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 injury of a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 22, 2025, at 1:02 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 7, 2025, at about 8:15 p.m., two males [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1 and CW #4] were riding electric bicycles [off-road electric motorcycles][2] in an erratic manner, with speeds up to 70 km/h, westbound on Carling Avenue approaching Moodie Drive. They were on a bicycle path. The Subject Official (SO) was driving on the roadway, adjacent to the bicycle path. As the officer attempted to engage the riders to investigate, they collided with the Complainant, who was cycling on the bicycle path. The Complainant was transported to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH) by ambulance with unknown injuries and later released. CW #1 was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm and fail to stop, while CW #4 was charged with careless driving and fail to stop, both under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). On August 21, 2025, the Complainant notified the OPS that he was to undergo surgery on two or three fingers because of the incident.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/23 at 8:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/23 at 10:23 a.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”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 24, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 24, 2025, and October 27, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official / 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed

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

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

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Not interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between August 28, 2025, and November 10, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Carling Avenue between its intersections with Grandview Road and Sunny Brae Avenue, Ottawa. The scene of the collision occurred on an asphalt bicycle path, running parallel to the north side of Carling Avenue, about 100 metres east of Grandview Road. At the location of the collision, the path included a bend that was partially obstructed by trees and brush.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPS Communications Recordings

On August 7, 2025, at 8:20:19 p.m., the SO radioed, “Get me OAC [police shorthand for ambulance] here and I have one 92 [police shorthand for “person in custody”]. Two actually.”

At 8:20:29 p.m., an unknown male asked for a location.

At 8:20:39 p.m., the SO reported, “Grandview and Carling.” A female officer - WO #3 - asked the SO if he needed another unit.

At 8:20:49 p.m., the SO stated, “Yeah.” WO #3 radioed she was en route. Dispatch requested confirmation of two persons in custody, and the SO confirmed that was accurate.

At 8:20:59 p.m., dispatch asked why the ambulance was required? The SO advised that a cyclist had been hit. He was conscious and breathing.

At 8:21:19 p.m., WO #2 directed dispatch to add him to the call. The SO radioed that it looked like the cyclist had sustained broken fingers. The dispatcher requested the cyclist’s age and gender.

At 8:21:39 p.m., the SO radioed that the cyclist was male, approximately 30 years of age.

At 8:23:19 p.m., the SO requested an estimated arrival time for an ambulance. The dispatcher advised they were on the phone with paramedics and inquired whether the injury was just a broken finger. The SO responded, “Yeah, it’s pretty mangled.”

At 8:23:39 p.m., the SO radioed that one of the prisoners might need stitches for an injury to his leg.

At 8:29:59 p.m., a male radioed that paramedics had arrived.

At 8:47:09 p.m., WO #2 requested a police tow for two dirt bikes.

OPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage and Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – the SO’s Cruiser

At 8:18:12 p.m., the video commenced. The SO was captured travelling at a speed of 20 km/h on the Moodie Drive off-ramp leading to eastbound Carling Avenue.

At 8:18:54 p.m., the SO drove past a posted speed limit sign of 60 km/h on Carling Avenue, travelling at a speed of 103 km/h.

At 8:18:58 p.m., the SO’s police cruiser reached a speed of 122 km/h. Within four seconds, the SO passed three westbound motor vehicles on Carling Avenue.

At 8:19:05 p.m., the SO travelled at a speed of 114 km/h when he passed three cyclists heading westbound on the north sidewalk of Carling Avenue. At that time, two e-motorcyclists were observed driving eastbound in the middle of the roadway directly ahead of the SO.

At 8:19:08 p.m., the e-motorcyclists continued eastbound on Carling Avenue while travelling in the westbound lanes. At that time, the SO was closing the distance behind them, with his speed recorded at 93 km/h.

At 8:19:11 p.m., the SO maneuvered his cruiser into the centre lane situated between the eastbound and westbound lanes of Carling Avenue, travelling at a speed of 64 km/h. At that time, the two e-motorcyclists continued eastbound at a slow pace - one on the sidewalk or bike path, and the other slightly offset on the roadway. One second later, the lead e-motorcyclist veered to the left, appearing to enter a driveway.

At 8:19:13 p.m., the SO brought his cruiser to a complete stop in the centre lane, remaining oriented eastbound on Carling Avenue. At that point, the e-motorcyclists were out of camera view.

At 8:19:15 p.m., the SO shouted, “Pull over there, don’t be fuckin stupid.” The emergency lights from the SO’s cruiser were observed reflecting off a tree located in the upper left corner of the camera’s field of view.

At 8:19:20 p.m., the SO turned his cruiser to the left and mounted the sidewalk near a residence in order to continue a U-turn. His emergency lights remained activated. At that time, the two e-motorcyclists were observed fleeing westbound on the north sidewalk of Carling Avenue.

At 8:19:24 p.m., while still on the sidewalk, the SO completed the U-turn in front of 3383 Carling Avenue.

At 8:19:26 p.m., the e-motorcyclists were no longer visible, and the ICC was

deactivated as the SO’s cruiser returned to the north westbound lane of Carling Avenue.

The GPS data were consistent with the SO having driven westbound on Carling Avenue at an average rate of speed of 79 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone, with the flashing emergency lights and ICC off.

Video Footage – Door Camera - Private Residence

At 35 seconds into the video, two e-motorcycles were captured travelling east on Carling Avenue. About five seconds later, an OPS cruiser was seen travelling eastbound on Carling Avenue with its emergency lights activated.

At 61 seconds into the video, the two e-motorcycles travelled westbound on Carling Avenue. Six seconds later, an OPS cruiser was seen travelling westbound on Carling Avenue. The cruiser did not appear to have its emergency lights activated.

Video Footage – Light Post Camera - Private Residence

At 59 seconds into the video, the e-motorcycles passed the front of a private residence on Carling Avenue travelling westbound. Six seconds later, the police cruiser passed by travelling westbound. The cruiser did not have its siren activated.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between August 25, 2025, and November 13, 2025.

• Scene map and screenshot of scene
• Scene photographs
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Prosecution summary - Authored by the SO
• Written statement – the Complainant
• Notes and Investigative Actions Reports - WO #1 and WO #2
• Notes - WO #4, WO #3, WO #5, WO #7, WO #8, and WO #9
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy
• ICC and Automated Licence Plate Reader Policy
• Axon evidence audit trail
• Afternoon duty roster for August 7, 2025
• GPS data - the cruisers of the SO, WO #2 and WO #1
• Geolocation data for OPS cruisers in vicinity of scene
• OPS photobook – the SO’s cruiser
• Sergeants on-duty schedule – August 7, 2025
• In-car camera footage – the cruisers of the SO & WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 24, 2025, and November 7, 2025:

• Scene drawing by the Complainant
• The Complainant’s medical records from the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus
• Video footage from private residence – light post and front door
• City of Ottawa Service Order –Forestry Inspector
• Information on Surron electric motorcycles from Dian Motors

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and several civilian eyewitnesses, 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 evening of August 7, 2025, the SO was on-duty operating a marked cruiser westbound on Carling Avenue when his attention was drawn to a couple of e-motorcycles travelling north on Moodie Drive and then east on Carling Avenue. Neither rider was wearing a helmet. Deciding he would stop them for possible traffic infractions, the SO turned his cruiser around and began to accelerate after them eastward on Carling Avenue.

Between six and seven hundred metres east of Moodie Drive, the SO came to a stop in the centre of the road. The motorcyclists had crossed over the opposing lanes of traffic and were on the north sidewalk of Carling Avenue. The officer yelled at them to stop through his open driver door window, and then pursued them when they fled westward on the sidewalk.

The motorcyclists were CW #1 and CW #4. They continued westward and entered onto a bicycle path in the area of Moodie Drive, continuing to disregard the SO as he sounded his horn to get them to stop. The lead motorcyclist – CW #1 – approached a blind bend in the path and collided with a cyclist travelling eastward.

The SO arrived at the collision site within seconds and arrested CW #1 and CW #4 without incident. The cyclist – the Complainant – had been seriously injured.

The Complainant was transported to hospital via ambulance and diagnosed with serious fractures of two fingers.

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 was seriously injured in a collision with an e-motorcycle on August 7, 2025. As the e-motorcycle was being pursued by an OPS officer at the time, 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 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.

There is evidence that the SO had observed CW #1 and CW #4 operating their e-motorcycles at excessive speed without proper safety equipment. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in attempting to stop them for possible violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

With respect to the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser through his engagement with the e-motorcycles, I am satisfied that the officer comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The SO’s speed eastward on Carling Avenue is subject to legitimate scrutiny. At about twice the posted 60 km/h speed limit at one point, the officer was arguably a bigger danger to public safety than that which he was intending to end. That said, the video footage makes clear that the officer’s top end speeds were very brief, traffic on the roadway was light, no third-party motorists were placed in any imminent peril, and the cruiser’s emergency lights were active for at least the tail end of the officer’s travels eastward on Carling Avenue. The SO’s decision to pursue the e-motorcycles after they failed to stop and, instead, accelerated westbound, was also questionable. As was the fact that the officer did not radio that he had initiated a pursuit and de-activated his emergency equipment as he began to travel westward, in apparent contravention of the OPS policy. On the other hand, the SO had significantly reduced his speeds by this time, and there is no suggestion in the evidence that he unduly pushed the e-motorcycles or prevented them from coming to a safe stop had they been inclined. Weighed in the balance with these extenuating considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s indiscretions rendered his driving a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

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

There was evidence of possible professional misconduct on the part of the SO vis-à-vis the manner in which he conducted the pursuit. I will be referring these matters to the police service for their review. Pursuant to this office’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring these matters to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: December 19, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit