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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 16, 2025, at 6:41 a.m., Kingston Police (KP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 16, 2025, at 4:27 a.m., police received a report of a gunshot at Barrie Street and Johnston Street, Kingston. The Subject Official (SO) attended and located two males, one of whom was the Complainant. There was an interaction of some sort between the officer and the Complainant, who fled on his bicycle behind 82 Division Street, about 400 metres away. The SO turned a corner into a small parking lot and struck the Complainant with his police cruiser. The Complainant was transported to Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) where initial reports indicated he had sustained facial injuries, a compound fracture of the left leg, and a possible fracture of the right arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/16 at 2:07 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/16 at 5:49 p.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”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 16 and 22, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on September 18, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on October 6, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between September 23 and 29, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on Barrie Street, a distance south of Johnson Street, continued north on Barrie Street, west on William Street and south on Division Street, and concluded on the driveway at the rear of the property situated at 82 Division Street, Kingston.

Physical Evidence

On September 18, 2025, SIU investigators and forensic services attended KP Headquarters to examine a bicycle and a cruiser that had reportedly been involved in a collision. They subsequently attended the scene of the collision.

The address of 82 Division Street was in a residential area and located on the west

side of the road, south of William Street. The collision occurred off the roadway, along the gravel driveway on the north side of 82 Division Street. The driveway exited the west side of the roadway and ran along the north side of the address, a two-story detached residence. The driveway continued into the rear yard of the residence, which was used for tenant parking.

Staining was visible on the gravel and dirt to the west of the building. On the driveway, two damaged pieces of bicycle were also located.

The damaged bicycle was a white mountain bike with a drop step-through frame. The frame and front forks were bent, the rear wheel spokes damaged, and the handlebars twisted 90 degrees out of alignment and bent to the right. The right side of the lower main frame showed red and black transfer near the crank and pedal, with additional black scuffing on the seat tube and rear frame arms resembling a tire tread pattern. The seat and both pedals were damaged, with dirt and scrape marks on the handlebar grips. The front chain guard was partially missing, and the rear derailleur was damaged.

Digital photographs were taken to document the condition of the police cruiser. The

emergency equipment was functioning properly. The cruiser was equipped with an in-car camera system; however, the system was non-functional, and no recording of the incident was captured. Observed damage included scuff marks on the driver side push bar, measuring approximately 30 cm in length (from 53 cm to 23 cm above ground). Both push bars showed scuffing and grooves consistent with contact. A contact mark on the lower edge of the front push bar displayed a scalloped pattern similar to a bicycle tire sidewall. The front plastic air dam below the bumper was cracked, with several fasteners loose or missing. Additional scuffing and tearing were noted on the leading edge of both front wheel wells where the felt fabric liner was attached.

Expert Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation

In the role of an expert in technical collision investigation and reconstruction, a SIU reconstructionist assisted in the investigation of the collision in which the Complainant was injured. The scene was initially processed by KP officers and released.

Two days later [September 18, 2025], along with SIU investigators and forensic services, the reconstructionist examined the cruiser and the bicycle, and attended the scene. Aligning the damage to the bicycle and the damage to the cruiser, it was determined to be highly unlikely the bicycle was vertical and being ridden by the Complainant when the collision occurred. There was evidence on the undercarriage of the cruiser of contact with the bicycle. There was no evidence on the undercarriage of the cruiser of contact with the Complainant.

The KP cruiser driven by the SO was equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver that captured data such as the time, location and rate of speed of the cruiser. The program used by KP for vehicle tracking also captured data related to other mechanical functions of the cruiser, some of which assisted in understanding the dynamics of the cruiser prior to and at the time of the collision.

According to the GPS data, on September 16, 2025, at 4:31:00 a.m., the cruiser travelled southbound on Barrie Street from Johnson Street to Earl Street.

At 4:31:26 a.m., the cruiser briefly stopped. It then turned around and accelerated northbound on Barrie Street about 65 metres to William Street.

At 4:31:37 a.m., the cruiser turned left from northbound Barrie Street to westbound William Street. It travelled westbound on William Street, which was a residential street, at rates of speed recorded as 41 km/h, 37 km/h and 69 km/h. The cruiser travelled about 140 metres on William Street.

At 4:31:48 a.m., the cruiser slowed to about 31 km/h and turned left onto southbound Division Street.

At 4:31:50 a.m., the cruiser travelled southbound on Division Street a distance between 20 metres and 25 metres, between about 21 km/h and 29 km/h.

At 4:31:52 a.m., the cruiser turned right into a gravel driveway on the north side of a house at 82 Division Street, which was on the west side of the road.

Between 4:31:54 a.m. and 4:31:58 a.m., the cruiser travelled westbound in the driveway to the rear of the house, a distance of about 25 metres, at rates of speed recorded at 18 km/h and 25 km/h.

At 4:31:59 a.m., the cruiser turned to the left, travelled between six and seven metres, and slowed from 9 km/h to 5 km/h [now known to be where the collision occurred].

Between 4:32:00 a.m. and 4:32:01 a.m., the cruiser slowed from 4 km/h to 3 km/h and then came to a stop. It had travelled about 32 metres from when it turned into the driveway until it stopped in the rear yard.

The data indicated the SO had driven about 160 metres from where he had briefly stopped on Barrie Street at Earl Street, to where the collision occurred in the rear yard of 82 Division Street, in about 31 seconds. This calculated to an average rate of speed of about 19 km/h, with the maximum recorded speed being 69 km/h on William Street.

It was unclear from the physical evidence the exact relationship between the Complainant and the bicycle when the collision occurred. The Complainant was not likely still completely on the bicycle. The Complainant may have been in the process of dismounting the bicycle, and therefore partially or fully off or beside the bicycle and abandoning the bicycle to either surrender himself to the SO or continue his flight from the SO on foot.

The examination of the cruiser and the bicycle together yielded no physical evidence the bicycle was vertical and/or in motion when the collision occurred. Marks were found low on the front of the cruiser, much more consistent with the bicycle being horizontal, or almost horizontal, on the ground than vertical.

The physical evidence clearly indicated the Complainant’s bicycle was then run over by the SO’s cruiser, perhaps by the front and/or rear driver’s side wheels, and then dragged and/or pushed a short distance. The physical evidence was not consistent with the Complainant having been run over by the SO’s cruiser. Had the Complainant been run over by at least one or what would likely have to be two wheels, or had he been on the ground and the undercarriage passed over and/or dragged him, the Complainant’s injuries would be more extensive and more serious. The GPS data indicated the SO had just turned left from the driveway into the rear yard and was driving at a rate of speed between about 25 km/h and 9 km/h when the collision occurred. Physical evidence indicated that the driver’s side vertical bar of the push bumper contacted the Complainant. The Complainant was then likely deflected to the ground to the driver’s side of the cruiser as the SO brought the cruiser to a stop.

The physical evidence reviewed by the SIU reconstructionist was consistent with the SO having pursued the Complainant from Barrie Street and William Street and into the gravel driveway beside 82 Division Street. He drove a short distance in the driveway then turned left at the rear of the house. The push bumper of the cruiser struck the Complainant and the bicycle. As per the GPS data and the lack of even a non-deployment event on the air bag control module, the collision occurred at a low rate of speed. It would appear from the mark on the push bumper the bicycle was not vertical. This would be consistent with the Complainant being in the process of dismounting the bicycle when the collision occurred. The Complainant was ejected to the side and fell, and the cruiser ran completely over and stopped a few metres beyond the bicycle. Despite contact between the Complainant and the push bumper, the physical evidence was consistent with the Complainant’s serious injuries likely being a result of him hitting the gravel surface after being deflected to the side, rather than being run over by a wheel, or the cruiser driving over him.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

KP Communications Recordings - 911 Call

On September 16, 2025, at 4:24:50 a.m., CW #1 contacted 911 to report that she believed a firearm had just been discharged.

KP Communication Recordings – Radio

On September 16, 2025, at 4:27:11 a.m., the dispatcher directed the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 to check the area around Barrie and Johnson Street.

At 4:27:15 a.m., the dispatcher radioed that the caller, CW #1, believed she had heard a gun fired but could not tell which direction it came from.

At 4:32:18 a.m., the SO radioed for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to be dispatched.

At 4:32:28 a.m., an unidentified female officer requested that EMS be dispatched to 82 Division Street because a bicyclist was hit by a car. The officer confirmed they were on scene.

At 4:32:32 a.m., the SO radioed, “Get EMS going right now.”

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from KP between September 17, 2025, and January 8, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Initial Officers Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communication recordings
• KP drone footage and scene photographs
• Commercial Vehicle Inspection / Motor Vehicle Collision Report – the SO’s cruiser
• Crash Data Report – the SO’s cruiser
• Microsoft Excel Collision Reports
• List of involved officers and civilian witnesses
• Notes – WO #3, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Field Notes – KP Officer #1, KP Officer #2 and KP Officer #3
• KP policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuits
• Collision Reconstruction Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between September 17, 2025, and September 18, 2025:

• Photographs of the Complainant’s injuries from Brockville Jail
• The Complainant’s medical records from KHSC
• Video footage from a residence on Division Street
• Photographs from CW #2 and CW #3

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of September 16, 2025, the SO was dispatched with other officers to the area of Barrie Street and Johnson Street. A woman had contacted police about a gunshot in and around the intersection. The officer arrived in his cruiser and observed two cyclists travelling south on Barrie Street. He drove up to one of the cyclists – the Complainant – and asked to talk. The Complainant reversed course and began to pedal away from the officer northbound on the west side of Barrie Street. The SO turned his cruiser around and followed the Complainant.

The SO pursued the Complainant as he turned left to travel west on William Street, left to travel south at the next street, Division Street, and then right to travel west into the gravel driveway of the residence at 82 Division Street. The officer attempted to block the Complainant’s path by maneuvering his cruiser in front of him on the driveway but the Complainant was able to squeeze through and continue into a parking lot area around the northwest corner of the home. The officer reversed a short distance and then resumed his forward travel. He rounded the same corner and struck the Complainant and his bicycle.

The Complainant suffered fractures of the face and spine in the collision.

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 when he was struck by a KP cruiser on September 16, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming 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 Complainant’s injuries.

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.

The SO’s decision to stop the Complainant to question him about the gunshot that had been reported in the intersection of Barrie Street and Johnson Street was a lawful one. The prevailing circumstances, namely, the Complainant’s almost exclusive presence in the area of the gunshot and his flight when first approached by police, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was implicated in the gunfire and justified an investigative detention: see R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. The issue is whether the ensuing pursuit of the Complainant was lawful.

There are aspects of the SO’s conduct that are subject to legitimate scrutiny. Arguably, as soon as it became clear that the Complainant was not going to stop for the officer, the pursuit should have been discontinued in light of the relative vulnerability of cyclists vis-à-vis motor vehicles. Indeed, the collision that occurred and the injuries the Complainant sustained are a reminder of the particular dangers inherent in a scenario of this nature. On the other hand, the SO’s speeds were in the low to moderate range for most of the pursuit; the pursuit was short-lived, transpiring over no more than a minute; there was very little, if any, traffic on the roadways given the time of day; and the collision itself was unavoidable when the SO turned the corner of the home and suddenly saw the Complainant in front of him. Lastly, it bears noting that the SO was pursuing the Complainant for what was potentially a serious gun crime. When these considerations are weighed in the balance, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any indiscretions on the part of the SO amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care.

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

Date: January 12, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit