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 49-year-old woman (Complainant #1) and a 54-year-old man (Complainant #2).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 1, 2025, at 11:54 a.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 1, 2025, at 9:59 a.m. the Subject Official (SO) observed a white Chevrolet truck on Ogden Street. A check of the licence plate revealed it to be unattached. The SO activated his emergency lights and siren to conduct a traffic stop and followed the Chevrolet truck as it accelerated away. After a short distance, the truck collided with a white Hyundai vehicle at Finlayson Street and May Street North. The driver of the Chevrolet truck fled on foot and was not located. The passenger, Complainant #2, lost consciousness. The driver of the Hyundai, Complainant #1, was also unconscious. Both were transported to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC). Complainant #2 was diagnosed with a fractured arm and Complainant #1 had a suspected head injury.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/01 at 12:24 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/02 at 8:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person #1 (aka “Complainant #1”): 

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Affected Person #2 (aka “Complainant #2”):

Declined an interview

Complainant #1 was interviewed on September 2, 2025

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 2, 2025

Subject Official

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

The Scene

The events in question began on Ogden Street, a distance east of May Street North, continued west on Ogden Street and west in an alleyway past May Street North, south on Brodie Street North and east on Finlayson Street until the roadway’s intersection with May Street North, Thunder Bay.

May Street North aligned in a north-south direction and Finlayson Street intersected it in an east-west direction, with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. The intersection was controlled by a posted stop sign for traffic travelling eastbound and westbound on Finlayson Street (yielding to traffic on May Street North).

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended at the scene, photographed the involved vehicles and recorded a route video.

The map, below, depicts the route over which the events in question occurred, measured to be less than one kilometre. The purple arrow indicates where the interaction started, and the green arrow indicates where the collision occurred.

Source: Google Earth

SIU forensic services examined a white Chevrolet truck, a Hyundai vehicle and an unmarked police vehicle. The Chevrolet and Hyundai were extensively damaged while the police vehicle had no apparent collision damage.

Forensic Evidence

GPS Data – SO’s Cruiser

On September 1, 2025, at 9:59 a.m., the cruiser was westbound on Ogden Street, at a speed of 46 km/h, slowing to 15 km/h. It turned southbound onto Brodie Street, at 15 km/h, and then eastbound onto Finlayson Street before coming to a stop at the intersection of May Street North at 10:00:45 a.m.

SIU Collision Reconstructionist

Data downloaded from the vehicles involved in the events in question revealed the following.

The SO’s vehicle did not record a collision event.

Five seconds before the collision, the Chevrolet pick-up truck travelled at 43 km/h, increasing to 69 km/h one second prior to a collision.

Complainant #1 drove the Hyundai at 58 km/h at the time of the collision.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

On September 1, 2025, at 9:59 a.m., the SO travelled west on Ogden Street, several car-lengths behind a white Chevrolet pick-up truck. The Chevrolet and the SO stopped at a stop sign before continuing west. The SO travelled between 30 km/h and 60 km/h. The distance between the Chevrolet and the SO’s vehicle increased. The SO followed the Chevrolet to Finlayson Street, reached a speed of about 70 km/h. The SO’s vehicle came to a stop at the stop sign, prior to turning eastbound onto Finlayson Street.

At 10:00 a.m., dust and flying debris from a collision was seen at the intersection of Finlayson Street and May Street North. The SO was about 100 metres from the collision when it occurred. The SO drove to the collision scene. The driver of the Chevrolet truck ran away, around a corner and out of sight, chased on foot by the SO. About one minute later, the SO returned to the damaged vehicles and rendered assistance to the occupants.

About a minute elapsed from the moment the ICC began to record and the time of the collision.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On September 1, 2025, at about 9:59 a.m., the SO was captured operating his cruiser and entering information into the vehicle’s mobile data terminal. The SO subsequently activated the cruiser’s emergency equipment. Less than a minute later, the SO radioed that he was eastbound on Finlayson Street, towards May Street, trying to stop a Chevrolet. Two seconds later, he reported a collision and, shortly thereafter, exited his cruiser and ran across May Street North. The SO yelled out to the unknown driver of the Chevrolet to stop. He told him he was under arrest and to take his hands out of his pockets. The driver asked what he was under arrest for, and the SO told him he was just in a collision and did not stop for him. The man jumped over a fence into a laneway and fled. The SO returned to the Chevrolet vehicle. The front seat passenger - Complainant #2 - was half-hanging out of the passenger window with obvious injuries. The SO went to a Hyundai, where he found Complainant #1 unconscious in the driver’s seat. The SO requested paramedics, who arrived about seven minutes later.

The SO spoke to a supervisor and told him that he was in the alley trying to stop the Chevrolet for a misused plate. The Chevrolet turned left onto Finlayson and the SO was a good distance behind when the collision occurred.

Video Footage – Local Business on May Street

At 10:00:06 a.m., September 1, 2025, Complainant #1’s white Hyundai was captured travelling north on May Street North, approaching the intersection of Finlayson Street. Two seconds later, a white Chevrolet truck, travelling eastbound on Finlayson Street, continued through the stop sign at May Street North without stopping. Eight seconds later, the SO arrived at the intersection.

TBPS Communication Recordings

On September 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the SO reported he had a vehicle not stopping on Finlayson Street, heading towards May Street. A police siren was heard in the background. Quickly thereafter, the officer reported the vehicle had just been involved in a collision. About one minute later, the SO reported he was in foot pursuit. Shortly thereafter, he requested paramedics for Complainant #2 and Complainant #1, who were unconscious in their vehicles.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Between September 2, 2025, and October 10, 2025, SIU obtained the following records from the TBPS:

• BWC footage – SO
• ICC footage – SO’s vehicle
• GPS data – SO’s vehicle
• Occurrence Report
• Photographs
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – SO
• TBPS policy – Suspect Apprehension Vehicle Pursuits

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

• Complainant #1’s medical records from TBRHSC
• Video footage from a local business.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of September 1, 2025, the SO was on duty operating a police pick-up truck when he came across a Chevrolet pick-up truck westbound on Ogden Street. The officer conducted a check of the Chevrolet’s licence plates and learned that they were not registered to the truck. He decided to stop the vehicle for investigation of a traffic infraction, and turned on his cruiser’s emergency lights to signal the pick-up truck to pull over.

The driver of the truck continued westbound on Ogden Street without stopping. Arriving at the roadway’s intersection with May Street North, he disregarded a stop sign and drove across the street, entering an alleyway on the other side. He travelled west along the alleyway until Brodie Street North, where he turned left and continued south, before turning left again at Finlayson Street and accelerating east.

The SO had followed the pick-up truck. Arriving and coming to a stop at the intersection of Brodie Street North and Finlayson Street, the officer radioed that he was engaged with a vehicle refusing to stop. Almost immediately after, the SO reported that the pick-up truck had collided with another vehicle.

The driver of the Chevrolet had ignored the stop sign at May Street North for eastbound traffic on Finlayson Street, striking a northbound vehicle – Complainant #1’s Hyundai – in the intersection.

The SO arrived at the scene of the collision within seconds, called for paramedics and rendered assistance to Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 (the Chevrolet’s front seat passenger). The driver of the pick-up truck fled the scene on foot.

Complainant #1 suffered a concussion in the collision. Complainant #2 broke his right wrist and dislocated his right elbow.

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.

Section 7(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act – Permit Requirements

7 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,

(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;

Complainant #1, the driver of a Hyundai SUV, and Complainant #2, a front seat passenger in a Chevrolet pick-up truck, were seriously injured when their vehicles collided on September 1, 2025. As the pick-up truck had briefly been pursued by a TBPS officer moments before the collision, 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.

With information at his disposal that the Chevrolet pick-up truck was being operated without properly registered licence plates, the SO was within his rights to stop the vehicle for a possible violation of section 7(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due regard for public safety through his brief engagement with the Chevrolet. He maintained a safe distance from the vehicle at all times, travelled at moderate speeds, activated his emergency equipment, and quickly discontinued pursuit when it became reasonably clear that the Chevrolet was not going to stop. At no point was third-party traffic on the roadway imperiled by the officer’s operation of the cruiser. On this record, it is apparent that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO. The file is closed.

Date: December 30, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit