Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 26, 2025, at 7:50 a.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 26, 2025, at 2:19 a.m., Witness Official (WO) #1 and Officer #1 were assigned to a marked GSPS police vehicle. Although not engaged in a pursuit, WO #1 pulled in front of a black Dodge Ram pick-up truck, while WO #2 situated his marked vehicle behind the truck. Both vehicles had their emergency lights activated to stop the pick-up truck for the purpose of addressing the sobriety of the driver, the Complainant. The location of the traffic stop was Elm Street and Paris Street. The pick-up truck initially stopped but then lightly bumped the rear of the police vehicle driven by WO #1 and sped away. The situation was broadcast over the police radio and there was direction that no pursuit was to be initiated. A short time later, it was reported that the Dodge Ram pick-up truck had struck a 2020 Chevrolet Malibu at the intersection of Kingsway and Falconbridge Road. The driver of the Chevrolet Malibu [Civilian Witness (CW) #1] was uninjured. The collision sent the Dodge Ram truck into the curb and airborne, coming to rest in the parking lot of the MIC Restaurant, 200 Falconbridge Road. Upon arrival of GSPS officers, the Complainant ran from the scene, jumping fences and hiding in several residential yards. The area was contained, and officers searched for the Complainant. At 3:19 a.m., the Complainant was located, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called to the scene. The Complainant complained of pain to his left foot and was transported to Health Sciences North, where he was diagnosed with two fractured bones in his left foot.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/26 at 9:25 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/26 at 11:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 5, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 4 and 10, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between November 14 and 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Elm Street and Paris Street, and in and around the intersection of Kingsway and Falconbridge Road, Sudbury.

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data – GSPS Police Vehicles

WO #2 was the closest police officer behind the Complainant (3.25 kilometres away), arriving four minutes after the collision at 200 Falconbridge Road, which occurred at 2:21 a.m., October 26, 2025.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data – The Complainant’s Vehicle

The data indicated that the Complainant was wearing his seat belt.

Five seconds prior to the collision with the guardrail at the northeast corner of Kingsway and Falconbridge Road, the Complainant’s speed was 138 km/h [the posted speed limit was 60 km/h]. The anti-lock brake system was engaged. The speed decreased to 63 km/h when the Complainant struck the guardrail.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

GSPS Communications Recordings

On October 26, 2025, at 2:18 a.m., WO #2 advised the dispatcher that he had initiated a traffic stop at Elm Street and Paris Street, along with WO #1, of a Dodge Ram operated by the Complainant.

Starting at 2:19 a.m., WO #1 reported that the Complainant had collided with her police vehicle and another vehicle. A description of the Complainant was broadcast.

Starting at 2:22 a.m., WO #2 advised he would travel east on Kingsway to search for the Complainant.

Starting at 2:24 a.m., CW #4 contacted GSPS to report a single vehicle collision at the MIC Restaurant, 200 Falconbridge Road. She had observed the driver (the Complainant) exit his vehicle and walk around the location. WO #2 advised the dispatcher he would attend the scene of the collision at Falconbridge Road.

Starting at 2:25 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant had fled on foot and provided a direction of travel.

Starting at 2:27 a.m., the dispatcher advised that the use of a police service dog to search for the Complainant had been approved.

Starting at 2:38 a.m., a sergeant advised that grounds existed to arrest the Complainant for various Criminal Code offences.

Starting at 2:50 a.m., WO #2 confirmed the identification of the Complainant.

Starting at 2:58 a.m., WO #4 (dog handler) began a track with his dog.

Starting at 3:09 a.m., WO #3 observed the Complainant on Frobisher Street near a truck in the city yards.

Starting at 3:18 a.m., the Complainant was taken into custody by WO #2 and WO #4.

Starting at 3:23 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant had indicated he broke his foot.

GSPS Video Footage - “Eye in the Sky”

The recording captured the intersection of Elm Street and Paris Street from the northeast corner. It was not time-stamped.

The Complainant’s vehicle was stopped in the left-turn lane on Elm Street with GSPS police vehicles in front and behind him. The Complainant drove his vehicle to the right and collided with CW #1’s vehicle.

Immediately after the collision, the Complainant drove east on Lloyd Street.

GSPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1’s Cruiser

Starting at 2:18:05 a.m., October 26, 2025, WO #1 assisted WO #2 with a traffic stop of the Complainant by stopping her police vehicle in front of the Complainant’s vehicle.

Starting at 2:19:38 a.m., the police vehicle operated by WO #1 moved when the Complainant drove into it. Shortly after, the Complainant drove away eastbound on Lloyd Street.

GSPS - ICC Footage – WO #3’s Cruiser

Starting at 3:11:17 a.m., October 26, 2025, WO #3 met WO #2 at the Greater Sudbury Household Hazardous Waste Depot and observed the Complainant running beside one of the buildings. WO #3 left the area and positioned her vehicle behind 488 Falconbridge Road.

Starting at 3:23:45 a.m., the Complainant was in the rear seat of the police vehicle. He complained of pain in his head and hands and, at 3:38:45 a.m., was treated by paramedics.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between October 28, 2025, and December 12, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers, including call-signs
• Names, contact information and statements from civilian witnesses
• Arrest Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Body-worn camera footage
• ICC footage (WO #2’s vehicle was not equipped with ICC)
• Video footage - “Eye in the Sky”
• Video footage – MIC Restaurant
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs and video
• GPS data for involved police vehicles
• CDR data
• GSPS policies - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; Canine Unit

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Health Sciences North on November 11, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of October 26, 2025, WO #2, in one cruiser, and WO #1, in another, decided to stop a pick-up driver on suspicion that the driver was inebriated. They followed the truck eastward on Elm Street and maneuvered their cruisers in front of and behind the truck when it came to a stop in the left-turn lane at the Paris Street intersection. The officers exited their cruisers and WO #1 approached the driver’s seat of the truck.

The pick-up truck was being operated by the Complainant. Within moments of the stop, the Complainant drove into the rear of WO #1’s cruiser stopped in front of him, after which he turned the truck to the right, struck a civilian vehicle stopped alongside it, and accelerated away eastbound on Lloyd Street and then Kingsway. The Complainant continued at speed, approaching Falconbridge Road at well over 100 km/h. He entered the intersection against a red light and unsuccessfully attempted to make a left-hand turn, losing control of the pick-up truck and crashing onto the exterior grounds of a restaurant at 200 Falconbridge Road.

None of the officers at the initial traffic stop had pursued the Complainant. WO #2 was travelling eastbound on Kingsway when he heard of the collision at Falconbridge Road. He arrived at the intersection to see the Complainant outside the wreck of his truck.

The Complainant ran into a wooded field and then an industrial area. He was eventually located with the use of a police dog and taken into custody.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a minor dog bite to the right buttock and fractures of his left foot.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

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.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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 on October 26, 2025, while attempting to evade the GSPS. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any GSPS officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

As there is no suggestion of any force used by police officers in relation to the Complainant’s serious injuries, namely, the foot fractures, the offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221 of the Criminal Code, respectively. Both require something more than a simple want of care to give rise to liability. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The latter is premised on even more egregious conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the neglect constitutes a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. In the instant case, the question is whether there was any want of care on the part of the involved officers, sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to his fractured left foot.

The evidence suggests that the Complainant’s fractures were incurred in the initial traffic stop, the collision at the intersection of Kingsway and Falconbridge Road and/or his flight from police on foot prior to his arrest. It is alleged that the Complainant broke his foot fleeing from police following the collision at 200 Falconbridge Road. That is entirely possible given the fences he climbed and descended in the course of his flight from police. If that is in fact the case, then the Complainant is solely responsible for his fractured foot. The same can be said in the event the injury was the result of the collision at Falconbridge Road. The Complainant had entered the intersection at excessive speed without any police officers in the vicinity and is alone to blame for the consequences of that conduct. However unlikely, it is also possible that the Complainant broke his foot when he struck two vehicles at the initial stop before taking off from the scene. Here, again, as that would have happened after the officers had safely positioned their cruisers around his stationary vehicle, the Complainant would be the author of his own misfortune.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: February 19, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit