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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 26, 2025, at 12:03 p.m., the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service (NAPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 25, 2025, at 2:04 p.m., NAPS officers - the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 - attempted to stop a motorcycle in the community of Constance Lake. The motorcycle slid on ice and the rider, the Complainant, fell off. The officers took the Complainant into custody and transported him to the detachment. The Complainant subsequently complained of a sore finger. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended, and paramedics transported the Complainant to the Notre-Dame Hospital (NDH) in Hearst, where he was diagnosed with a fractured left finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/26 at 1:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/26 at 1:56 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 8, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

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 on December 8, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the southern end of Nes-Qua Street, Constance Lake.

Nes-Qua Street aligned in a general north/south orientation. The southern end of Nes-Qua Street curved sharply to the east before turning into Shan-Way-Shoo Street.

At the time of the incident under investigation, the roads were reportedly icy and snowy.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NAPS Communications Recordings

On November 25, 2025, at 2:18 p.m., WO #1 and the SO requested an ambulance to the NAPS Detachment for the Complainant. WO #1 advised that the Complainant had “wiped out” on his motorbike and had a sore hand.

NAPS Custody Footage

The Complainant was escorted by WO #1 and the SO into the booking area of the station, and his handcuffs were removed at 2:16 p.m., November 25, 2025. The Complainant indicated an injury to his left hand and showed WO #1. The Complainant removed the laces of his boots and his boots without utilizing his left hand. He attempted to remove his belt with his right hand and was assisted by WO #1.

The Complainant entered a cell at 2:25 p.m. and focused on his left hand.

Two paramedics entered the cell at 2:29 p.m. and examined the Complainant’s left hand. The Complainant exited the cell with the paramedics.

Video Footage from Constance Lake First Nation Social Development Building – Nes-Qua Street, Constance Lake First Nation[3]

On November 25, 2025, starting at about 2:01 p.m., a NAPS truck was captured coming onto Nes-Qua Street at its southern end and continuing northward a distance before its emergency lights came on. The Complainant’s motorcycle travelled southward on the roadway and passed the NAPS truck. Continuing southward towards a sharp eastward curve in the road, the Complainant put his left foot down onto the road. The motorcycle slid out from under the Complainant, and he fell to the ground. There were no vehicles behind the motorcycle at this time. The Complainant got up and picked up the motorcycle before falling again. He had risen to his feet and was starting to pick up the motorcycle when the NAPS truck arrived in the vicinity. WO #1 exited the truck from the passenger side, approached the Complainant and held his left arm, directing him towards the NAPS truck.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NAPS between November 28, 2025, and February 19, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Driving Prohibition
• Communications recordings
• Custody footage
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2
• NAPS Vehicle Pursuit Policy

Records Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on December 11, 2025.

• Video footage from Constance Lake First Nation Social Development Building
• Paramedic Service Report from Weeneebayko Area Health Authority

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of November 25, 2025, the SO was on patrol in Constance Lake First Nation operating a marked police pick-up truck. With him in the passenger seat was WO #1. As they turned to head north on Nes-Qua Street, the officers observed a motorcyclist heading south in their direction. He was operating a motorcross-type vehicle. Aware of a band council resolution prohibiting these types of motorcycles in Constance Lake, the officers activated their emergency lights to stop the motorcyclist. Their intention was to issue him a warning.

The Complainant was operating the motorcycle. He was subject to an order prohibiting his operation of a motorcycle. He drove past the police cruiser and continued south on Nes-Qua Street. The surface was slippery and the Complainant lost control of the motorcycle attempting to negotiate a sharp left hand curve at the southern end of the road, falling onto his left side. The Complainant picked himself up and briefly remounted the motorcycle before falling again. He was attempting to right himself a second time when the SO, having executed a three-point turn and travelled south after the Complainant, arrived on scene. WO #1 exited the front passenger door and took hold of the Complainant, walking him to the side of the cruiser and taking him into custody without incident.

The Complainant was taken to the police detachment where he complained of pain to his left hand. He was shortly transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture of a left finger.

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 diagnosed with a serious injury while in the custody of the NAPS on November 25, 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 arrest and injury.

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.

With information at his disposal that the Complainant was operating a vehicle in apparent contravention of a band council resolution, the SO was within his rights in attempting to stop him.

As for the manner of the SO’s driving, there is no evidence that he failed to comport himself with due care and regard for public safety. The cruiser’s emergency lights were activated well ahead of the Complainant’s location, giving him ample time to come to a safe stop had he been so inclined. Thereafter, when the Complainant failed to stop and continued south, the video footage indicates that the SO performed a three-point turn and travelled towards the scene of the crash in safety. The police truck’s front passenger side tire appears to have made contact with the motorcycle’s rear wheel as it was coming to a stop, but there is no indication that this minor impact had any effect on the health or safety of the Complainant. In the final analysis, it is clear that the Complainant broke his finger falling from his motorcycle, and that he alone is responsible for the injury.

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

I note what appears to have been a late notification of the incident by the police service 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. The Complainant was discharged from hospital the evening of November 25, 2025, with a fractured finger, but the SIU was not made aware of the injury until noon of the day after. I will be referring this matter to the service for their review. I will also be referring the matter, consistent with the SIU’s obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: March 24, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit