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 19-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 2, 2025, at 5:57 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 4:22 a.m., that morning, the Subject Official (SO) was driving westbound on Country Road 20, just east of Iler Road in the town of Harrow, when a woman [now known to be the Complainant] apparently walked out from a cornfield into the path of his OPP Tahoe. At the time of the collision, the SO was on duty, but not on a call for service. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene and the Complainant was transported to Erie Shores Health Centre (ESHC), Leamington, where she was pronounced deceased at 5:18 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/02 at 7:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/02 at 10:52 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

19-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed; next-of-kin

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 2 and 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on November 24, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on County Road 20 East, near Iler Road, in Harrow.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On November 2, 2025, at 1:15 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene on County Road 20 East near Iler Road, Harrow. County Road 20 East traveled in an east/west direction and was a paved, level, two-laned roadway with paved shoulders. Street markings were visible and in good order. There was no streetlighting present.

On the roadway was a 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe displaying stealth graphics adopted by the OPP. The emergency lighting was activated.

About two metres in front of the vehicle was a large pooling of liquid suspected to be blood, and personal items, EMS packaging and paraphernalia.

The OPP Tahoe was towed for examination.

SIU forensic services examined the OPP Tahoe and took photographs of the damage. There was visible damage to the front-end crash bar showing fabric impressions on the middle horizontal bar. The lower horizontal bar was bent inwards. There was a scratch on the hood near the driver’s side front corner. The images below capture the damage to the crash bar.

Expert Evidence

SIU Collision Reconstruction Report

The airbag control module (ACM) from the OPP Tahoe was downloaded. Because of the dynamics of the collision, the ACM had not recorded an air bag deployment event. No data were available to assist in the investigation.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) data related to the OPP Tahoe indicated that the SO accelerated to a maximum recorded speed of 110 km/h when he was about 300 metres east of the scene of the collision. For a period of about ten seconds, he slowed from 110 km/h to 103 km/h travelling west in the westbound lane.

As the cruiser passed the west side of a nearby driveway on County Road 20 East, the data indicated that the SO aggressively applied the brakes. The collision occurred as the SO steered to the right at about the same time before quickly bringing the cruiser to a stop on the shoulder.

The cruiser was a 2021 model year Chevrolet Tahoe. The cruiser had subdued markings and was equipped with flashing red and blue emergency lights. It did not have a roof-mounted light bar. The siren was tested and worked properly. There had been no air bag deployment. The odometer read 293448 kilometres. The cruiser appeared to be in good condition despite the high kilometrage.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

The footage began at 4:22 a.m., November 2, 2025. The OPP Tahoe was stopped on County Road 20 East, Harrow, facing westbound. The SO was standing in front of the Tahoe looking down; the Complainant could not be seen. It was dark and the roadway was clear. There was no other traffic. The SO appeared to be assessing the Complainant’s injuries and talking into his radio. The SO subsequently ran back to his Tahoe and activated the emergency lighting before returning to the Complainant. When the audio track of the footage kicked in, the SO was heard requesting an ambulance. He stated that the Complainant had a serious head wound and her breathing was laboured.

Further OPP officers arrived and assisted with cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

The next transmission was from the SO, stating that the Complainant was vital signs absent.

An ambulance attended, took the lead with the Complainant’s care and transported her to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 2 and 11, 2025:

• GPS data for OPP Tahoe
• ICC footage from OPP Tahoe
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Sudden Death Report
• OPP Policy - Community Patrol, General Patrol and Patrol Car

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 3 and 4, 2025:

• Mechanical Inspection Report from Ross Towing
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Forensic Pathology Service of Ontario

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the SO and a civilian witness, and GPS data downloaded from the officer’s cruiser, gives rise to the following scenario.

At about 4:40 a.m., November 2, 2025, the SO was on-duty operating an OPP Tahoe with subdued markings. He was travelling west on County Road 20 East on his way back to the OPP detachment in Essex. A distance east of Iler Road, a person moved out onto the westbound lane from the northside ditch. The SO steered to the right but was unable to avoid contact. The front of his vehicle struck the person and propelled her a distance west of his cruiser.

The person was the Complainant.

The SO quickly brought his cruiser to a stop to search for the person. He found her on the road and began to administer emergency first-aid. She had sustained a serious head wound and was unconscious.

Additional officers arrived on scene, as did paramedics.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at 5:18 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple trauma.

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 passed away on November 2, 2025, the result of injuries incurred in a collision with an OPP cruiser. 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 death.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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 with the Complainant. In my view, there was not.

Aside from speed that was in excess of the posted 80 km/h speed limit, there is no evidence that the SO failed to comport himself with due care in the operation of his cruiser. His speeds, in the range of 100 to 110 km/h as he approached the scene of the collision, were unnecessarily high, but there is no indication that they created an undue risk to public safety. While it was very dark, the roads were dry, the weather was clear and there was very little traffic on the roadway. Moreover, the evidence suggests that the SO was paying attention to the road ahead of him; he had detected the Complainant coming onto the road and attempted to steer around her. It might have been that the SO would have had more time to react had he been travelling slower, but that is speculation in large measure as it appears the Complainant had waited to the last second before entering onto the roadway.

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

Date: February 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit