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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 27, 2025, at 11:38 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 27, 2025, at 8:27 p.m., the OPP Central Hastings Detachment received a traffic complaint regarding a blue Porsche with a taillight out weaving in and out of traffic dangerously. The vehicle, reportedly travelling at about 160 km/h, was said to be in the area of Madoc. The Subject Official (SO) left the Central Hastings Detachment and drove eastbound on Highway 7 with his radar activated. He saw a blue Porsche 992 travelling at 125 km/h in an 80 km/h zone westbound towards him. Without activating his emergency lights, the officer made a U-turn, and followed the Porsche westbound with the intention of stopping the driver for stunt driving. Less than two kilometres away, the SO approached a cloud of smoke. The Porsche had tried to overtake several vehicles using the eastbound lane of traffic and swiped a westbound motorcyclist as it returned into the westbound lane.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/28 at 12:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/28 at 2:30 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”):

57-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 29, 2025, and May 5, 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

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on May 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on Highway 7, in and around its intersection with Highway 62, and continued west along Highway 7, concluding in and around its intersection with St. Lawrence Street West, Madoc.

Scene Diagram

Postmortem

On Tuesday, April 29, 2025, at 8:15 a.m., the postmortem was performed on the Complainant at the Kingston General Hospital. SIU forensic services were in attendance.

At 10:15 a.m., the autopsy was complete, and preliminary cause of death was announced as “Multiple Blunt Force Injuries”.

Physical Evidence

On April 28, 2025, at 5:50 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene of a motor vehicle collision near the intersection of Highway 7 and St. Lawrence Street West, Madoc. The scene was properly secured. The OPP Collision Reconstruction Unit were on location to map the scene.

Highway 7 and St. Lawrence Street West formed a T-type intersection controlled by traffic lights. Highway 7 was oriented in an east/west direction and St. Lawrence Street West was oriented in a north/south direction. Highway 7 was a two-lane highway: one lane was dedicated to eastbound traffic and the other to westbound traffic. A white fog line and soft shoulders paralleled the lanes. The roadway was divided by a double-yellow centre line. It was asphalt-paved and speed limit signs of 80 km/h were posted on both the north and south sides of Highway 7. The roadway surface was dry. St. Lawrence Street West extended south from Highway 7. Separate lanes were dedicated for motorists wanting to merge onto eastbound and westbound Highway 7. The area was rural in nature.

At the scene was Vehicle #1, a heavily damaged blue Honda Goldwing motorcycle. The licence plate to the motorcycle was visible within the debris field. The motorcycle rested on its side in a grassy ditch on the north side of Highway 7, east of St. Lawrence Street West. Large gouges in the grassy area were visible east of where the motorcycle rested.

Vehicle #2 was a two-door, Porsche GT4RS, which was grey/blue in colour. All airbags were deployed, and the vehicle was heavily damaged. The Porsche was upright next to a light standard, partially in a ditch and facing south on the north side of Highway 7, west of St. Lawrence Street West. Debris and large gouges were visible in the grass area east of where the Porsche rested.

Vehicle #3 was an OPP police vehicle, a black 2023 Dodge Durango four-door SUV. The police vehicle had suppressed OPP decals and an emergency lighting system. There was no visible damage to the police vehicle. Vehicle #3 rested on the north side soft shoulder of Highway 7 with its engine off. The vehicle’s engine was turned on and its emergency lighting system and siren were activated. They were found to be functional and in working condition.

Vehicle debris was scattered on both the south and north sides of Highway 7. An area of impact was identified on the westbound lane of Highway 7. Tire marks were visible on the eastbound fog line and roadway, which crossed over the centre line and continued on the westbound roadway, fog line and soft shoulder areas.

The body of a deceased male - the Complainant - rested on his back under a white blanket in the same grassy area as the motorcycle. Parts of the grassy area were water drenched. The Complainant rested east of the motorcycle, and west of hydro pole # B2HNFS. A coroner’s tag on the deceased’s left wrist identified the male as “the Complainant 57 years of age”.

At 6:43 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the area.

The scene was photographed by the SIU.

Route Video

On April 29, 2025, two SIU forensic investigators drove the route reportedly travelled by the SO. Highway 7 was a two-lane highway with one eastbound lane and one westbound lane. It was paved with wide gravel shoulders. The pavement and pavement markings were in good condition. The road was marked with yellow centre lines and white fog lines at the shoulders. The posted speed limit was 80 km/h. Visibility of oncoming traffic was very limited as the road curved. The road signs for speed limit and chrome yellow road character caution signs were in good condition and unobstructed.

At 12:53 p.m., the video began at the Central Hastings OPP Detachment, 105953 Highway 7, Madoc, located on the north side of Highway 7. The SIU forensic investigators exited the detachment and turned left onto Highway 7 to proceed eastbound. They passed Highway 62 and made a U-turn at a driveway approximately 730 metres from the starting point to continue westbound past Highway 62 and the Central Hastings OPP Detachment. At 3:19 minutes into the route was a solid yellow centre line for westbound traffic. The road curved to the right after an intersection controlled by stop signs for O’Hara Road to the north and Atkinson Road to the south.

At 3:33 minutes into the video, there was a double solid yellow line. The road continued to curve to the right.

At 3:37 minutes into the video, skid marks were visible in the eastbound lane crossing over the double solid yellow and into the westbound lane.

At 3:39 minutes into the video was the area of impact.

At 3:42 minutes into the video, skid marks exited the roadway onto the shoulder and off the shoulder into the ditch just east of St. Lawrence Avenue West.

The route from the U-turn to the area of impact was about two kilometres.

Expert Evidence

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

On April 28, 2025, the SO’s cruiser was stopped in the Central Hastings OPP Detachment parking lot at 105953 Highway 7 (Trans-Canada Highway), Madoc.

At 8:33:32 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was stopped facing southbound at the exit of the OPP Central Hastings Detachment to Highway 7.

At 8:33:52 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled eastbound on Highway 7 with a top speed of 61 km/h, half-way between the OPP detachment and the intersection of Highway 62.

At 8:34:02 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled eastbound on Highway 7, just before the intersection of Highway 62, at a speed of 19.31 km/h.

At 8:34:07 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle made a U-turn, and travelled westbound on Highway 7 approaching the OPP detachment at 59.55 km/h.

At 8:34:19 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled westbound on Highway 7 at 141.31 km/h. The vehicle had just passed the OPP detachment as Highway 7 entered a left curve in a southwest direction.

At 8:34:38 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled southwest on Highway 7 at 191.51 km/h just before the highway reached the intersection of Atkinson Road and started to curve to the right.

At 8:34:49 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled southwest on Highway 7, approaching the T-intersection of St. Lawrence Street West, at 86.90 km/h.

At 8:34:56 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle travelled westbound on Highway 7 at 11.48 km/h, as it passed the T-intersection of St. Lawrence Street West. The vehicle was directly north and across from the eastbound exit ramp from Highway 7 to St. Lawrence Street West.

At 8:34:59 p.m., the SO’s police vehicle was stopped on the north side of Highway 7 at the intersection of the eastbound exit ramp from Highway 7 to St. Lawrence Street West.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

On April 27, 2025, starting at about 8:33:54 p.m., the SO travelled eastbound on Highway 7, after turning left exiting the Central Hastings Madoc OPP Detachment. The intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 62 came into view, and a blue/grey Porsche sedan was captured travelling westbound through the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 62, passing the SO’s police vehicle at a high rate of speed. The SO made a U-turn and continued westbound on Highway 7. The Porsche was far off in the distance, entering a left curve on Highway 7 and disappearing from view. The SO accelerated. His emergency lights were not activated nor was his siren.

Starting at about 8:34.34 p.m., as the SO reached 150 km/h, his emergency lights activated. The SO rounded the first right curve on westbound Highway 7 at 8:34:43 p.m. and travelled over a debris field on the highway at 8:34:44 p.m. The SO continued and passed the wreckage of a Porsche, which could be seen on the north ditch opposite St. Lawrence St. West. The SO’s police vehicle stopped at 8:34:50 p.m.

The ICC camera remained on for the duration of the SO’s time at the scene. The SO eventually placed the driver of the Porsche [CW #1] in the back seat of his SUV. CW #1 received a call from his lawyer while he sat in the rear seat of the police vehicle.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On April 28, 2025, the SO was captured travelling westbound on Highway 7 at a high rate of speed, which was visible at 183 km/h. The SO arrived at a scene at 8:34:50 p.m., stopping his cruiser on the north shoulder of Highway 7. He exited his vehicle and approached a blue/grey Porsche in the north ditch of westbound Highway 7. There was extensive damage to the Porsche. Hands with palms facing forward could be seen in the windshield and under the air bag. The SO approached the driver’s door and opened it. A male - CW #1 - was seated in the driver’s seat. The SO asked CW #1 if he was okay twice, and CW #1 responded that he was okay and then asked the SO if he had hit someone. CW #1 asked, “Are you sure I didn’t hit anybody?” Two civilian witnesses approached the area. CW #1 asked both civilians if he had hit someone, and both civilians responded that they did not see whether anyone was hit. One of the civilians - CW #4 - walked east along the north shoulder of Highway 7. Moments later, CW #4 ran back towards the SO and told him to call an ambulance as there was a motorcyclist in the ditch. CW #1 immediately uttered, “Oh my God, is he okay!” The SO then accompanied both CW #4 and the other civilian to the location of the motorcyclist.

Starting at about 8:40:55 p.m., the SO viewed the Complainant. He advised the dispatcher that the Complainant was not breathing and was deceased. The SO, in the company of CW #4 and other civilian witnesses, returned to CW #1 near the Porsche. CW #1 asked if the person was okay, and CW #4 responded, “He’s gone.” The SO advised CW #1 that he was being detained pending an investigation and cautioned him at 9:01:10 p.m. The SO took CW #1 to his cruiser.

Starting at about 9:01:54 p.m., the SO telephoned someone and reported that CW #1 had refused medical attention and showed no signs of impairment. The call was completed at 9:08:10 p.m. Shortly thereafter, CW #1 advised the SO that his lawyer had contacted him.

Starting at about 9:09:50 p.m., the SO spoke with CW #1’s lawyer on the telephone.

Paramedics arrived on scene and assessed of the Complainant, who was vital signs absent. The Complainant’s helmet was removed. Fire Service Personnel were also on scene and assisted with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant.

The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 9:13 p.m.

The complete rear of the motorcycle was detached from the remainder of the motorcycle.

The SO advised WO #1 that he had clocked CW #1’s Porsche driving at a speed of 125 km/h through the intersection of westbound Highway 7 and Highway 62.

Communications Recordings

On April 27, 2025, at 8:27:30 p.m., CW #5 called 911 and reported, “There’s a guy in a blue Porsche, it has one taillight, going westbound on Highway 7. I am at Kaladar now. He has just passed six vehicles, two tractor trailers on a corner, and he has been doing this since Smiths Falls. He is in and out of traffic like crazy. He’s passing on double lines. He’s probably at Madoc right now. He’s going to kill somebody. He’s flying. He was moving. I couldn’t see a licence plate. He’s doing at least 160 km/h.”

At 8:30:16 p.m., April 27, 2025, the OPP dispatcher advised units of a traffic complaint involving a blue Porsche with one taillight out, travelling westbound on Highway 7 from Kaladar. It was weaving in and out of traffic with speeds of 160 km/h. The SO, responded immediately and, at 8:35:23 p.m., advised he had located the vehicle. The SO said the vehicle was in a ditch on Highway 7 and St. Lawrence Street West. He requested additional units to attend for traffic control.

At 8:39:20 p.m., the SO advised a motorcyclist was involved, and he requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

At 8:41:36 p.m., the SO advised it looked like the motorcyclist was deceased.

At 8:42:28 p.m., the SO requested that a traffic sergeant call him.

At 9:00:07 p.m., the SO advised EMS was on scene and performing CPR.

At 10:07:04 p.m., WO #1 advised he was off at an address in Madoc to do a notification to next-of-kin.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between April 30, 2025, and June 10, 2025:

• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Dashcam footage – CW #4
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Communications Recordings
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• List of Involved Police Officers and Witnesses
• Reconstruction data
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser
• Witness Statements – CW #2 and CW #4
• Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with civilian eyewitnesses and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

In the evening of April 27, 2025, the OPP received a call from a motorist – CW #5 – about a Porsche being operated dangerously on Highway 7, west of Kaladar. The Porsche was said to be weaving in and out of traffic, passing vehicles in the opposite lane of traffic, and speeding upwards of 160 km/h.

The SO responded to the call and left the OPP Central Hastings Detachment travelling east on Highway 7 intending to intercept the Porsche. He was just short of the intersection at Highway 62 when the Porsche travelled westbound past him at speed. The SO executed a U-turn and accelerated after the Porsche.

CW #1 was driving the Porsche. He continued westbound on Highway 7 at speeds well over the 80 km/h speed limit. As he came up on a Honda Civic approaching the St. Lawrence Street West intersection not more than a couple of kilometres west of Highway 62, CW #1 passed the Civic in the eastbound lane before swerving back into the westbound lane and striking the left side of a westbound motorcyclist – the Complainant.

The Complainant was thrown from his motorcycle and crashed into the ditch on the north side of the highway. He suffered catastrophic injuries and was pronounced deceased at the scene.

CW #1’s Porsche continued westward a short distance and crashed into the ditch on the north side of the highway, west of the Highway 7 eastbound off-ramp to St. Lawrence Street West. CW #1 was fortunate to have escaped without serious injury.

The SO had lost sight of the Porsche shortly after his U-turn as it disappeared behind a bend in the road. He came upon the site of the collision about 20 seconds after it occurred and stopped to render assistance.

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.

The Complainant passed away on April 27, 2025, from injuries incurred in a motor vehicle collision. As the motorcycle he was operating was struck by a vehicle being pursued by an OPP 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 death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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.

Given the information at his disposal regarding the Porsche’s speed and its reckless operation via the 911 caller, and what he had personally observed of the vehicle’s speed as it passed him, the SO was within his rights in attempting to stop CW #1 for dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that in the brief period that the SO was engaged with the Porsche, about 50 seconds over 1.8 kilometres, the officer comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The SO’s speed, topping out at over 190 km/h, is subject to legitimate scrutiny, particularly as the officer did not turn on his emergency equipment until the vehicle did so automatically at 150 km/h. That said, at least some of that excessive speed is understandable if the officer was going to close the distance to the Porsche given how fast it was travelling. Nor did any third-party motorist have to take evasive action to avoid the SO. In fact, there was no traffic on the roadway at the time. Lastly, it bears noting that the SO was never very close to the Porsche such that it could be said he unduly pushed CW #1. In fact, it may well be that CW #1 was never aware of a police vehicle behind him. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: August 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit