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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 4, 2025, at 5:45 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 4, 2025, at 3:16 a.m., the subject official (SO) and the witness official (WO) were travelling westbound on Highway 401, east of Ingersoll, when they observed a vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. They attempted to investigate the vehicle, which failed to stop as it exited at Harris Street. The investigation was terminated, and they pulled over on the side of the road. A single vehicle collision was reported near Canterbury Street, which was an extension of Harris Street, involving a vehicle that was later determined to be driven by the Complainant. The Complainant was the lone occupant of the vehicle. He was taken to Victoria Hospital (VH) and diagnosed with a broken femur and multiple rib fractures.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/04 at 6:22 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/04 at 8:36 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 4, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on May 9, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Harris Street, in and around its intersection with Canterbury Street, Ingersoll.

Physical Evidence

On May 4, 2025, at 8:36 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the scene. Harris Street was a paved two-lane highway that generally aligned north and south. Canterbury Street was a two-lane paved highway that generally aligned east and west. The three-way intersection was controlled by stop signs in all directions. This location was signed a 50 km/h zone and contained a mix of residential and commercial properties.

Forensic Evidence

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

On May 4, 2025, at 3:12 a.m., the SO and the WO exited the westbound Highway 401 Ingersoll ONroute. The SO drove at speeds between 140 km/h and 150 km/h for about two kilometres between Foldens Line and Highway 19 South/Harris Street exit. The maximum captured speed was 153 km/h.

At 3:14:50 a.m., the SO exited Highway 401 at Highway 19 South/Harris Street and drove north.

At 3:15:08 a.m., the SO was about 900 metres south of the collision scene.

At 3:15:32 a.m., the SO was stationary on Harris Street, around 550 metres south of the collision scene.

At 3:19:24 a.m., the SO continued north on Harris Street to the location of the collision.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – The Complainant’s Vehicle

The Complainant was wearing his seatbelt. Five seconds prior to the collision, he was applying the accelerator at about 50 percent full and travelling at 184 km/h. Four seconds prior to the collision, the Complainant was applying neither the accelerator nor the brake. His rate of speed was 186 km/h. Three seconds prior to the collision, the Complainant applied the brake, and the rate of speed dropped from 167 km/h to 84 km/h at impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

On May 4, 2025, starting at about 3:13:08 a.m., the cruiser was westbound on Highway 401, west of Foldens Line. The illuminated taillights of the Complainant’s vehicle were ahead in the westbound lane before it exited at Harris Street. The SO’s cruiser also exited at Harris Street.

Starting at about 3:15:05 a.m., the Complainant’s brake lights illuminated as he approached the stop sign that controlled the intersection of Harris Street and Canterbury Street.

Starting at about 3:15:08 a.m., the SO pulled to the side of the road, stopped his cruiser, and notified the OPP Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) of a ‘fail to stop’ incident and that no emergency lights or siren had been activated on his cruiser.

Starting at about 3:19:36 a.m., the SO’s cruiser travelled north on Harris Street after the SO received permission from the PCC to resume patrol. The cruiser arrived at Harris Street and Canterbury Street.

Video Footage - Petro Canada

Starting at about 3:14:22 a.m., the Complainant’s vehicle was westbound on Canterbury Street before it impacted a utility pole.

Starting at about 3:19:23 a.m., the SO and the WO arrived on scene.

Video Footage - Murray’s Contracting

Starting at about 3:15:08 a.m., the Complainant’s vehicle was westbound on Canterbury Street. His tires were screeching[3] before the vehicle struck a stop sign and a utility pole.

Starting at about 3:19:53 a.m., the SO and the WO arrived on scene.

OPP Communications Recordings / Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On May 4, 2025, at 3:16:00 a.m., the SO notified dispatch that he had stopped his cruiser after attempting to investigate a speeding driver. He did not engage in a pursuit and did not activate his emergency lights. He provided his location on Harris Street, and a description and direction of travel for the offending vehicle [the Complainant].

At 3:19:09 a.m., the PCC advised of a single vehicle collision on Canterbury Street, involving the Complainant.

At 3:19:24 a.m., the SO was cleared to resume patrol and attended the collision.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 5, 2025, and June 13, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Names of civilian witnesses and any statements obtained
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage - SO’s marked OPP cruiser
• Photographs and video footage, including Remote Piloted Aerial System video
• CDR data - Complainant’s vehicle
• GPS data - police vehicle
• OPP Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 4, 2025, and May 27, 2025:

• Video footage – Petro Canada and Murray’s Contracting
• The Complainant’s medical records - VH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police witness, 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 early morning of May 4, 2025, the SO was operating a cruiser travelling westbound on Highway 401 towards Ingersoll when he detected a vehicle speeding in the same direction. The officer accelerated after the vehicle to stop it for a speeding violation.

The Complainant was driving the subject vehicle. He continued at speed on the highway and exited at Harris Street, travelling north. At over 180 km/h, the Complainant approached the Harris Street intersection with Canterbury Street. He began to decelerate but, unable to negotiate the northwest bend in the road at the intersection, lost control and crashed his vehicle. The time was about 3:15 a.m.

The SO, without his emergency equipment on, had followed the Complainant off the highway at Harris Street. He continued at speed briefly on Harris Street before slowing down and disengaging. Several minutes later, on hearing via radio of a crash up the road, the SO resumed his patrol and drove to the site of the collision.

The Complainant was taken from the scene to hospital in ambulance. His injuries included a fractured right femur and several broken right-sided ribs.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a car crash in Ingersoll on May 4, 2025. As his vehicle had been chased prior to the collision by an OPP cruiser, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The driver of the cruiser was identified as the subject official – the SO. 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.

Having observed the Complainant significantly in excess of the speed limit on the highway, the SO was within his rights in trying to stop him for a speeding infraction.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety during his brief engagement with the Complainant. In his efforts to stop the Complainant’s vehicle, the SO also reached speeds upwards of 150 km/h on the highway, doing so without the use of his emergency lights. The risks inherent in that speed were, however, tempered by the time of day and little to no traffic on the roadway. Once on Harris Street, when it became abundantly clear that the Complainant was not about to stop and the risks to public safety were increasing in a more urban setting, the officer did the right thing by discontinuing pursuit and pulling over. In fact, he was hundreds of metres away from the site of the collision when it occurred. 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 27, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit