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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 6, 2025, at 6:01 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 6, 2025, at 1:38 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) was en route to a call for service in a marked cruiser, travelling south on Glengarry Avenue, Windsor. He made a left turn to go eastbound onto Assumption Street, and collided with a cyclist, the Complainant, who had entered onto Assumption Street from a private pathway. Paramedic services attended the scene. The Complainant was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) and admitted. He was believed to have sustained shoulder, hip, and collarbone fractures.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/06 at 6:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/06 at 11:13 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 15, 2025.

Subject Official

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on April 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Assumption Street, between Glengarry Avenue and Aylmer Avenue, Windsor.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Assumption Street, a two lane road, was oriented in an east-west direction. There was a sidewalk on each side of the street. The posted speed limit on Assumption Street was 50 km/h.

Midway between Glengarry Avenue and Aylmer Avenue was a paved alleyway on the south side of Assumption Street oriented in a north-south direction. The alley was located in between two residences with Residence #1 on the west side and Residence #2 on the east side. The alley ended at the south side of Assumption Street in a T-intersection with Assumption Street as the northernmost point. The alley was not traffic-controlled, and there were no signs or crosswalk to indicate an alley existed at its location.

WPS Cruiser

The cruiser assigned to the SO was a fully marked Ford Explorer. It was equipped with emergency lights and siren. The vehicle was oriented facing east and slightly north. It was in the centre of the road and about one car length east of the alley. There were tire marks on the road, which followed behind the SO’s tires to the resting place of his cruiser. There was minor damage to the front passenger side corner and headlight. There were black scuff marks on the hood and some dents.

WPS Scenes of Crime Photographs - Raleigh Mountain Bicycle

The bicycle operated by the Complainant was a black Raleigh mountain bicycle. The bicycle laid in the middle of the roadway on its right side. It was about three metres east of the SO’s vehicle near the south curb. The front wheel and spokes were damaged.

Forensic Evidence

WPS Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – The SO’s Cruiser

The SIU received GPS data points and a video plotting the data. Due to the short route from the place of departure at Glengarry Avenue (the “Apartment Building”) to Residence #1, there were insufficient data points on Assumption Street to conduct a speed analysis for the SO’s vehicle.

WPS Crash Data Recorder (CDR) – The SO’s Cruiser

A data download of the airbag control module was attempted with the Bosch CDR system; however, no collision event was recorded.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Caesars Windsor Hotel & Casino

On April 6, 2025, at 1:37:11 p.m., the Complainant rode a bicycle northbound from an alley located to the east of Residence #1.

At 1:37:12 p.m., the Complainant disappeared from camera view behind a tree and a civilian vehicle parked at Residence #1. A cruiser [the SO] travelled eastbound on Assumption Street. It was about at the western edge of the Residence #1 property.

At 1:37:13 p.m., the front of the SO’s cruiser collided with the Complainant, who landed on the hood of the cruiser.

At 1:37:14 p.m., the SO slowed his cruiser. The Complainant fell from the hood and was launched several metres east onto the roadway. The SO stopped his cruiser.

WPS Radio Communications

On April 6, 2025, at 1:36:29 p.m.,[3] a WPS officer requested assistance at Church Street and Riverside Drive West for two men refusing to leave. The SO marked himself as responding to the call.

At 1:37:50 p.m., the SO advised he would not be able to assist. He requested paramedic services attend his location at Residence #2. He said he had struck a man [the Complainant] with his cruiser. He also requested a sergeant attend the scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the WPS between April 8, 2025, and April 14, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Radio communications
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Scene photographs
• Notes – WO #2 and WO #1
• GPS data – the SO
• Police Vehicles Directive and Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Directive

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 8, 2025, and April 9, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from WRH
• Video footage from Residence #1
• Video footage from apartment building
• Video footage from Residence #3
• Video footage from Caesars Windsor Hotel & Casino
• Caesars Windsor Hotel & Casino Surveillance Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident, 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 April 6, 2025, the Complainant was riding his bicycle in an alley northward towards Assumption Street. Without stopping or slowing, the Complainant entered onto Assumption Street and was struck by a police cruiser travelling east on Assumption Street from Glengarry Avenue.

The SO was driving the cruiser, without his emergency equipment on, en route to assist another officer dealing with individuals refusing to leave an amusement park. He had just left the the police substation at 333 Glengarry Avenue, turned left onto eastbound Assumption Street, and travelled about 50 metres before colliding with the Complainant. The officer had no chance to avoid the collision once the Complainant appeared in front of him.

At hospital following the event, the Complainant was diagnosed with fractures to his left clavicle, left finger, left rib and hip.

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

(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 when the bicycle he was riding was struck by a WPS marked cruiser on April 6, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO 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 injuries.

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.

The SO had only travelled about 90 metres from the moment he left the police station until the point of impact with the Complainant. During that brief period, there is no indication of any substandard driving behaviour by the officer. Rather, the collision seems the unfortunate result of the Complainant failing to check for approaching traffic before entering onto Assumption Street from the alley. The SO might have considered activating his emergency equipment, which presumably would have given the Complainant greater notice of his presence. That said, he had only just started to drive to a call for service and had not yet encountered any traffic conditions that would have necessitated the use of his lights and siren.

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