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 15-month-old child (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 9, 2025, at 5:25 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 9, 2025, the Subject Official (SO) was working from her residence in Oxford Station and attired in plainclothes. The SO’s spouse, CW #3, operated a daycare facility at their residence and several young children were running about the property. At about 12:00 p.m., the SO entered her personal vehicle, a Jeep, parked in the driveway. She drove forward at slow speed and noticed CW #3 running towards the vehicle. The SO applied her brakes and exited the vehicle. She immediately noticed the Complainant, a 15-month-old boy, lying next to the driver’s side of her Jeep. CW #3 picked up the Complainant and called CW #1, the boy’s mother. CW #1 was nearby and rushed to the scene. She took her son directly to the Kemptville District Hospital (KDH). CW #3 accompanied CW #1, while the SO remained at the residence and notified her supervisor. The Complainant was subsequently transported to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa, where he underwent a Computed Tomography (CT) scan. At 4:45 p.m., CW #2 [the Complainant’s father] told the OPP his son had sustained three skull fractures and would be admitted to CHEO overnight. It was not believed the injuries to the Complainant were life-threatening as he was conscious, alert and aware that his parents were present.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/09 at 6:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/09 at 8:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

15-month-old child; medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 10 and 16, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on May 30, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on May 13, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the driveway of a residence located in Oxford Station.

Physical Evidence

On May 10, 2025, at 7:33 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene and met with WO #5, WO #6, Officer #1, and WO #1.

There were three vehicles in the driveway of the residence, including the SO’s personal vehicle - a Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep was backed into the very end of the driveway adjacent to the house. The front of the Jeep faced in a westerly direction. In front of the Jeep, approximately two metres away, was a blue toy sand shovel. There was also the same blue colour observed within a scrape in the asphalt of the driveway in front of the Jeep. The long driveway of the property was previously wet by overnight rain. There were no other remarkable findings on the driveway. There were no unusual markings on either the front or rear bumpers of the Jeep, which sat at an elevation of 35.56 cm off the ground.

At 9:20 a.m., SIU forensic services completed a 3D scan of the entire scene.

At 10:00 a.m., SIU forensic services released the scene to WO #1.

Expert Evidence

SIU Review of OPP Technical Collision Investigation

The collision occurred in the driveway of the private residence of the SO and CW #3. The physical evidence at the scene included a blue plastic child’s shovel that had been kicked away from the area of impact by the SO immediately after the collision. In the presence of WO #1, the SO found the shovel underneath another vehicle. She handed it to WO #1, and he placed it on the ground in the approximate area where the SO believed the collision occurred. It would appear the shovel remained there for the OPP and SIU scene investigation. A scuff mark was also present on the asphalt driveway. There was no surveillance video of the collision.

It was unclear how and what caused the scuff on the driveway. The plastic shovel could have been run over by a tire of the Jeep and created the scuff. The Jeep might have struck the child while the Jeep was moving forward, or the Jeep and the child could have collided while they were both in motion. The impact was minor.

The Jeep was examined, inspected, and photographed by multiple investigators, including OPP officers with expert experience in collision reconstruction and a SIU investigator with expert experience in forensic examinations. From all accounts, there was no damage to the Jeep from the collision with the child.

Reportedly, the Jeep had been moved forward from a parked position a short distance, and at a low speed, when the impact occurred. The SO stopped immediately.

Multiple photographs and measurements of the Jeep were recorded.

The role of the blue plastic shovel itself was unclear. It was not known whether the child was carrying the shovel and dropped it, whether the shovel was on the ground before the collision and the child was about to pick it up, or whether the shovel was involved at all.

The collision reconstructionist opined that the child, due to his age, would have no concept of the danger of being near a moving vehicle. The injuries sustained by the child occurred during contact with the Jeep and/or when his head struck the ground after contact with the Jeep. There was nothing to suggest the Jeep ran over the child.

OPP Collision Reconstruction Report

OPP collision reconstruction experts attended the scene, and produced a report. The report included detailed documentation of the scene using electronic measurements, a computer-aided design diagram, and notes regarding the involved Jeep. The Jeep airbag control module was not downloaded, as no collision data was expected under the circumstances. No mechanical inspection of the Jeep was performed, as it was deemed unnecessary given the known dynamics of the incident. Additionally, no data were available from the vehicle regarding speed, direction, or pedal use. The report did not offer any findings, expert opinions, or conclusions about how the collision occurred or contributing factors.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On May 9, 2025, an incident occurred involving the SO, an on-duty officer, who was operating a personal vehicle when it struck a 3-year-old child [now known to be 15-month-old]. The child was conscious, crying, and alert while being taken to the hospital by his mother. The Communications Centre contacted ambulance services to confirm details and learned that paramedics had not attended the scene at Oxford Station; instead, they responded at KDH, where they transferred the child to CHEO in Ottawa.

The father, present at the hospital, appeared calm and did not initially believe the injuries were serious. Subsequent medical evaluation revealed that the child had sustained three skull fractures. The child was admitted to CHEO for 24-hour observation.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On May 9, 2025, starting at about 12:30:46 p.m., WO #1 walked up a driveway and greeted the SO, who was dressed in plainclothes. The SO confirmed she operated a Jeep at the time of the incident, and she retrieved the ownership and insurance from the glove compartment. She confirmed that a daycare facility operated within the residence. She stated that the Jeep was returned to the same position it occupied prior to the collision, and explained she had driven forward at the time of the incident. She walked a few metres in front of the Jeep and indicated while gesturing, “I was right here.” The SO reported, “There was a shovel here,” and pointed to the ground with her foot. WO #1 asked her if it was the front of the Jeep, and the SO said, “No, it would have been the back tire.” The SO stated the child had been taken to KDH and was subsequently transported by ambulance to CHEO. WO #1 said they were waiting for an update on the injuries. The SO said the Complainant had some marks on his face and was conscious.

Starting at about 1:41:03 p.m., WO #1 informed WO #3 of the incident, noting the SO was working from home that day. WO #1 reported that the SO had told him she was driving forward, and the child ran out. The SO then exited the garage and explained to WO #1 where the collision occurred, which was just in front of the parked Jeep. She said, “The back tire was right here,” as she gestured with her foot. They spoke about a child’s small plastic blue shovel and the SO confirmed she had kicked the shovel. She said she saw the shovel when she exited the garage. She walked over and picked up the shovel from underneath a dark-coloured Chevrolet Blazer and handed it to WO #1. WO #1 bent down and tossed the shovel onto the ground. WO #1 asked, “So you think rear tire, eh [the SO’s first name]?” to which the SO responded, “Yeah.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 10, 2025, and June 17, 2025:

• List of involved witnesses and officers
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Notes – WO #4, WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, WO #5 and WO #6
• Technical Collision / Reconstruction Investigative Data File
• Scene Security Log
• Work schedule – the SO
• BWC footage – WO #1
• OPP Scenes of Crime Officer photographs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 12 and May 23, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from KDH and CHEO
• Photographs of the Complainant’s injuries from CW #1

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and a civilian eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of May 9, 2025, the SO was working from her home located in Oxford Station when she decided to reposition vehicles in her driveway to attach a trailer to one of them. The officer stepped into a Jeep Cherokee and drove it forward a short distance when she travelled over a small bump and stopped the car. She opened her door and observed the Complainant on the ground by the rear driver-side tire.

The SO’s residence housed a daycare operated by her partner – CW #3. The Complainant was one of the children at the daycare that morning. He and other children had been in a play area off the driveway prior to the collision.

The SO and CW #3 immediately realized that the Complainant had been struck by the Jeep. They rendered first-aid and CW #3 contacted the child’s mother – CW #1. CW #1 arrived at the daycare, and she and CW #3 took the Complainant to hospital.

The Complainant was eventually diagnosed later that day with three skull fractures.

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.

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 – a 15-month-old boy – was seriously injured in a collision involving an OPP officer on May 9, 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 collision.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO had only just entered the Jeep and moved it about a car’s-length when, feeling a bump and seeing her partner – CW #3 – with a concerned expression, she immediately stopped the vehicle. Perhaps the officer ought to have exercised greater vigilance before moving the car. There were young children in the area, and it was incumbent on the officer to ensure they were free and clear as she operated the vehicle. That said, there is evidence that the SO had taken note of the fact that the children all appeared to be in the play area before she drove the Jeep forward, she had moments prior safely relocated another vehicle, she did not accelerate forward at unsafe speed, and she immediately reacted to the collision once it occurred. On this record, the incident is fairly characterized as a momentary lapse in attention that did not amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, still less a marked and substantial one.

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

Date: September 4, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit