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 an 18-year-old male, (“Complainant #1”), a 16-year-old female (“Complainant #2”), and a 26-year-old male (“Complainant #3”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 22, 2024, at 9:25 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 30, 2024, at 1:30 a.m., the HRPS received a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 regarding a potential impaired driver in the parking lot of the McDonald’s at 600 Santa Maria Boulevard, Milton. CW #1 reported a black Infiniti as the vehicle of concern. At 1:35 a.m., Subject Official (SO) #1 and Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived separately and located a black Infiniti driven by Complainant #1. Also inside the vehicle was a female passenger, Complainant #2. SO #1 interacted with Complainant #1 while WO #1 remained at a distance. SO #1 spoke to Complainant #1 at length and determined that no grounds existed for a charge of impaired driving. No examination was conducted nor was a device used to determine sobriety. At 1:52 a.m., Complainant #1 was allowed to drive away from the scene. Video footage was later obtained from the McDonald’s that potentially revealed Complainant #1 as stumbling and/or under the influence of alcohol/drugs. At 2:23 a.m., SO #2, partnered with WO #2, conducted a traffic stop near the intersection of Derry Road and Holly Avenue in Milton. The vehicle stopped was a black Infiniti weaving in and out of lanes on Derry Road. The driver was identified as Complainant #1, and a female passenger was identified as Complainant #2. The traffic stop was captured on in-car camera (ICC) recording, which showed SO #2 speaking with Complainant #1, who was seated in the driver’s seat. A short time later, SO #2 asked Complainant #2 to step out from the front passenger seat and he spoke to her for a short period of time, prior to de-activating his ICC microphone. The reason for this was unknown. SO #2 would later issue Complainant #1 two Provincial Offence Notices for careless driving and no front licence plate, both offences under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). At 2:50 a.m., the traffic stop was concluded, and Complainant #1 was allowed to drive away, eastbound on Derry Road. There was no examination nor was a device used to determine sobriety. At 3:19 a.m., HRPS received several 911 calls from the intersection of Derry Road and Sixth Line in Milton, reporting that two vehicles had been involved in a motor vehicle collision and both vehicles were on fire. HRPS officers arrived at 3:24 a.m., and located two cars, one being the Infiniti, and the other a 2014 Honda CRV, driven by Complainant #3. Both vehicles were engulfed in flames. It was clear that Complainant #1 had driven into the rear of Complainant #3’s vehicle, which had been stopped for a red light on Derry Road. All three individuals were pronounced deceased at the scene. The HRPS Traffic Collision Reconstruction Unit attended. The subsequent investigation revealed that Complainant #1 operated his vehicle at a speed that was approximated between 140 and 154 km/h prior to the collision with Complainant #3’s vehicle. As part of the investigation, a sample of Complainant #1’s blood was sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for analysis to determine sobriety. On July 18, 2024, the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for Complainant #1 was determined to be 225 mg/100mL.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/22 at 12:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/23 at 11:48 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 18-year-old male; deceased

Complainant #2 16-year-old female; deceased

Complainant #3 26-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #12 Interviewed

CW #13 Interviewed

CW #14 Interviewed

CW #15 Interviewed

CW #16 Interviewed

CW #17 Interviewed

CW #18 Interviewed

CW #19 Interviewed

CW #20 Interviewed

CW #21 Interviewed

CW #22 Interviewed

CW #23 Interviewed; next-of-kin

CW #24 Interviewed; next-of-kin

CW #25 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 1, 2024, and April 3, 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)

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between August 10, 2024, and December 16, 2024.

Investigative Delay

A legal opinion from Justice Prosecutions was received on December 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in three locations

• In and around the drive-through lanes of the McDonald’s at 600 Santa Maria Boulevard, Milton
• Derry Road in and around the roadway’s intersection with Holly Avenue, Milton
• Derry Road in and around the roadway’s intersection with Sixth Line, Milton

The first interaction with Complainant #1 prior to the fatal collision occurred in the drive-through area of a McDonald’s on the southwest corner of Derry Road and Santa Maria Boulevard, Milton, where SO #1 interacted with Complainant #1. The interaction occurred at night. The area was well lit by overhead lights. As seen in surveillance video footage from the McDonald’s, the weather was dry. There were other persons and vehicles nearby.

The second interaction prior to the fatal collision occurred on Derry Road near Holly Avenue where SO #2 conducted a traffic stop of the Infiniti driven by Complainant #1 in the eastbound lanes. The weather and the roads were dry. Derry Road had two lanes for eastbound traffic and two lanes for westbound traffic. The posted speed limit was 60 km/h. The area was primarily residential with traffic light-controlled intersections, houses and small retail shopping plazas. The road was well lit. There was a minimal amount of vehicular traffic. No other persons were seen on the ICC.

The fatal collision occurred at the traffic light-controlled intersection of Derry Road and Sixth Line. The traffic appeared light at the time of the incident. HRPS collision investigators measured and documented the collision scene.

Because the SIU was not notified immediately, there was no SIU forensic examination, measurements, photographs, or other such documentation of the scenes.

Physical Evidence

As this incident was reported to the SIU about four months after it occurred, no physical evidence was collected in this investigation.

Expert Evidence

On October 9, 2024, a CFS Toxicologist provided SIU investigators a Letter of Opinion relating to Complainant #1’s BAC at the time of the two interactions prior to the collision. The opinion was provided in two parts.

The first part considered the drinking scenario described by CW #3. The CFS Toxicologist opined the following:

• At the time of the McDonald’s interaction with SO #1 at 1:36 a.m., Complainant #1’s BAC would have likely been in the range of 135 to 150 mg/100mL

• At time of the traffic stop with SO #2 at 2:23 a.m., his BAC would likely have been in the range of 120 to 140 mg/100mL
• At the time of the collision, his BAC would likely have been in the range of 100 to 130 mgs/100mL

The second part was based on the results of Complainant #1’s postmortem examination, including BAC. The CFS Toxicologist opined:

• At the time of the McDonald’s interaction with SO #1 at 1:36 a.m., Complainant #1’s BAC would have likely been in the range of 225 to 265 mg/100mL

• At the time of the traffic stop with SO #2 at 2:23 a.m., Complainant #1’s BAC would likely have been in the range of 225 to 249 mg/100mL

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - McDonald’s

There were 17 video recordings from the McDonald’s restaurant at 600 Santa Maria Boulevard, Milton, from March 30, 2024. The videos did not have audio, and some did not have a time-stamp. When time-stamps appeared, the time was approximately one hour behind actual time.

At 12:36:49 a.m. (time-stamp on video), March 30, 2024, CW #1 pulled into the McDonald’s drive-through lane. Complainant #1 pulled up behind her in his vehicle and CW #5 pulled his vehicle in behind Complainant #1.

At 12:42:45 a.m., Complainant #1 got out of his vehicle while it was in the drive-through lineup and bent over forward by the grass [an action consistent with him vomiting].

Complainant #1 walked back to CW #5’s vehicle, stumbling as he did. He appeared unsteady on his feet as he walked back and forth between his vehicle and CW #5’s vehicle. Complainant #1 bent over and appeared to vomit another four times next to his vehicle, briefly resting his head on the roof of his vehicle.

At 12:51:54 a.m., SO #1 arrived and parked her police vehicle beside the drive-through lane, near the drive-through pickup window. WO #1 arrived a few seconds later. SO #1 and WO #1 walked to the passenger window of CW #1’s vehicle and spoke to her for a few seconds. They then looked over and took a few steps towards the order board where the Infiniti was still stopped just ahead of the order board. SO #1 re-entered her cruiser and appeared to wait for Complainant #1 to be next in line to approach the pickup window. Complainant #1 drove from the order board area towards the pickup window. The Infiniti clearly had only one illuminated headlight. CW #5’s vehicle remained stopped near the order board. When the Infiniti neared the pickup window, SO #1 drove forward so that the cruiser was in front of the Infiniti, three or four metres separating the vehicles. SO #1 turned on the cruiser’s spotlight and aimed it at the windshield of the Infiniti. WO #1 moved her cruiser in behind SO #1’s vehicle. SO #1 then walked to the driver’s door of the Infiniti.

At 12:54:17 a.m., SO #1 bent down at the window and appeared to speak to Complainant #1. WO #1 exited her cruiser and walked to about the front of SO #1’s cruiser.

At 12:54:33 a.m., SO #1 stood up and pointed a couple of time towards the parking lot, after which she walked back to her cruiser. Both cruisers were backed up to about even with the pickup window. Complainant #1 pulled his vehicle out of the drive-through lane and parked directly in front of SO #1’s cruiser so that the cars faced each other. SO #1 exited her cruiser and walked around the back of the Infiniti to the driver’s door of the vehicle.

At 12:55:46 a.m., Complainant #1 exited the Infiniti and reached back inside for something. SO #1 stepped to the front of the Infiniti, between the two vehicles. Complainant #1 stepped towards the front of the cars.

At 12:55:57 a.m., Complainant #1 stepped between the front ends of the two cars and handed something to SO #1. She turned away and passed it to WO #1, who walked away.

At 12:56:11 a.m., SO #1 turned back to Complainant #1, who had taken a step closer to SO #1. She stood face to face with him and the two appeared to have a conversation. They were separated by what appeared to be about a metre. Complainant #1 stood straight with his hands in his hoodie pockets for the most part. He gestured and pointed around with his hands. He did not appear to display obvious signs of being impaired, though his movements appeared slow.

At 12:56:46 a.m., SO #1 stepped away to the passenger side of the Infiniti where Complainant #2 sat in the front passenger seat.

At 12:57:20 a.m., SO #1 stepped back in front of Complainant #1 for about another 15 seconds, after which she stepped away from the front of the cars towards WO #1’s cruiser. Complainant #1 walked over to the passenger side of the Infiniti as if to talk to Complainant #2

At 12:58:09 a.m., SO #1 walked to the passenger side of the Infiniti and spoke again to Complainant #1 for about another ten seconds. She appeared to hand him back his identification. WO #1 stood behind SO #1. SO #1 and WO #1 then walked away. Complainant #1 walked back around to the driver side of his car.

At 12:58:25 a.m., Complainant #1 re-entered his car and SO #1 reversed her cruiser out of view.

Complainant #1 pulled his vehicle back into the drive-through lane and drove to the second window. He used his cell phone to pay for his order. As he did so, his hand coordination appeared slow and wobbly, and his eyes appeared unfocused. A McDonald’s employee handed him the first of two drinks. His fingers fumbled to grab the beverage. Complainant #1 knocked the cup out of the employee’s hand. It landed on the ground in between the car and the building. The employee immediately handed him his second drink. Complainant #1 placed it in his vehicle’s cup holder. He put his head out the window and looked to the ground where the first cup had fallen. A few seconds later, he drove forward.

Video Footage – RONA Distribution Centre, 7086 Fifth Line, Milton

HRPS provided SIU investigators two video files from the RONA Bulk Distribution Centre, 7086 Fifth Line. The footage assisted in understanding how and when the collision at Derry Road and Sixth Line occurred. They were of limited value to the SIU investigation regarding the preceding events.

Video Footage – Private Residence on Derry Road

HRPS provided SIU investigators security camera footage from a private residence on Derry Road, Milton, which was a house in the area of the intersection of Derry Road and Sixth Line. Like the RONA videos, the footage assisted in understanding how and when the collision at Derry Road and Sixth Line occurred. They were of limited value to the SIU investigation regarding the preceding events.

HRPS Communications Recordings - 911

At 1:30 a.m., March 30, 2024, CW #1 called 911. She said there was a “really drunk guy in the drive-through”. She said a person [now known to have been Complainant #1] was “fully incapacitated…it was very obvious”. She sounded anxious and very concerned. CW #1 said, in a play-by-play manner, “He’s out of the car… He’s throwing up… He comes out wobbling… He’s getting out of the car, wobbling around and then getting back in the car and now he’s vomiting… He’s fully drunk… Now he’s getting back out of the car… He’s going to the car behind him and talking to them… I don’t know what he’s saying… He’s just not in a good state to drive.”

HRPS Communications Recordings - Radio Communications

At 1:31:26 a.m., March 30, 2024, SO #1 and WO #1 were dispatched regarding a possibly impaired driver in a black Infiniti sedan in a McDonald’s drive-through.

At 1:32:13 a.m., the dispatcher said the driver kept “getting out of his vehicle and vomiting, wobbling around, going up to other cars and talking to them”.

At 1:41:41 a.m., WO #1 queried the Infiniti’s licence plate.

***********

At 2:28:38 a.m., March 30, 2024, the dispatcher asked SO #2 if he needed another unit to assist. He replied that all was fine.

**********

At 3:19 a.m., March 30, 2024, a caller reported vehicles on fire.

ICC Footage – SO #2 and WO #2

The first recording commenced at 2:22:34 a.m., March 30, 2024. Complainant #1’s Infiniti was captured travelling in front of SO #2’s cruiser eastbound on Derry Road. The car drifted slowly from the right lane across to the left lane. It continued to slowly drift left, towards the centre median. It appeared to clip the median curb before swerving sharply back into the lane. The Infiniti slowly drifted back to the left before turning and drifting to the right lane and then back to the left lane. It continued to swerve left and right within the left lane and almost struck a traffic light pole on the centre median. SO #2 drove up closer to the rear of the Infiniti, turned on the emergency lights and chirped the siren. The Infiniti’s right indicator came on. Complainant #1 moved to the right lane and continued to drive for a moment. He then indicated again and pulled over to the right curb.

SO #2 walked to the driver’s door while WO #2 walked to the passenger door. SO #2 asked, “What’s going on?” Complainant #1 said, “Sir, I just want to go home.” Complainant #1 held a piece of paper out the window and SO #2 asked what it was. Complainant #1 said it was his “ownership”. SO #2 said “That’s not your ownership dude. You were swerving all over the road. That’s why I pulled you over.” SO #2 paused for a second or two and asked, “Had anything to drink tonight?” This was followed immediately by, “Where you heading to right now?” Complainant #1 said, “Brampton.” SO #2 then asked Complainant #2 if she drove or had a licence. She said no. SO #2 asked for the ownership and insurance, and Complainant #1 gave SO #2 his licence and asked if it was his ownership. SO #2 told him it was his licence. Complainant #1 tried to give him something else and SO #2 again told him it was not his ownership. Complainant #1 said that it was. Complainant #2 handed WO #2 the ownership and both SO #2 and WO #2 returned to the cruiser. SO #2 said, “Muted for private conversation.” The audio was muted and never turned back on.

At 2:30:50 a.m., March 30, 2024, both SO #2 and WO #2 walked to the front passenger door of the Infiniti and appeared to talk through the window. Complainant #2 exited the Infiniti and both police officers and Complainant #2 walked to the front of the cruiser where it appeared they had a conversation. Complainant #2 moved her hands as though she was holding a steering wheel and motioned up and down. SO #2 and Complainant #2 spoke at the front of the vehicle until 2:32:40 a.m., when Complainant #2 sat back in the Infiniti. SO #2 bent down and appeared to speak to Complainant #1 through the open front passenger door for nearly two-and-a-half minutes. WO #2 stood next to him.

At 2:35:20 a.m., both SO #2 and WO #2 returned to the cruiser.

At 2:44:20 a.m., SO #1 appeared from behind the front of SO #2’s cruiser and approached the passenger side of the Infiniti. She appeared to look inside and at the front of the Infiniti. She then returned to SO #2’s vehicle.

At 2:46:53 a.m., SO #2 approached the Infiniti’s driver’s door and SO #1 approached the passenger door. SO #2 appeared to converse with Complainant #1. He handed him two traffic tickets.

At 2:47:27 a.m., SO #2 and SO #1 walked back towards SO #2’s cruiser and out of view. The recording ended at 2:47:46 a.m., with SO #2’s emergency lights still activated and Complainant #1’s vehicle still stationary. It is believed the ICC recorder was manually switched off at this time.

**********

At 3:26 a.m., the second ICC recording began as SO #2 drove towards the collision scene. The flashing emergency lights were turned on as the cruiser approached Ontario Street South and Derry Road and then travelled eastbound towards the collision scene.

At 3:27:16 a.m., voices were heard from inside the cruiser. It sounded as though WO #2 said, “Holy fuck,” and then SO #2 said, “Shhh.” SO #2 continued eastbound with the flashing emergency lights on.

At 3:27:35 a.m., a voice was heard again. It was difficult to discern what was being said. A few seconds later the ICC ended.

**********

No ICC footage was provided from either SO #1 or WO #1 from the traffic stop on Derry Road. HRPS wrote to the SIU and indicated all ICC recordings that existed had been provided.

Other than corroborating activities and movements surrounding the police response to, and presence at the collision scene, the other ICC footage provided by HRPS was of limited investigative value to the SIU.

GPS Data - SO #1’s Cruiser

Following the call to McDonald’s, SO #1 was stationary in a parking lot until about 2:36 a.m., March 30, 2024. She then drove to the location of SO #2’s traffic stop on Derry Road where she was stopped for about seven minutes.

At 2:50 a.m., SO #1 drove westbound back to the same parking lot she had come from.

At 3:20 a.m., SO #1 drove to Derry Road and eastbound to the collision scene, arriving at 3:25 a.m.

GPS Data - SO #2’s Cruiser

At 1:37 a.m., March 30, 2024, SO #2 was southbound on Commercial Street at Derry Road where SO #1 and WO #1 were interacting with Complainant #1 at the McDonald’s on the southwest corner of Santa Maria Boulevard and Derry Road. The officer stayed near the McDonald’s until 1:41 a.m.

For about two minutes, between 1:41 a.m. and 1:42 a.m., SO #2 was stopped just south of the McDonald’s.

At 1:44 a.m., SO #2 drove into the parking lot of the Milton Tennis Club at 800 Santa Maria Boulevard. He remained stationary in the parking lot for about 30 minutes. The parking lot where SO #2 was stationary was about 400 metres south, and apparently within sight, of the Milton Sports Complex (MSC) where Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #1’s friends met in their cars immediately after the McDonald’s interaction.

At 2:20 a.m., SO #2 left the parking lot of the Milton Tennis Club at the same time as Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 left the MSC. The officer drove northbound on Santa Maria Boulevard, past the MSC parking lot, towards Derry Road.

At 2:21 a.m., SO #2 turned right onto eastbound Derry Road.

At 2:22 a.m., SO #2 was eastbound on Derry Road at about Ontario Street South/Regional Road 25. [As per the start of the ICC recording from SO #2’s cruiser, it was at about this location where the officer drove behind the Infiniti immediately prior to pulling it over.]

SO #2 continued eastbound at speeds recorded at 48, 66, 71, 69, 72 and 79 km/h. [The GPS positioning data was consistent with what was seen on the ICC footage, which began at 2:22:32 a.m.]

At 2:23 a.m., SO #2 was eastbound on Derry Road east of Holly Avenue. [As per the ICC footage, SO #2 turned on his cruiser’s flashing emergency lights at 2:23:01 a.m.] His rate of speed decreased from 72 to 69, 56, 48 and 13 km/h. The officer became stationary on Derry Road [now known to be the location of the traffic stop of Complainant #1]. He was about 400 metres east of Holly Avenue and 250 metres west of Thompson Road South. [This was consistent with what was seen on the ICC footage.] SO #2 remained stationary for about 25 minutes.

At 2:48 a.m. [now known to be after the traffic stop was completed], SO #2 drove about 150 metres further eastbound on Derry Road and into a parking lot on the southwest corner of Derry Road and Thompson Road South. He remained at this location for approximately one minute. He subsequently drove out of the parking lot to the Milton Bible Fellowship church at 306 Ontario Street North.

At 2:57 a.m., SO #2 arrived at the church and remained there for about 28 minutes.

At 3:25 a.m., SO #2 drove to the intersection of Derry Road and Fifth Line, arriving at 3:29 a.m.

Cell Phone Records – SO #2 and SO #1

At 2:27 a.m., March 30, 2024, SO #2 placed a call to SO #1, which lasted three minutes. SO #2 had just commenced the traffic stop on Derry Road. SO #1 was in a parking lot at the John Tonelli Sports Centre. As per her GPS data, SO #1 drove to the location of the traffic stop shortly after the phone call.

At 2:50 a.m., SO #2 placed a call to SO #1, which lasted five minutes. The traffic stop was completed. Both officers were leaving the location of the traffic stop.

At 3:59 a.m., SO #2 placed a call to SO #1, which lasted three minutes. SO #1 was at the collision scene.

At 4:51 a.m., SO #1 placed a call to SO #2, which lasted six minutes. SO #1 was at the collision scene and SO #2 was believed to be at his traffic point.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from HRPS between July 25, 2024, an October 11, 2024:

• ICC footage
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• Occurrence Reports
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Collision Reconstruction Report
• GPS data – SO #2’s and SO #1’s cruisers
• Phone records – SO #2 and SO #1
• Video footage – McDonald’s, private residence on Derry Road and RONA
• HRPS Equipment Sign-out Register
• HRPS Duty Roster
• Notes –WO #1, WO #4, WO #3, WO #7, WO #5, WO #6, WO #12, WO #9, WO #10, WO #8, WO #11 and WO #2
• HRPS policies – Code of Conduct; Impaired Operation; Communications
• Training records – SO #2 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following other records between August 13, 2024, and December 17, 2025:

• Milton Fire and Rescue Services Report
• Halton Region Paramedic Services Report
• Autopsy Reports and Letter of Opinion
• OPC training records regarding impaired driving investigations
• Ministry of Finance Report - Complainant #2’s cell phone records
• Legal opinion received from Justice Prosecutions, Ministry of the Attorney General

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with 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 SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of March 30, 2024, at about 1:35 a.m., SO #1 attended at the McDonald’s drive-through at the southwest corner of Derry Road and Santa Maria Boulevard. She was joined shortly by WO #1, arriving in a separate cruiser. The officers were there following a 911 call to police by CW #1 reporting a drunk driver in the drive-through lane behind her vehicle. She had told the police call-taker that the driver was out of his vehicle throwing up and unsteady on his feet.

The driver was Complainant #1. He was intoxicated by alcohol at the time. He was with his girlfriend Complainant #2 in an Infiniti brand motor vehicle. Friends of his were in a vehicle in the drive-through lane behind him.

SO #1 took the lead in investigating the 911 complaint. She positioned her cruiser to block Complainant #1’s vehicle, and exited and spoke to the 911 caller, CW #1, after which she approached the driver side of the Infiniti to speak to Complainant #1. SO #1 had Complainant #1 reposition his vehicle in the parking lot beside the drive-through and exit to speak to the officer. The two spoke face to face for a period. Complainant #1 provided his licence to SO #1, who passed it to WO #1. A check of the licence confirmed Complainant #1 was a licenced driver. SO #1 continued to interact with Complainant #1, still outside the vehicle, and Complainant #2 remained in the front passenger seat throughout. She eventually returned the licence to Complainant #1 and, with WO #1, left the scene.

Complainant #1 returned to the drive-through lane with his vehicle, picked up his order and left the McDonald’s. Joined by his friends in the other vehicle, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 travelled a short distance to the Milton Sports Centre, 605 Santa Maria Boulevard, where they talked for a period. Complainant #1 possibly consumed alcohol at this time.

At about 2:20 a.m., Complainant #1 was travelling east on Derry Road when he was pulled over between Holly Avenue and Thompson Road South, about a kilometre-and-a-half from Santa Maria Boulevard. SO #2 and his partner, WO #2, had observed the Infiniti drifting from lane to lane and, at one point, touching the curb of the roadway’s centre median. Upon request, Complainant #1 provided SO #2 his licence. He had difficulty identifying and providing his proof of ownership, subsequently located by Complainant #2 in the glove compartment box. SO #2 and WO #2 returned to their cruiser to discuss the situation. Neither one had smelled alcohol coming from the Infiniti. Aware of the earlier incident at the McDonald’s, SO #2 called SO #1 to ask whether she had discerned any signs of impairment. He and WO #2 exited their cruiser and approached the Infiniti, where SO #2 had Complainant #2 step out of the car. Asked about Complainant #1’s driving, Complainant #2 said that he had been trying to frighten her as a joke. SO #2 advised Complainant #1 he could either park his car at a nearby plaza or receive a careless driving ticket and be on his way. Complainant #1 opted for the ticket. The officer returned to his cruiser to prepare the paperwork.

SO #1 arrived on scene shortly after her phone call with SO #2. The two spoke for a period before SO #1 walked up to the passenger side of the Infiniti and stood near the front. Shortly after, Complainant #1 was handed his ticket and drove off.

At about 3:20 a.m., Complainant #1 was again eastbound on Derry Road, Complainant #2 still in the front passenger seat, when he struck the rear of a Honda brand motor vehicle with Complainant #3 inside. Complainant #3 was stopped waiting at a red light at the Sixth Line intersection. A technical collision investigation of the incident estimated that Complainant #1 had been travelling between 140 and 154 km/h leading to the crash.

Police, firefighters and paramedics arrived at the crash site. Complainant #3’s vehicle had erupted in flames. Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3 died from injuries inflicted in the collision.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code of Canada - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

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.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Section 320.27, Criminal Code – Testing for Presence of Alcohol or Drug

320.27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) in the case of alcohol or with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (c) in the case of a drug:

(a) to immediately perform the physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;

(b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device (ASD) and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;

(c) to immediately provide the samples of a bodily substance that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of approved drug screening equipment and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and Complainant #3 died in a motor vehicle collision in Milton on March 30, 2024. Complainant #1, intoxicated and driving an Infiniti with Complainant #2 as his front seat passenger, had rammed into the rear of Complainant #3’s Honda, stopped for a red light on Derry Road. On July 22, 2024, upon learning from the HRPS that Complainant #1 had twice been stopped for investigation of impaired driving by HRPS officers in the couple of hours before the collision, the SIU invoked its jurisdiction. The officers who conducted those investigations – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. The SIU 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 collision.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the subject officials in the manner in which they dealt with Complainant #1, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

SO #1 and SO #2 were acting in the course of their duties when they stopped Complainant #1 to investigate him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. With information at their disposal that Complainant #1 was drunk, they were duty bound to investigate that possibility with due diligence and to remove him from the roadways where there was sufficient evidence that he was committing a Criminal Code or Highway Traffic Act offence. The question is whether the officers performed their duties with the requisite care required of the criminal law.

Turning first to the conduct of SO #1 at the first stop of Complainant #1’s vehicle. There is evidence that she spoke to Complainant #1 and had him step out of his car. She did not smell alcohol coming from him or detect other signs of impairment. He was steady on his feet and did not slur his words. The 911 call to police had described Complainant #1 vomiting and unstable on his feet, but SO #1 had evidence to believe that that behaviour was, in fact, Complainant #1 spitting after each use of his vape device and acting silly for the amusement of his friends in the car behind him. Those alternate explanations would have appeared consistent with her observations of Complainant #1. SO #1 might have considered having Complainant #1 blow into an ASD, which she had in her cruiser. Complainant #1 would likely have registered a fail and been removed from the roadway. Her failure to do so might well have been a misstep in the investigation. Be that as it may, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the totality of the investigation that she conducted that SO #1 failed to comport herself within the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law at the first stop.

The more difficult issue is with the conduct of SO #1 and SO #2 during the second stop of Complainant #1’s Infiniti. By the time SO #2 stopped the Infiniti, he had observed the vehicle drifting across lanes of traffic. He was also aware of the previous stop by SO #1. There is evidence that Complainant #1 was confused with the nature of the documents he was providing SO #2. Presumably, SO #2 would have shared this information with SO #1 when she attended at the scene or in their phone conversation before her arrival. Arguably, this constellation of factors gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Complainant #1 was operating his motor vehicle while he had alcohol in his body – the legal threshold required to pursue further testing under section 320. 27 of the Criminal Code. And yet, that did not occur.

The investigations conducted of Complainant #1 at the second stop left much to be desired. Complainant #1 had now been stopped twice on suspicion of being intoxicated. SO #2 asked Complainant #1 if he had been drinking but did not wait for an answer before he asked another question. He did not have his ICC activated through the entirety of his interaction with Complainant #1. He probably should have concluded that there was a lawful basis for testing whether Complainant #1 had alcohol in his system under section 320.27, and taken steps to have that done.

On the other hand, WO #2, SO #2’s partner, says he did not observe alcohol consumption, nor did he smell alcohol. SO #2 spoke to Complainant #2 outside the Infiniti who confirmed that neither she nor Complainant #1 had been drinking. She also provided an alternate explanation for the erratic driving, namely, that Complainant #1 was jokingly trying to scare her. What SO #1 discerned during her attendance at the second stop is unknown. It is entirely possible that her understanding of the situation remained unchanged.

The test for criminal negligence is high - the impugned conduct must reflect a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Mere errors of judgment or mistakes are insufficient to make out liability. In the final analysis, when the officers’ indiscretions regarding the second stop are weighed in the balance with the extenuating considerations referenced above, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that their conduct amounted to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances[3]. 

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

I note that this matter appears to have been reported late to the SIU in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, and section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct. As outlined above, there is also evidence that SO #1 and SO #2 committed possible misconduct in the manner in which they investigated Complainant #1 contrary to section 19 of the Police Code of Conduct. I will be referring these matters to the Chief of Police for review by the police service. Consistent with the SIU’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: January 30, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit