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 22, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Melbourne Road beginning in or around the area of the railway overpass north of the Thames River and concluding in and around 590 Melbourne Road, Melbourne.

This scene was located on the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, which did not grant the SIU permission to enter onto the territory.

Physical Evidence

On March 18, 2025, the SIU examined the vehicles and police equipment involved in the incident under investigation.

OPP Ford Explorer (Interceptor)

The vehicle had a considerable amount of dirt/dust from the door handle level to the base of the vehicle on left side, right side, and rear of vehicle. There was a small scrape in the paint on the right side door directly under the cruiser identification number, covered in dirt/dust. No other damage was observed to the vehicle. The emergency lighting was assessed to be functional.

TDD (Spike Belt)

The device, reportedly deployed during the incident under investigation, was examined. There were 59 out of a possible 110 spikes observed on the TDD (51 spikes missing).

Chevrolet Pick-up Truck

The vehicle, reportedly driven by CW #3 during the incident under investigation, had extensive front end damage across, heavier on the right side of the vehicle, with all four tires inflated and holding air. The steering wheel airbag was deployed and the ignition had been tampered with. There was no key with the vehicle.

Ford Pick-up Truck

The vehicle, reportedly driven by the Complainant during the incident under investigation, had front end damage to the left side. The front left tire was flat. The front right fender was damaged. The air bags were deployed all around the vehicle as well as the steering wheel air bag. There was reddish staining on the steering wheel airbag as well as the front left side curtain airbag.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Bear Creek Gas Station – 590 Melbourne Road

On March 15, 2025, at 7:22:12 a.m., a pick-up truck, now known to have been operated by the Complainant, was observed westbound in the lot approaching Melbourne Road with its headlights and taillights activated. As the vehicle approached Melbourne Road, the rear brake lights of the vehicle were illuminated and the vehicle slowly started out onto Melbourne Road. The headlights of another vehicle, now known to be operated by CW #3, were seen approaching the gas bar northbound on Melbourne Road. The Complainant’s vehicle came to a sudden stop as the front left side of his vehicle collided with the front end of CW #3’s pick-up truck. The Complainant’s vehicle rotated clockwise about 180 degrees, while CW #3’s vehicle continued north and out of view. No other vehicles or headlights were observed during the recordings.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Video

The footage from the SO’s vehicle started with him driving northbound on Melbourne Road at a very slow rate of speed approaching the Bear Creek gas station. He pulled up next to a vehicle, now known to be operated by CW #1, that was stopped on the shoulder of the roadway facing north with its four-way flashers activated at the intersection of Middlemiss Avenue and Melbourne Road.

The pick-up truck belonging to the Complainant was observed stopped on the east shoulder of the road facing southeast. The emergency lights, believed to be from a Chippewas of the Thames Police Service (CTPS) vehicle, were seen activated on a vehicle stopped on Melbourne Road just north of the gas bar.

The SO stopped his vehicle across the southbound lane of Melbourne Road and he was heard calling for additional OPP units to shut down Melbourne Road.

A male voice, believed to be the SO’s, was heard in a telephone conversation with a person in which he described that he was likely to be a subject officer in a SIU call. The SO then described that CW #3 was involved in a stolen auto near Dutton and that the police had set up on Melbourne Road. He added that he spiked CW #3’s vehicle along with two civilian vehicles. CW #3’s vehicle continued and ran head-on into another vehicle. CW #3 had fled on foot. The SO had not moved from his location with the spike belt until after the collision occurred.

OPP Communications Recordings

At 7:01:40 a.m., March 15, 2025, OPP dispatch advised officers of the theft of a vehicle in Wallacetown. The suspect, now known to be CW #3, had rammed a vehicle multiple times during the theft.

The OPP Provincial Communications Centre advised that they were monitoring the situation. Officers were instructed that they were not to pursue if CW #3 was located but failed to stop. The SO advised that he would attend the area of Melbourne Road in an attempt to locate CW #3. He also advised via police radio that officers were to protect themselves if deploying TDD as CW #3 had no regard for officers’ safety and would ram police vehicles and attempt to run officers over.

At 7:21:57 a.m., the SO advised that he had deployed a spike belt “right at the rail pass” and that three vehicles, including CW #3’s truck, had struck the spike belt and continued driving north.

At 7:25:11 a.m., a member of the CTPS advised of a motor vehicle collision in front of the Beaver Creek gas station and that CW #3 had fled on foot. CW #3’s vehicle sustained heavy front-end damage, and the vehicle’s airbags deployed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 15, 2025, and to April 15, 2025.

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Communications recordings
• List of involved officers, their roles and their notes
• ICC footage
• Forensic work product
• Training records for the SO
• Video Footage-Bear Creek Gas Station

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the LHSC on April 2, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of March 15, 2025, OPP officers were on the lookout for CW #3 in relation to a series of vehicle thefts for which warrants had been obtained. The SO was part of that effort. CW #3 was suspected of operating a Chevrolet pick-up truck that had just been stolen from the Town of Dutton. The officer parked his cruiser on the east side of Melbourne Road in the area of a railway overpass, north of the Thames River. His intention was to deploy a spike belt to assist in the apprehension of CW #3 if he travelled past his location. At about 7:20 a.m., the SO received a radio communication indicating that, in fact, the pick-up truck in question was travelling north towards him on Melbourne Road.

CW #3 was travelling upwards of 130 km/h as he approached the SO’s location. Ahead of him were two other vehicles. CW #3 crossed into the southbound lane to overtake the vehicles ahead and continued at speed northwards accelerating to about 160 km/h. About a kilometre up the road, he collided with the driver side of a pick-up truck attempting to make a left turn onto southbound Melbourne Road from the Bear Creek gas station at 590 Melbourne Road. The driver of the struck vehicle – the Complainant – sustained a fractured spine and concussion.

The SO had deployed a spike belt in front of the trio of vehicles. The two vehicles ahead of the stolen pick-up truck traversed the belt and had their tires punctured. Their drivers continued northward a distance before safely pulling over with flat tires ahead of the crash site. The stolen vehicle’s tires had not punctured.

CW #3 continued northward for a distance after the collision before he abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot. He was arrested by police the following day.

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 seriously injured in a vehicle collision on March 15, 2025. As the vehicle that crashed into his pick-up truck was fleeing from police at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident by the OPP 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 offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

I am satisfied that the SO was in the execution of his lawful duties at the time of the events in question. Aware of CW #3’s dangerous driving of stolen vehicles from the week prior for which warrants had been issued, and information that CW #3 was operating a stolen vehicle in his direction, the officer was within his rights in seeking to apprehend CW #3 for a variety of criminal offences.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety when he deployed the spike belt. There is always the risk when spike belts are used of collateral damage owing to a loss of control where the subject vehicle veers to avoid the belt or has its tires damaged. In addition, the SO made the conscious decision to deploy the spike belt ahead of two uninvolved civilian vehicles because of their proximity to the stolen truck. Those risks, however, were not disproportionate to the exigencies of the moment. For starters, the SO had not intended to involve third-party traffic in the spike belt deployment on Melbourne Road, which was in a largely rural area, but rather made a quick decision to do so as the vehicles closed the distance on the belief he could not otherwise safely deploy the belt ahead of the stolen pick-up truck alone. Moreover, given what he knew of CW #3’s reckless behaviour in connection with stolen vehicles, including information of CW #3 ramming responding police vehicles, there was some urgency to arresting CW #3 as soon as possible. The SO also had reason to believe through his training with spike belts that they are not designed to cause an immediate deflation but, rather, a controlled one, allowing for the continued safe operation of the vehicle. Indeed, that is exactly what happened with the two vehicles actually impacted by the belt. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law when he deployed the spike belt. But even if he did, the evidence indicates that the spike belt had nothing to do with the Complainant’s injuries. That is to say, it was not a loss of control over the pick-up truck that resulted in the collision; rather, the evidence indicates CW #3 had full control of the vehicle as he accelerated northwards to the site of the crash.

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

Date: July 11, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit