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 death of a 67-year-old woman (“Complainant #1”) and the serious injuries of a 69-year-old man (“Complainant #2”) and a 55-year-old man (“Complainant #3”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 10, 2025, at 7:50 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, at about 3:00 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) observed a pick-up truck with a British Columbia licence plate travelling east on King Street. A man was riding in the rear bed of the vehicle. The SO followed the vehicle for a distance. The pick-up driver [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #6] proceeded north on Maitland Street towards Dundas Street where he failed to stop for a red traffic signal and turned east onto Dundas Street. The SO arrived at the intersection, activated his emergency lights and travelled eastbound on Dundas Street. The SO subsequently de-activated his emergency lights and followed the pick-up truck. The pick-up truck sped up and turned north on William Street towards Queens Avenue. At Queens Avenue, the pick-up truck entered the intersection without stopping for a red light and collided with a westbound sport-utility vehicle (SUV). CW #6 fled the scene of the crash on foot. The man in the pick-up truck bed [now known to be Complainant #3] and a female passenger inside the pick-up truck [now known to be CW #5] remained on scene. Complainant #3 had been thrown from the pick-up truck and was later intubated in hospital. The driver of the SUV, Complainant #2, was believed to have sustained fractured ribs. His passenger, Complainant #1, was vital signs absent (VSA) at the scene, but Emergency Medical Services (EMS) had re-established a pulse. She was in surgery at the time of the notification.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/10 at 7:54 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/10 at 10:39 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainants”):

Complainant #1 Deceased

Complainant #2 Interviewed

Complainant #3 Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 and Complainant #3 were interviewed on September 12, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #6 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #7 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 11, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of William Street and Queens Avenue, London.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The collision site was secured by members of the LPS. Marked police vehicles were positioned to block traffic on William Street and Queens Avenue, and caution tape was placed to restrict pedestrian access. The LPS Traffic Safety Unit had previously attended to mark the area for collision reconstruction, using coloured markers and chalk indicators throughout the intersection. These indicators were later reviewed by the SIU collision reconstructionist and confirmed as accurate.

William Street was a two-way roadway generally running north-south. Queens Avenue intersected William Street at a 90-degree angle, generally running east-west. Queens Avenue was a one-way, two-lane roadway with a designated bike lane along the north curb. The intersection was controlled by traffic signals, which were clearly visible and functioning properly. Lane markings and crosswalks were unobstructed, and pedestrian signals were operational. A traffic camera was mounted on the light standard at the northwest corner of the intersection; it was active and captured the collision. South of the intersection, along the west side of William Street, angled street parking spaces with meters were present for commercial use.

Debris and tire marks were visible in the intersection. Two damaged vehicles were located off the roadway near the northwest corner.

Vehicle 1 was a black 2002 Chevrolet Silverado extended cab pick-up truck. It had sustained extensive front-end and side impact damage. Tools and other items from the truck bed were scattered across the ground to the north and west of the intersection.

Vehicle 2 was a black 2024 Volkswagen Taos SUV. It was overturned on its roof with significant structural damage to the front drivetrain and suspension. Its doors had been removed by first responders to facilitate occupant extraction.

A marked LPS vehicle, a 2023 white Ford Explorer SUV, with full police markings, was also documented. It showed no signs of contact or recent damage. Its emergency lights and siren were tested and found operational. The vehicle was not equipped with an in-car camera.

Figure 1 - Aerial image of collision scene from LPS Traffic Reconstructionist Report

Figure 2 – Image of intersection of Queens Avenue and William Street

Forensic Evidence

GPS Data – The SO’s Cruiser

On September 10, 2025, at 3:08:03 p.m., the cruiser was south of the intersection at Dufferin Avenue and Waterloo Street, appearing to have turned right to head south, with a recorded speed of 20 km/h.

A significant gap in GPS data followed, with the next record appearing nearly two minutes later at 3:10:02 p.m., showing the cruiser southbound on Burwell Street, south of Dundas Street, at 24 km/h.

At 3:10:12 p.m., the cruiser was at Burwell Street and King Street, preparing to turn left to head eastbound, at 16 km/h.

At 3:10:25 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on King Street at 36 km/h.

At 3:10:34 p.m., the cruiser was at King Street and Maitland Street, turning north at 35 km/h.

At 3:10:48 p.m., the cruiser was eastbound on Dundas Street at 41 km/h. Three seconds later, at 3:10:51 p.m., it was still eastbound at 46 km/h.

At 3:10:54 p.m., the cruiser was recorded at 82 km/h.

At 3:11:04 p.m., the cruiser was at Dundas Street and William Street at 5 km/h.

At 3:11:16 p.m., the cruiser was northbound on William Street just south of Queens Avenue at 46 km/h. By 3:11:24 p.m., it was north of Queens Avenue at 14 km/h.

Figure 3 – Route travelled by police cruiser

Expert Evidence

SIU Accident Reconstructionist

The point of collision impact was identified approximately 4.3 metres north of the south crosswalk and just west of the William Street centerline, determined from tire marks, fluid deposits, and damage patterns, and supported by 3D scene measurements. The two involved vehicles travelled northwest after impact, as indicated by curved tire marks.

The Chevrolet Silverado sustained front-end damage consistent with striking the driver side of the Volkswagen Taos. Crash test comparisons suggested the Chevrolet experienced an impact severity of less than 60 km/h, while the Volkswagen sustained an impact severity slightly above 60 km/h. Considering vehicle weights, approximately 2,200 kg for the Chevrolet and 1,550 kg for the Volkswagen, the estimated speed change for both vehicles was close to 43 km/h.

Pre-crash Crash Data Recorder (CDR) data indicated the Chevrolet accelerated from 56 km/h to 80 km/h in the five seconds before impact, with 100% throttle applied and no braking. This acceleration began about 100 metres south of Queens Avenue.

Analysis of the video footage that captured the collision corroborated these findings, showing aggressive acceleration and an estimated speed of 80 km/h at impact. The reconstruction indicated that six seconds before impact, the Chevrolet had just turned north onto William Street. By three seconds before impact, the Chevrolet moved into the southbound lane to avoid a stopped vehicle, continuing through a red light at full throttle. At one second before impact, the Chevrolet was travelling approximately 80 km/h, 23 metres from the collision point, while the Volkswagen entered the intersection on a green light. The collision occurred in the intersection, with both vehicles coming to rest near the northwest crosswalk. Approximately 14 seconds later, a police cruiser arrived at the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - City of London

On September 10, 2025, a dark-coloured pick-up truck was captured travelling through the intersection of Dundas Street and Colborne Street with a man, later identified as Complainant #3, seated in the truck bed. The truck continued east on Dundas Street before turning left onto William Street and heading north at a high rate of speed towards Queens Avenue. Approximately eight seconds behind, a marked LPS vehicle followed, activating its lights when entering intersections.

The pick-up truck subsequently entered the southbound lane and ran a red light at

William Street and Queens Avenue, colliding with the front driver side of a dark-coloured SUV travelling west on Queens Avenue. Both vehicles came to rest on the northwest crosswalk. Complainant #3 was ejected from the truck bed and landed on the sidewalk, appearing conscious and holding his head. A man [CW #6] wearing blue jeans and a blue button shirt exited the driver side of the pick-up and fled northbound on foot.

At 3:11:08 p.m., the marked LPS cruiser arrived, and an officer attended to Complainant #3. Passengers from the pick-up truck exited through the windows.

Emergency responders, including two ambulances and a fire truck, arrived on scene and provided medical assistance to Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3.

Figure 4 – Still from City of London video depicting pending collision between vehicles. The time stamp in the upper left corner is an artifact left by the creation of a screenshot taken from a video. This time stamp is not accurate.

Figure 5 – Still from City of London video depicting the SO’s police cruiser entering frame after collision occurred. The time stamp in the upper left corner is an artifact left by the creation of a screenshot taken from a video. This time stamp is not accurate.

LPS Communications Recordings and Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On September 10, 2025, at 3:11 p.m., police responded to a motor vehicle collision at William Street and Queens Avenue, London. The incident involved a flipped SUV with multiple passengers trapped inside. Emergency services, including fire and EMS, were dispatched immediately and arrived on scene with lights and sirens. Three individuals required medical attention: one in critical condition and others sustaining serious injuries.

Updates from hospital staff indicated that the victims were transported to London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) - Victoria Hospital, with one undergoing trauma care and another moved to critical care.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between September 11, 2025, and September 24, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Video footage from City of London
• Narrative Text Hardcopy / Crown Brief Statement - the SO
• General Occurrence Report
• LPS Reconstructionist Report
• GPS data - the SO’s cruiser
• London Police Service policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit
• CDR data downloaded from Chevrolet pick-up truck

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 10, 2025, and September 22, 2025:

• Complainant #3’s medical records from LHSC - Victoria Hospital
• Video footage from 430 William Street.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #3, Complainant #2 and additional civilian witnesses, 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. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of September 10, 2025, the SO was on patrol in a marked cruiser eastbound on Dundas Street when his attention was drawn to a pick-up truck with a male – Complainant #3 – riding in the bed of the vehicle. Concerned with the male’s safety and an apparent Highway Traffic Act infraction, the officer began to follow the vehicle.

The pick-up truck driver – CW #6 – became aware of the officer’s presence behind him and started to accelerate. He turned southbound off of Dundas Street before making his way back onto eastbound Dundas Street. Turning left to head north on William Street, CW #6 picked up his speed. Approaching Queens Avenue, CW #6 travelled into the southbound lane to overtake stopped traffic at a red light, entered the intersection without stopping or slowing, and broadsided a westbound SUV.

Complainant #2 was operating the SUV. Complainant #1 was his front seat passenger. The impact sent both vehicles careening in a northwest direction to their final resting positions.

The SO had followed the pick-up truck. He arrived at the crash site about 14 seconds after the impact, and rendered assistance to the vehicles’ occupants.

Complainant #3 was thrown from the bed of the pick-up truck. He suffered a collapsed lung and a fractured left-sided rib. Complainant #2 broke his neck, injured his hip and fractured multiple left-sided ribs. Complainant #1 succumbed to her injuries on September 17, 2025.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code of Canada – 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.

Section 320.13 (3), Criminal Code of Canada – Dangerous Operation Causing Death

320.13(3) 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 the death of another person.

Section 106 (3), Highway Traffic Act – Use of Seat Belt Assembly by Passenger

106 (3) Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall,

(a) occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and

(b) wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection

On September 10, 2025, the LPS notified the SIU of a motor vehicle collision resulting in injuries to Complainant #1 and her husband, Complainant #2, in one vehicle, and Complainant #3, in another vehicle. As the vehicle in which Complainant #3 was a passenger had been followed by a LPS cruiser shortly before the collision, the SIU initiated an investigation and named the driver of the cruiser – 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 dangerous driving causing death contrary to sections 320.13(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, respectively. As offences of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offences are 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in attempting to stop the pick-up truck when he observed Complainant #3 riding in the bed of the vehicle. Pursuant to section 106(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, all adult passengers of a vehicle shall occupy a seating position with a seat belt and shall use the seat belt.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety throughout his engagement with the pick-up truck. But for a brief spurt of acceleration to about 80 km/h, the officer drove at moderate speeds. He was always well back of the pick-up truck and used his emergency lighting to safely navigate his way across traffic signal-controlled intersections. At no point is there any evidence that the SO endangered vehicular or pedestrian traffic around him. Arriving at the scene of the collision, the officer acted quickly to render assistance.

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

There appears to have been a delay by the service in notifying the SIU of the incident in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the Chief of Police. Pursuant to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring this matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: January 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit