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 24-year-old male (“Complainant #1”) and a 16-year-old male (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 27, 2025, at 11:27 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 3:07 a.m., HRPS received a report about an Oakville home invasion. At 3:59 a.m., they received another home invasion call in Milton. At 4:01 a.m., a white vehicle fled that scene. Patrol officers in the north end of Burlington were on the lookout for the suspect vehicle. At 4:22 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 located the vehicle and initiated a pursuit northbound on Appleby Line. At 4:25 a.m., a tire deflation device was successfully deployed on Appleby Line. At that time, WO #8 discontinued the pursuit when it was south of Derry Road. At 4:26 a.m., the suspect vehicle collided with a utility pole, about nine seconds after the pursuit was discontinued. One suspect fled on foot and was pursued by officers. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, and he was arrested at 4:28 a.m. Four other suspects were arrested in the vehicle that had flipped over. All five arrested men were taken to hospital and, at the time of notification, were at HRPS 20 Division in Oakville. The injured man was identified as Complainant #1. He was treated at Milton District Hospital (MDH) and diagnosed with a broken clavicle.

At 11:57 a.m., the HRPS further advised that one of the vehicle occupants had significant trauma identified during a computed tomography examination and was being transported to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/27 at 11:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/27 at 12:42 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 24-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 16-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between May 27, 2025, and July 9, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 27, 2025, and July 10, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on May 31, 2025.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in Burlington and Milton, beginning in and around the area of Walkers Line and No. 2 Side Road, continuing east on No. 2 Side Road and then north on Appleby Line, and concluding on Appleby Line a distance south of Derry Road West.

Appleby Line, Burlington, was aligned in a general northwest to southeast direction with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h. The collision occurred about 285 metres southeast of Derry Road and about 2.8 kilometres northwest of the Britannia Road roundabout. The road was straight, and, at 4:20 a.m., the weather was good and visibility clear [source: weathernetwork.ca]. There was minimal street lighting along Appleby Line, which was mostly rural with large farmlands on both sides of the road.

SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

Figure 1 - The collision scene

Figure 2 – Google Maps image depicting Appleby Line from the roundabout on Britannia Road [orange arrow added] to the collision site [red arrow added].

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services examined a white Honda and the police cruisers reportedly involved in the incident under investigation. The Honda was extensively damaged while the marked cruisers had no apparent collision damage.

Figure 3 – Damage to the Honda

Figure 4 – Front end of SO #1’s cruiser with no visible damage

Forensic Evidence

HRPS Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

On May 27, 2025, at 4:21 a.m., WO #1 and SO #1 accelerated eastbound on No. 2 Side Road, reaching speeds of 148 km/h.

At about 4:23 a.m., SO #1, WO #1 and WO #5 turned from No. 2 Side Road onto northbound Appleby Line. After the roundabout at Britannia Road, SO #1 briefly reached a speed of 190 km/h.

At 4:25:47 a.m. [when WO #8 broadcast a direction to discontinue the pursuit], SO #1 was northbound on Appleby Line, about one kilometre south of Derry Road, at a speed of about 165 km/h. WO #1 was about 100 metres behind her travelling at the same speed and WO #5, behind WO #1, was travelling at about 132 km/h.

In the six seconds following WO #8’s call to discontinue, SO #1 continued to travel at 160 km/h. The officers slowed but none stopped.

Collision Data – Honda

Five seconds prior to the collision, the speed of the Honda was 137 km/h and the brake was not applied. The brake was subsequently applied for one second. About three seconds prior to the collision, the speed of the Honda was 119 km/h. The Honda was out of control; it rotated counterclockwise and slid across the southbound lane. The brake was never applied again prior to the collision. The Honda slowed to 70 km/h when it struck a hydro pole.

SIU Collision Reconstructionist’s Findings

At the time the driver of the Honda started to lose control, SO #1 was travelling at 123 km/h.

At 4:26:00 a.m., the Honda was moving sideways, facing west across the southbound lane of Appleby Line, out of control and moving at 106 km/h. SO #1 had slowed to 98 km/h. SO #1 was about 120 metres south of the collision when it occurred, travelling at 85 km/h. WO #1 was 235 metres south, travelling at 140 km/h, and WO #5 was 1.2 kilometres south, travelling at 126 km/h. WO #2 was 1.8 kilometre south, travelling at 69 km/h.

At 4:26:14 a.m., SO #1 stopped where the Honda had come to rest on the west shoulder of the road.

The road and weather conditions at the time of the events in question were good and did not contribute to the collision.

There were tire marks, about 40 metres in length, from the centre of Appleby Line curving towards the west ditch and the driveway at 6726 Appleby Line.

The collision occurred when the driver of the Honda lost control while being pursued at high speed. The in-car camera (ICC) footage indicated that the Honda was quickly approaching a small red car that was not involved in the pursuit. The small red car signalled and changed from the northbound lane to the southbound lane, likely to avoid a spike belt thrown by SO #2. The driver of the Honda made a sudden steering movement to the left and, because of the excessive speed of the Honda and the abruptness of the steering movement, lost control. The Honda left the road and struck a hydro pole.

CEW Deployment Data

On May 27, 2025, at 4:26:52 a.m.,[2] Bay One of WO #1’s CEW was deployed and electricity was discharged for five seconds. At 4:26:59 a.m., Bay Two was deployed and electricity was discharged for 3.8 seconds.

At 4:26:33 a.m., Bay One of WO #3’s CEW was deployed, and electricity was discharged for nearly five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HRPS Communications Recordings

On May 27, 2025, at 4:00 a.m., the dispatcher reported four men had broken into a home in Oakville and fled in a white car. They were dressed in black, wore black masks, and were armed with hammers.

At 4:15 a.m., WO #5 reported seeing a white Honda turning onto Walkers Line. Less than a minute later, WO #1 reported he saw the vehicle eastbound on No. 2 Side Road from Walkers Line, headed towards Appleby Line, with masked occupants. About 30 seconds later, he reported a pursuit, noting there was no traffic, and they were travelling northbound on Appleby Line. WO #1 continued to report the speed of the pursuit and that no other traffic was observed. The reported speeds ranged from 110 km/h to 150 km/h prior to approaching Britannia Road.

At 4:24 a.m., WO #2 advised a spike belt had been deployed. After Britannia Road, WO #1 continued to report the speeds, which reached 170 km/h.

At 4:25:55 a.m., WO #8 ordered the pursuit to be discontinued. Six seconds later, the dispatcher repeated the call to discontinue the pursuit.

At 4:26:09 a.m., WO #3 reported the Honda had crashed and that an occupant [CW #2] was running. Fifteen seconds later, WO #3 reported a CEW was deployed. WO #1 soon broadcast that CW #2 was in custody, and that he had also deployed his CEW.

At 4:36 a.m., WO #1 reported five people were in custody, all conscious and breathing, and two ambulances were required.

HRPS ICC Footage

At 4:21 a.m., WO #1 was travelling northbound on Walkers Line and stopped at a stop sign at No. 2 Side Road. The Honda was captured travelling southbound on Walkers Line, through the stop sign and then eastbound onto No. 2 Side Road. WO #1 turned his cruiser around and started following the Honda. SO #1 turned onto No. 2 Side Road, behind the Honda, and accelerated after it with flashing lights activated. SO #1 pursued the Honda eastbound on No. 2 Side Road to Appleby Line. The road was hilly and curvy. SO #1 drove at a speed of up to 148 km/h.

At 4:23 a.m., SO #1 approached a stop sign at No. 2 Side Road. The Honda turned left without stopping and SO #1 slowed and turned left. There was minimal traffic on the road.

At 4:24 a.m., the Honda, followed by SO #1, WO #1 and WO #5, approached the roundabout at Appleby Line and Britannia Road. WO #2’s cruiser was stopped at the roundabout.

At 4:24:48 a.m., the Honda travelled past WO #2’s spike belt and continued northbound on Appleby Line. An unmarked police cruiser [Officer #2] drove across the northbound lane, between the Honda and SO #1, and entered the ditch on the east side of the road.

The Honda, followed by SO #1, WO #1, WO #5 and WO #2, continued northbound on Appleby Line. SO #1’s speed was about 180 km/h, briefly reaching at one point 190 km/h. The road was straight, level and in good condition. Two civilian vehicles were captured driving northbound ahead of the Honda.

At 4:25:55 a.m., the civilian car ahead of the Honda moved to its left and continued north in the southbound lane, appearing to avoid something on the road. The Honda brake lights came on for about one second and it also swerved into the southbound lane, as if it too was avoiding something on the road.

At 4:25:58 a.m., the Honda, travelling northbound in the southbound lane, swerved and moved sideways, facing west across the southbound lane. It struck a hydro pole, became airborne and slid into the ditch. SO #1, WO #1 and WO #5 stopped next to the crashed Honda.

At 4:26:17 a.m., CW #2 ran from the Honda northbound on Appleby Line. WO #1 and WO #3 ran after him. WO #3 yelled at CW #2 to get on the ground and, at 4:26:40 a.m., a CEW deployment was heard. The sounds of a struggle and police commands were heard. About one minute later, a male voice said, “One in custody.” Handcuffs were heard being applied. While those events were occurring, police officers surrounded the Honda pointing their firearms at it. Four other males were removed from the Honda, placed prone on the ground and handcuffed. There were no strikes delivered to those individuals.

Emergency Medical Services arrived at 4:37 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between May 28, 2025, and July 24, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• ICC footage
• GPS data
• CEW deployment data - WO #1 and WO #3
• Occurrence Reports
• Notes– WO #1, WO #8, WO #3, WO #5, WO #7, WO #4, WO #6 and WO #2, and the SEW
• HRPS Policies – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; Arrest; and, Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between May 27, 2025, and July 19, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from other sources.

• Complainant #2’s medical records from MDH and HGH
• Complainant #1’s medical records from MDH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, and other police and non-police witnesses, 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 early morning of May 27, 2025, HRPS received 911 calls about two home invasions – one in Milton and the other in Oakville. Five masked men wielding hammers had broken (or attempted to break) into the private residences and fled the scenes in a white vehicle. Officers were advised to be on the lookout for the vehicle.

WO #1 was around Walkers Line, north of No. 2 Side Road, when he observed a white Honda sedan occupied by masked individuals travel past his location. Believing these were the individuals and vehicle involved in the home invasions, he began to follow the Honda eastbound on No. 2 Side Road. SO #1 also took up the chase eastbound on No. 2 Side Road, and became the lead cruiser in pursuit. The officers activated their emergency equipment to signal the Honda to pull over and accelerated after it when it failed to stop.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were in the Honda, together with CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3. The driver fled at speeds well over 100 km/h east on No. 2 Side Road until Appleby Line, where he turned to travel north. In the area of the Brittania Road roundabout, more than three kilometres north of No. 2 Side Road, the driver slowed, attempted to maneuver around a spike belt that had been deployed by WO #2, and continued northwards towards Derry Road West.

SO #1 continued to pursue the Honda, briefly reaching a top speed of about 190 km/h. At a point north of Brittania Road, the officers were ordered to disengage by a supervising sergeant. They began to slow down but continued northwards on Appleby Line.

The Honda came upon a civilian vehicle as they headed towards Derry Road West. A distance south of Derry Road West, the civilian vehicle swerved into the southbound lane to avoid a spike belt that had been laid by an officer – SO #2 – in anticipation of the Honda’s arrival. The driver of the Honda also swerved into the southbound lane, possibly attempting to circumvent the spike belt. The vehicle began to rotate, struck a hydro pole and crashed into the ditch by the west side of the road. The time was 4:25 a.m.

The pursuing officers arrived on scene shortly after the collision and took four of the Honda’s five occupants into custody, including Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. The fifth – CW #2 – ran away from the collision scene but was captured and apprehended by WO #1 and WO #3.

Only two of the five males suffered serious injuries. Complainant #1 had sustained a fractured right clavicle in the crash. Complainant #2 was diagnosed with fractures of the back and pelvis.

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

320.13 (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.

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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Burlington on May 27, 2025. As the vehicle in which they were occupants was being pursued by HRPS cruisers when it crashed, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as 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 events in question.

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 SO #1 and SO #2, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

With information at their disposal that the vehicle and occupants of the Honda matched the description of the suspects and vehicle connected to two home invasions that had just occurred, the subject officials were within their rights in attempting to arrest the Honda’s occupants for break and enter.

With respect to SO #1, I am satisfied that she comported herself within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law through her involvement in the pursuit of the Honda. While the officer did reach speeds well in excess of the speed limit, she did so without unduly compromising public safety. There was very little traffic along the pursuit route, the roads were dry and in good condition, and the area was largely rural in nature. The fact that SO #1 was attempting to apprehend individuals suspected in recent home invasions is also a mitigating factor. There were certainly risks to public safety associated with the officer’s speed, but so too were there risks in not apprehending violent individuals. Lastly, it bears noting that SO #1, though she did not stop, did discernibly disengage from pursuit when ordered to do so by beginning to slow, and was well behind the Honda when it lost control and crashed. On a weighing of these considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #1’s conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care, still less a marked and substantial one.

As for SO #2, the evidence does not reasonably establish that she transgressed the criminal law by deploying the spike belt just before the collision. The fact that she laid the belt in front of a civilian vehicle not otherwise involved in the pursuit is subject to legitimate scrutiny. That action appeared to cause the driver of the vehicle to steer into the southbound lane to avoid the belt and could have led to a loss of control by the driver. On the other hand, if the officer’s conduct created a risk to public safety, it was not an indiscriminate one. The risk was arguably low to moderate – the spike belt is designed to cause a slow, controlled deflation and there was little to no traffic on the road – while the need to stop the Honda was high. In the circumstances, whatever the merit of SO #2’s decision to deploy the spike belt, I am not satisfied that the officer was either reckless or wanton in her concern for public safety.

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

Date: September 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit