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 31-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 27, 2025, at 5:17 p.m., the Sarnia Police Service (SPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The Subject Official (SO) was operating a fully marked Ford F-150 patrol pick-up truck on March 27, 2025. At 4:24 p.m., the officer observed a motorcycle, and activated his emergency lights and siren in an attempt to stop it. The motorcyclist, the Complainant, refused to stop and drove away at a high speed. The SO pulled to the side of the road, came to a stop, and reported the circumstance to his dispatcher. A short distance later, the Complainant entered the intersection of Montcalm Avenue and Indian Road [subsequently learned to be London Road] and collided with a vehicle driven by Civilian Witness (CW) #1. The Complainant was thrown off his motorcycle and sustained serious leg injuries. Paramedics transported the Complainant to Bluewater Health in Sarnia, where he was in serious but stable condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/27 at 5:27 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/27 at 8:45 p.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”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 31, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 27, 2025, and April 2, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began in the area of Indian Road North and Exmouth Street, continued south on Indian Road North, east on Hickory Avenue and north on Montcalm Avenue, concluding in and around the intersection of Montcalm Avenue and London Road, Sarnia.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

London Road was oriented in an east-west orientation. It was a four-lane roadway with a centre turn lane. The roadway was paved with visible lane markings. The edge of the roadway had raised concrete curbs. There were pedestrian sidewalks on either edge of the roadway.

Montcalm Avenue was a two-lane roadway travelling in a north-south orientation. The roadway was paved with no visible lane markings. The edge of the roadway had raised concrete curbs. There were pedestrian sidewalks on either edge of the roadway. Montcalm Avenue intersected the south side of London Road in a “T” intersection.

There were three vehicles within the secured scene.

A Honda motorcycle was resting on its right side along the south curb of London Road, approximately nine metres east of Montcalm Avenue. There was extensive damage to the entire motorcycle, and debris from the motorcycle was scattered on the roadway nearby. Visible scrape marks and gouges in the pavement were noted on London Road, beginning in the eastbound passing lane.

A black Chevrolet Cruze was positioned in the eastbound curb lane of London Road, approximately six metres east of the motorcycle. There was collision damage to the front right corner of the Chevrolet Cruze.

A marked SPS Ford F-150 pick-up truck was positioned in a northeast orientation on a front lawn on London Road, located on the southeast corner of the intersection. There was no visible collision damage to the vehicle.

Figure 1 – Collision scene

On March 28, 2025, a video recording of the route travelled by the Complainant (as it was understood at the time) was prepared by the SIU forensic investigators. The recorded route started at the No Frills parking lot at 889 Exmouth Street, continued southbound on Indian Road North to the intersection with Germain Street, eastbound on Germain Street to the intersection with Montcalm Avenue, and then northbound on Montcalm Avenue to London Road, the location of the collision.

It is now known the Complainant and the SO travelled northbound on Montcalm Avenue from Hickory Avenue. From Hickory Avenue, Germain Street was the next intersection encountered on Montcalm Avenue. The intersection at Germain Street was controlled by a stop sign for northbound traffic.

Forensic Evidence

Vehicle Locating Data

The Advanced Log Data for the marked Ford F-150 pick-up truck operated by the SO on March 27, 2025, provided location, speed, and time data for the vehicle.

At 4:20:58 p.m., the vehicle was in the parking lot at the southwest corner of Indian Road North and Exmouth Street [No Frills store at 889 Exmouth Street].

At 4:21:12 p.m., the SO turned southbound onto Indian Road North and accelerated to 81 km/h, before slowing and stopping at London Road. At 4:22:41 p.m., the SO continued southbound on Indian Road, accelerating to 83 km/h south of Germain Street.

At 4:23:13 p.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Hickory Avenue. He then turned northbound on Montcalm Avenue and accelerated to 100 km/h. At the intersection at Germain Street, he slowed to 5 km/h, after which his vehicle accelerated to 70 km/h and then slowed.

At approximately 4:23:59 p.m., the SO’s vehicle stopped at the intersection of London Road and Montcalm Avenue.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

SPS Communications Recordings

At 4:20:36 p.m., March 27, 2025, Officer #1 radioed an officer, believed to be the SO, and reported a motorcycle was pulling onto Indian Road, the rider’s clothing colour, and the motorcycle was travelling southbound on Indian Road. The officer reported the licence plates were not registered to that motorcycle.

At 4:20:57 p.m., the SO acknowledged the transmission.

At 4:21:17 p.m., Officer #1 requested a query for the licence plate on the Complainant’s motorcycle. The dispatcher informed Officer #1 the licence plate was registered to the Complainant’s Honda motorcycle. Officer #1 responded, “Shocking, he must have finally got it registered.”

At 4:22:19 p.m., the SO asked, “Hey [Officer #1], that was that bike you were talking about?” Officer #1 replied, “It was [the SO].”

At 4:23:36 p.m., the SO advised the SPS dispatcher, “I attempted to stop that motorcycle, took off, last seen …” He then said, “Disregard, he bailed.” A siren was not heard during the first transmission but was heard during the second transmission.

At 4:24:30 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance for an injury to the Complainant’s leg. The Complainant could be heard moaning in pain and asking what he had done wrong. The SO replied to the Complainant, “You know what you did wrong.”

At 4:27:10 p.m., Officer #1 asked the SO where the bike had gone. The SO replied, “A couple of seconds after I terminated, he got into an MVC [motor vehicle collision] here.”

Video Footage from Indian Road North

The video camera was located on Indian Road North, between London Road and Germain Street.

The Complainant’s motorcycle was captured entering the camera image at 4:22:35 p.m., travelling southbound, and exiting the image at 4:22:44 p.m. (nine seconds).

A Harley Davidson motorcycle travelled southbound on Indian Road, visible in the camera image from 4:22:38 p.m. to 4:22:48 p.m. (ten seconds).

A black SPS Ford F-150 pick-up travelled southbound on Indian Road, entering the camera image at 4:22:42 p.m. and exiting the image at 4:22:51 p.m. (nine seconds). The emergency equipment was not activated on the police vehicle.

The time each vehicle entered the camera image indicated the second motorcycle was three seconds behind the Complainant’s motorcycle and the SO was seven seconds behind the Complainant. All three vehicles took approximately the same amount of time to travel through the camera image, suggesting their speeds were similar.

Video Footage from Montcalm Avenue

The video cameras were located on Montcalm Avenue, between Germain Street and London Road.

Camera 1

Starting at approximately 4:23:03 p.m., the sound of a motorcycle engine was captured on the audio track. At approximately 4:23:12 p.m., the Complainant drove northbound on Montcalm Avenue through the intersection at Germain Street. He did not slow or stop at Germain Street. He exited the camera image at 4:23:14 p.m. (two seconds).

Starting at approximately 4:23:19 p.m., the sound of a siren was captured on the audio track. At approximately 4:23:21 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle entered the camera image travelling northbound on Montcalm Avenue. The emergency lighting and siren were active on the SO’s vehicle.

At approximately 4:23:24 p.m., the SO slowed and then stopped at the intersection at Germain Street. The SO then continued northbound. At approximately 4:23:31 p.m., the SO exited the camera image (ten seconds). The sound of the SO’s siren ceased.

Camera 2

At approximately 4:23:06 p.m., the sound of a motorcycle engine was captured on the audio track. At approximately 4:23:15 p.m., the Complainant entered the camera image and travelled northbound on Montcalm Avenue. The Complainant exited the camera image at 4:23:16 p.m. (one second).

At approximately 4:23:20 p.m., the sound of a siren was captured on the soundtrack.

At approximately 4:23:31 p.m., the SO’s vehicle entered the camera image and travelled northbound on Montcalm Avenue. The emergency equipment on the SO’s vehicle was turned off at 4:23:32 p.m. The SO exited the camera image at 4:23:33 p.m. (two seconds). The SO’s vehicle was travelling at a slower speed than the Complainant’s motorcycle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SPS between March 27, 2025, and April 4, 2025:

• Email to SIU providing incident information
• A diagram of the route travelled during the incident
• Event Chronology
• Event Unit Report
• Witness statement - the WO
• Notes - the WO
• Scene photographs
• Photographs of injuries sustained by the Complainant
• Default (vehicle) Log Data
• Advance (vehicle) Log Data
• Vehicle Record – CW #1
• Vehicle Record – the Complainant
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 28, 2025, and April 11, 2025:

• Medical records from London Health Sciences Centre
• Medical records from Bluewater Health
• Video footage from an address on Indian Road North
• Video footage from an address on Montcalm Avenue

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, a police officer, and several civilian witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of March 27, 2025, acting on information that the Complainant was operating a motorcycle with improperly registered licence plates, the SO began to follow the motorcycle in his marked pick-up truck. The officer accelerated after the vehicle south on Indian Road North from the area of Exmouth Street, and pursued it as it turned east on Hickory Street and then north on Montcalm Avenue. His initial intention was to stop the motorcycle for possible traffic infractions related to the plates and then, as events developed, the Complainant’s failure to come to a stop at one or more stop signs.

The Complainant accelerated northward at speed on Montcalm Avenue, disregarding the stop sign at Germain Street. As he approached London Road, the Complainant disregarded another stop sign while making a right turn. He and his motorcycle were struck by an eastbound vehicle with the right of way. The impact threw the Complainant from the motorcycle. He gathered himself and slowly made his way to the southeast corner of the intersection. He had sustained serious injuries to his left foot, which had to be partially amputated at hospital.

The SO arrived at the intersection at least 15 seconds after the collision occurred. Assisted by an off-duty police officer in the area, the SO handcuffed the Complainant.

Section 320.13(2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13(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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on March 27, 2025. As the motorcycle he was operating was being followed by a SPS 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 collision.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) 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 his vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

Though, as it turns out, the Complainant’s licence plates were properly registered, the SO had been provided information from a colleague suggesting they were not. On this record, the officer was within his rights in attempting to stop the vehicle for a possible traffic violation. He would have also had cause to stop the motorcycle when the Complainant failed to stop for the officer after he activated his emergency lights and siren (at least as early as on Montcalm Avenue south of Germain Street) and disregarded the stop sign on Montcalm Avenue at Germain Street.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through the series of events culminating in the collision. There is no indication, for example, of any unsafe driving by the officer. The SO’s speeds were never so high as to compromise his ability to control the cruiser, there is no evidence of third-party motorists having had to take evasive action to avoid the cruiser, the officer came to a stop at the Germain Street stop sign on Montcalm Avenue, and the officer was well back of the motorcycle as it sped northward on Montcalm Avenue and crashed at London Road.

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

Date: July 23, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit