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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 11, 2025, at 12:06 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 10, 2025, at 9:05 p.m., the OPP received a call regarding an Intimate Partner Violence incident involving the Complainant and a woman at an address in Lucan. On arrival, Witness Official (WO) #1 observed the Complainant enter his black Ford and intentionally drive into his cruiser. There was no pursuit initiated at that time of the Complainant’s vehicle. Sometime later, the OPP received calls about the Complainant’s Ford driving erratically. OPP officers located the vehicle and activated their emergency lights and sirens. The Complainant refused to stop, and eventually entered the jurisdiction of the London Police Service (LPS). A spike belt was deployed by OPP officers and one of the Ford’s tires was deflated; however, the vehicle continued to flee. The OPP Provincial Command Centre (PCC) granted permission to intentionally contact the Ford for the purpose of stopping it. The Ford continued after this tactic was tried the first time. A second intentional contact was initiated, this time causing the Ford to spin out of control and strike another vehicle. The Ford was boxed-in at this point, and the Complainant attempted to flee on foot. Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2, both LPS Emergency Response Unit (ERU) officers, became involved and engaged the Complainant. They discharged their conducted energy weapons (CEWs) on three occasions, after which the Complainant was handcuffed. Shortly after the arrest, the Complainant lost consciousness and Narcan was administered. The Complainant was revived and transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) – University Campus, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit for an apparent collapsed lung.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/11 at 12:37 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/11 at 2:33 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on May 13, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 22, 2025, and June 21, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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 officials were interviewed on May 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Richmond Street and Jacksway Crescent, London.

Scene Diagrams

Physical Evidence

A damaged no-parking sign was observed at the scene by the west curb of the southbound lane of Richmond Street. Vehicle debris was also observed in this area. Four involved vehicles were observed in the area south of Jacksway Crescent, in the northbound lanes and on the sidewalk grass strip.

SIU forensic services measured and photographed the scene.

Several exhibits from the scene were collected for further examination:

• Item #1, a CEW probe, located on the east sidewalk south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #2, a CEW probe, located on the east sidewalk south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #3, a CEW probe, located on the west edge of the east sidewalk south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #4, a CEW probe, located on the east sidewalk south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #5, a Narcan dispenser, located on the east sidewalk grass strip, south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #6, a Narcan dispenser, located on the east sidewalk grass strip, south of the Complainant’s vehicle.
• Item #7, a CEW probe, located on the east sidewalk south of the Complainant’s vehicle.

Forensic Evidence

LPS CEW Deployment Data – SO #2

On May 10, 2025, at 9:32:27.320 p.m., Cartridge 1 was deployed. At 9:32:27.918 p.m.,[2] Cartridge 2 was deployed. At 9:32:28.515 p.m., Cartridge 3 was deployed. At 9:32:29.330 p.m., Cartridge 4 was deployed. Energy was discharged for 7 seconds. At 9:32:44.449 p.m., energy was discharged for 7 seconds.

LPS CEW Deployment Data – SO #1

On May 10, 2025, at 9:32:27.133 p.m., Cartridge 1 was deployed. At 9:32:27.877 p.m., Cartridge 2 was deployed. Energy was discharged for 5 seconds. At 9:32:51.318 p.m., Cartridge 3 was deployed. At 9:32.52.726 p.m., Cartridge 4 was deployed. Energy was discharged for 6 seconds. At 9:32:58.713 p.m., Cartridge 5 was deployed. Energy was discharged for 1 second. At 9:32:59.582 p.m., Cartridge 6 was deployed. Energy was discharged for 5 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

At 9:20 p.m., May 10, 2025, Officer #1 was captured operating a vehicle.

At 9:29 p.m., Officer #1 made a U-turn and announced he was behind a Ford with its driver’s door opened. The Ford travelled in the middle lane with its four-way flashers on. Officer #1 reported a speed of 37 km/h. The officer activated his siren.

At 9:30:45 p.m., the Complainant stopped on an angle towards the northbound lanes. Officer #1 pulled up and contacted the driver’s side of the Ford. The officer yelled at the Complainant to get out of his car. The Complainant waved and took off.

A spike belt was deployed across the southbound lanes of Richmond Street.

Officer #1 continued after the Ford and emergency lighting (WO #2) was seen in the distance.

At 9:31:23 p.m., Officer #1 advised WO #2 he was behind him if he wanted to do a rolling block. The Ford travelled through an intersection and then passed five vehicles that had pulled over to the curb lane. The Ford straddled two lanes of traffic as WO #2’s police vehicle struck the left rear corner of the Ford. The Ford swerved but regained control before it crossed the south curb lane and travelled onto grass. The Ford travelled on the sidewalk a distance before returning to the roadway.

At 9:31:58 p.m., WO #2’s ICC captured the Ford with its driver’s door open as it travelled southbound down the sidewalk on Richmond Street.

At 9:32:04, the Ford returned to the curb lane with the Complainant partially hanging out the driver’s door and looking back towards WO #2.

At 9:32:08 p.m., WO #2 struck the rear corner of the Ford, which began to rotate counterclockwise. The Ford struck the front end of a stopped vehicle [operated by CW #1]. The Ford then travelled backwards and, seconds later, stopped on the grass area. A LPS van arrived northbound on Richmond Street and was positioned behind the Complainant’s vehicle on the grass.

At 9:32:24 p.m., the Complainant exited his vehicle as WO #2 approached with his firearm drawn. There were no responses from the Complainant to WO #2 or the police officers running up to his location from behind.

At 9:32:31 p.m., Officer #1’s ICC captured two LPS ERU members arriving from behind the Complainant and, a second later, deploying their CEWs. The Complainant fell to the ground.

At 9:32:50 p.m., WO #2 stood up, and the Complainant rolled out from behind the driver’s door. The two LPS ERU members, and WO #2 and Officer #1, began to gain control of the Complainant.

At 9:41 p.m., it was announced that the Complainant was breathing but unresponsive.

The remaining footage captured life-saving efforts being performed on the Complainant up to and including the arrival of the London Fire Department and EMS, which departed with the Complainant to hospital.

LPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

At 9:31 p.m., May 10, 2025, SO #1 drove on Richmond Street towards Jacksway Crescent. SO #2 was in the passenger seat.

At 9:32 p.m., SO #2 transmitted that the OPP had “pitted” the vehicle and the driver, the Complainant, was about to run. SO #1 and SO #2 mentioned that somebody would be killed by the Complainant’s driving. SO #1 spoke of pinning the vehicle and then, as he stopped his police vehicle, SO #2 exited the passenger side. SO #2 and others screamed at the Complainant to get on the ground. SO #1 exited and pulled his CEW as he approached the Complainant, who stood by his open driver’s door.

At 9:32:32 p.m., SO #1 told the Complainant to get on the ground before he discharged his CEW. The Complainant screamed. His hands were positioned in front of his body as he bent his knees, went on his tiptoes, and fell stomach first onto the ground. WO #2 approached the Complainant and grabbed his right upper arm. SO #2 approached the left side. The Complainant resisted giving his arms.

At 9:32.55 p.m., SO #1 again pointed his CEW at the Complainant, who was now in a seated position on the sidewalk. SO #2 instructed the Complainant to roll over as he grabbed the Complainant’s upper right arm. The Complainant spun away and stated, “Don’t say that.” SO #1 discharged his CEW to the chest area. The Complainant went onto his back as both hands were clinched in front of his body. The Complainant was rolled over onto his stomach as he continued to struggle and got onto all fours. Demands to get on the ground and surrender hands were heard. WO #2, Officer #2 and a third officer struggled to get control of the Complainant’s arms.

At 9:36:10 p.m., it was said that the Complainant was breathing as SO #1 walked away.

OPP officers watched over the Complainant.

At 9:41:03 p.m., somebody inquired if the Complainant was responsive and was told “no”. It was announced over the radio that the Complainant was unresponsive. SO #1 said he had a pulse and instruction was given to put him in the recovery position.

At 9:42:54 p.m., SO #1 administered Narcan. EMS arrived, and a second dose of Narcan was administered.

At 9:45 p.m., EMS stated the Complainant had a pulse but was unconscious.

OPP Communications Recordings

The OPP received several 911 calls of a domestic disturbance at an address in Lucan. A woman had reportedly been thrown to the ground. A man was heard saying that somebody was trying to kill him, and he screamed for help.

On May 10, 2025, at 9:04 p.m., a caller reported a group of people pushing, shoving and speaking in different languages. Somebody was jumping on the windshield of a black four-door car as others attempted to pull somebody else out of the vehicle. A man [the Complainant] jumped through a back window into the rear seat.

At 9:05 p.m., a second caller reported a man, the Complainant, and a woman were in a vehicle, and people were screaming to get the woman out of the vehicle. At one point, the Complainant was reported in the back seat of the vehicle. The Complainant drove off with the driver’s door open, and the woman fell out onto the street.

At 9:05 p.m., Officer #3 and WO #1 were dispatched to Lucan. WO #1 reported that the Complainant had struck Officer #3’s police vehicle and then that both police vehicles were rammed. The Complainant had driven away towards Highway 4 (Richmond Street).

WO #1, after speaking to witnesses, would report the Complainant was intoxicated.

EMS called the OPP and reported a possible motor vehicle collision on Richmond Street, north of Elgin Field Road. They had received a call from a man, who would not identify himself and appeared to be “out of it”. He said he had to go to Mexico or Toronto, and that EMS would know what was happening.

At 9:19 p.m., a caller contacted the OPP and reported he was southbound on Highway 4 and had just driven through Birr. He believed that a man, the Complainant, was fleeing from the police. The caller continued to follow the vehicle and reported the Complainant driving erratically, swerving within the two southbound lanes. At Ilderton Road, the Complainant disobeyed a red light, but then stopped for a green light.

At 9:22 p.m., the OPP notified the LPS of the situation.

The caller continued following, speaking to OPP dispatch and reporting erratic driving and traffic violations. The caller had to stop for a red light at Sunningdale Road and saw an OPP police vehicle behind the Complainant.

Officer #1 advised he would try to stop the Ford using alternative measures at Richmond Street and Plane Tree Drive.

At 9:29 p.m., Officer #1 advised he was behind the vehicle and that its driver’s door was open. WO #2 advised he was at Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road, driving northbound.

At 9:31 p.m., an officer reported that the Ford had struck a spike belt, and at least one wheel was hit. The Complainant continued down Richmond Street. WO #2 inquired if he could make intentional contact. WO #2 made a second request for intentional contact. He then said he would get in front of the Ford before somebody got hurt.

At 9:32 p.m., the PCC Sergeant advised intentional contact was approved. WO #2 reported the Complainant had driven onto the sidewalk, still southbound.

At 9:34 p.m., it was reported the LPS was helping to get the Complainant handcuffed, followed shortly that an arrest had been made.

At 9:35 p.m., Officer #1 reported the LPS had deployed a CEW and requested EMS. Officer #1 gave medical updates, indicating the Complainant was breathing but unresponsive. Narcan had been deployed with a slight response, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had been started, and a pulse had returned but the Complainant was still unconscious.

Officer #1 subsequently reported the ambulance had to stop to sedate a combative Complainant and, at 10:26 p.m., they had arrived at the hospital.

LPS Communications Recordings

On May 10, 2025, at 9:05 p.m., the LPS dispatch advised that the OPP had an impaired driver in Lucan. A Ford [licence plate provided] had reportedly struck two police vehicles and run over a civilian. The driver was the Complainant, and he was last seen southbound on Richmond Street.

SO #2 announced the Ford was pitted by the OPP, and the Complainant was about to flee on foot. SO #1 advised the Ford was stopped at Richmond Street and Jacksway Crescent.

SO #1 advised they were just taking the Complainant, who was in custody after multiple CEW deployments. EMS was requested. The officer advised that the Complainant was possibly experiencing excited delirium and then indicated that Narcan had been administered on two occasions.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between May 14, 2025, and May 27, 2025.

• Names, contact information and statements of civilian witnesses
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Communications recordings
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Notes - WO #2 and WO #1

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between May 14, 2025, and May 16, 2025.

• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Notes - WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• CEW deployment data

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from LHSC – University Campus on May 15, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the evening of May 10, 2025, OPP officers from the Middlesex Detachment were dispatched to a scene in Lucan, following calls to police about a disturbance and possible assault at the address. WO #1 and Officer #3 arrived in the area in separate cruisers just as the subject of the complaint – the Complainant – was driving away in a Ford. Ignoring a stop sign, the Complainant struck Officer #3’s cruiser as the officer was turning onto the street where the address was located. The Complainant proceeded to reverse the Ford, striking WO #1’s cruiser, before he accelerated away, eventually entering onto Highway 4 (which became Richmond Street south of Lucan). The officers reported what had occurred, and remained on scene to investigate the disturbance.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He continued southbound on Richmond Street towards London, driving erratically – swerving between lanes and disobeying traffic control signals. Motorists in the vicinity contacted police to report what they were observing.

The OPP notified the LPS that the Complainant was heading into their jurisdiction as OPP officers began responding to Richmond Street to locate the Ford. Officer #1 came upon it as the Complainant drove through a red light on Richmond Street at Sunningdale Road. The officer followed the Ford and watched as it came to a virtual stop around Plane Tree Drive. Officer #1 drove into the driver side of the Ford at low speed, after which the Complainant resumed his southward travel on Richmond Street.

WO #2 joined in the pursuit and became the lead vehicle behind the Complainant at the next intersection (North Centre Road). The officer followed the Ford as it disregarded another red light and continued past the Fanshawe Park Road intersection. A short distance later, in the area of Hillview Boulevard, WO #2 struck the rear driver side of the Ford. The Complainant momentarily lost control of his vehicle and jumped the west side curb, driving on the boulevard and sidewalk before return to the road. Just past the Jacksway Crescent intersection, WO #2’s cruiser again struck the rear driver side of the Ford. On this occasion, the contact caused the vehicle to rotate counterclockwise before it entered backwards into the northbound lanes and came to rest on the east side boulevard. The time was 9:32 p.m.

WO #2 and Officer #1 maneuvered their cruisers in front of the Ford, preventing its forward travel, as other officers arrived on scene. The Complainant exited the driver’s seat and was repeatedly ordered to raise his hands and get on the ground. He failed to do so and was struck by CEW deployments fired by SO #1 and SO #2. The officers had arrived on scene in their cruiser at about the same time as the Complainant was exiting the Ford.

The Complainant collapsed to the ground following the initial CEW discharges. When officers moved in to handcuff him, the Complainant refused to release his arms. He struggled against the officers’ efforts to control him, and was subjected to additional CEW discharges by SO #1 and SO #2. Following the last of the CEW deployments, the Complainant’s arms were brought behind the back and handcuffed.

Shortly after his arrest, the Complainant became unresponsive. Officers administered naloxone and CPR was performed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for rhabdomyolysis; a condition brought on by the CEW deployments.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code – Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25(1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 320.13(1), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by LPS and OPP officers on May 10, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 – each of the LPS ERU – subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant had operated his Ford recklessly – colliding with police vehicles and driving through red lights – and was subject to arrest for dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the CEW deployments by SO #1 and SO #2, the evidence does not reasonably establish the force was excessive. The officers had reason to believe that the Complainant had possibly assaulted a woman before taking flight from officers in his Ford, striking their cruisers in the process. They were also aware of the Complainant’s dangerous driving over a protracted period. He was a real and present danger to public safety, and it was imperative that he be taken into custody as soon as possible. At the same time, the Complainant’s behaviour would have led the officers to believe he would resist arrest. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers acted precipitously when they tasered the Complainant after he failed to raise his hands or lower himself to the ground. In fact, the Complainant continued to struggle strenuously with officers after the initial CEW discharges, justifying, in my view, the additional use of the weapon by the officers.

Though not the focus of the SIU’s investigation, I note that the conduct of the OPP officers, in particular, Officer #1 and WO #2 and their resort to intentional vehicular contact with the Ford, would not appear to attract criminal liability. The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) 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 either officer operated his vehicle that was sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

The use of a cruiser to stop a fleeing vehicle – a tactic that is fraught with risk to public safety – was a reasonable course of action. Left unchecked, it was clear that the Complainant represented a significant threat to pedestrians and other users of the road. It was also clear that he was not about to stop and that some kind of interdiction would be required. A spike belt had previously been tried on the Ford and proven ineffective. Importantly, on each occasion that Officer #1 and WO #2 contacted the Complainant’s vehicle, the Ford was travelling at relatively slow speed with moderate to no traffic in the area. On a weighing of these circumstances, I am satisfied that the officers’ conduct is owed a measure of deference.

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

Date: September 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit