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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 2, 2026, at 1:20 a.m., the Belleville Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 1, 2026, at approximately 11:29 p.m., BPS received a report of a suspected impaired driver in the area of Sidney Street, Belleville. The vehicle had struck two parked vehicles and driven away. Police officers responded to the area and located the vehicle, which was mobile on Sidney Street near Benjamin Street. The officers activated their emergency lights, but the driver failed to stop. The vehicle went east on Bridge Street West and crossed the Moira River onto Bridge Street East. The driver continued east until the area of George Street where he lost control and struck a pole. Hastings Quinte Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called and transported the driver [now known to be the Complainant] to the Kingston General Hospital (KGH) with undetermined injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/02 at 2:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/02 at 5:10 a.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”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 24, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on February 3, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on Sidney Street in the area of Crawford Street, continued north on Sidney Street, east on Lewis Street, north on Yeomans Street, east and then south on Purdy Street, east on Moira Street West, south on Coleman Street and east on Bridge Street West and then Bridge Street East (east of the Moira River), and concluded at the intersection of Bridge Street East and George Street, Belleville.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

OnFebruary 2, 2026, at 5:10 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene of the collision at Bridge Street East and George Street, Belleville. WO #5 of the BPS was on scene. It was agreed he would conduct a reconstruction of the collision and share his data with the SIU.

The roadways were undivided two-way, city streets at the intersection of Bridge Street East and George Street. The paved road surface was intermittently covered with packed snow; road markings remained visible in cleared areas. The area was illuminated by streetlights. Substantial snowbanks were located on both sides of the roadway. Traffic flow was regulated by stop signs for traffic on George Street.

The Complainant’s vehicle - a dark blue Dodge Charger - was located at the southeast corner of the intersection, facing an easterly direction. At the passenger side front headlight area, the Charger had struck a concrete utility pole. Following the initial strike, the vehicle continued forward, causing the pole to penetrate the engine compartment. The passenger side front wheel was not visible and was suspected to be pinned beneath the chassis. A significant debris field was found scattered across the roadway and sidewalk east of the impact point. While the vehicle’s airbags had deployed, the driver’s seatbelt remained hanging on the pillar, suggesting it was not in use during the collision. No visible skid marks were observed on the road surface. Comprehensive photographic documentation of the scene was completed.

Two BPS police vehicles involved in the incident had been removed from the scene prior to SIU arrival. At 7:10 a.m., SIU forensic services photographed and examined those vehicles in the garage at the BPS Headquarters, 459 Sidney Street East, Belleville, Ontario. BPS Vehicle #1 was a fully marked black Chevrolet Silverado [now known to have been operated by the SO]. The emergency lighting system was found to be functioning properly, and no physical damage was observed on the vehicle. BPS Vehicle #2 was a fully marked black Dodge Charger [now known to have been operated by WO #1]. The emergency lighting system was functional. This vehicle sustained visible damage to the front driver side push bar, which had been forced back into the bumper and hood area, causing deformation to the body panels.

On February 25, 2026, starting at about 7:48 p.m., SIU forensic services recorded a route video to document the path of travel of the pursuit. The recording concluded at 8:01 p.m. Lighting conditions were consistent with those reportedly present at the time of the incident. Roadway surface conditions were optimal; there were no snow-packed sections present during the recording. All relevant road signs and pavement markings were visible and present.

The video started northbound on Sidney Street from Crawford Avenue. The roadway was a straight, paved four-lane north/south road, with two lanes in each direction. The area was a mix of residential and business properties. A posted speed limit of 40 km/h was noted. The route turned right, or eastbound, onto Lewis Street. Lewis Street was a two-lane residential street. The route continued east to Yeomans Street, which was controlled by a stop sign. No speed limit signs were observed. Yeomans Street was a two-lane north/south road with one lane in each direction. The area had residential and business properties. The route proceeded to the left, northbound, on Yeomans Street through an intersection controlled by a stop sign with a flashing red light. The route continued east on Purdy Street, a two-lane residential street with no observable speed limit signs, and then southeast to Moira Street, a two-lane east/west residential road. The route proceeded east on Moira Street to the signalized intersection at Coleman Street, where it southbound onto Coleman Street and through one signalized intersection to Bridge Street West, a two-lane road. The route continued through a signalized intersection to proceed eastbound over a bridge between Bridge Street West and Bridge Street East. This area had a posted speed limit of 30 km/h and traversed through the downtown core, crossing three traffic signal-controlled intersections. The route terminated at the intersection of Bridge Street East and George Street.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

At 11:40:31 p.m., February 1, 2026, WO #1 was captured following the SO’s fully marked police vehicle eastbound on Moira Street West. Both police vehicles had their emergency lighting activated. It was dark and there were snowbanks at the side of the road.

At 11:41 p.m., WO #1 was travelling between 99 km/h and 104 km/h. She slowed to turn right to travel south on Coleman Street, after which the officer activated the siren in her police vehicle and travelled at approximately 96 km/h. The roads were wet. WO #1 continued to follow the SO’s police vehicle, proceeding through a green light at Catherine Street.

At 11:41:44 p.m., WO #1 slowed down but did not stop to make a left turn to travel east on Bridge Street West. The SO and WO #1 travelled eastbound as civilian cars, also travelling east on the bridge, stopped to allow the police officers to pass. The traffic light at Front Street was green as they approached. WO #1 was travelling at 73 km/h in a 30 km/h zone. She went through a green traffic light at Highway 62, and both police vehicles continued east. The SO went through a red traffic light without stopping at Church Street. WO #1, travelling at 87 km/h, went through the red light and continued east. The SO continued eastward as WO #1 slowed down to 21 km/h approaching George Street. The vehicle being pursued [now known to be a blue Dodge Charger, operated by the Complainant] was captured on the south side of the road at George Street. The front end of the Charger had collided into a concrete hydro pole. The SO continued east.

At 11:42:20 p.m., WO #1 drove into the rear of the Complainant’s vehicle and struck his back bumper at a speed of approximately 6 km/h. She and two other uniformed police officers approached the driver side of the Dodge Charger and extracted the Complainant from the vehicle.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data - The SO’s Cruiser

At 11:34:59 p.m., February 1, 2026, the SO travelled westbound on College Street at 8 km/h in a 50 km/h speed zone, just west of Highway 62 (Front Street), Belleville. The SO’s speed increased to a top speed of 74 km/h, just before Sidney Street.

At Sidney Street, the SO turned left and travelled south on Sidney Street with a top speed of 68 km/h and an average speed of about 55 km/h.

At 11:37:30 p.m., just south of Crawford Avenue, the officer made a U-turn and continued northbound on Sidney Street, increasing his speed to 80 km/h.

At 11:38:05 p.m., the SO turned right and proceeded east on Lewis Street, reaching a top speed of 53 km/h.

At 11:38:33 p.m., the officer made a left-hand turn to proceed north on Yeomans Street. The SO drove northbound on Yeomans Street and passed Moira Street, stopping in the area of Purdy Street and then making a U-turn south of Elmer Street.

At 11:39:32 p.m., the SO made a left-hand turn onto Purdy Street and continued east and then south towards Moira Street. His top speed on Purdy Street was 57 km/h with an average speed in the 30 km/h to 40 km/h range.

At 11:40:38 p.m., the officer made a left-hand turn onto Moira Street and travelled east to Coleman Street with a top speed of 104 km/h.

At 11:41 p.m., the SO made a right-hand turn onto Coleman Street, and continued south on Coleman Street to Bridge Street West, reaching a top speed of 87 km/h.

At 11:41:35 p.m., the SO made a left-hand turn to travel east on Bridge Street West. This intersection was governed by traffic signals. He continued over the bridge to Bridge Street East and then eastbound with a top speed of 101 km/h at John Street. [The collision occurred at 11:42:16 p.m., at Bridge Street East and George Street, one block east of John Street.] The SO passed the collision scene before bringing his cruiser to a stop.

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Data from the Complainant’s Dodge Charger

On February 10, 2026, the BPS executed a search warrant on the Complainant’s vehicle, a Dodge Charger, and extracted the following CDR data:

• Five seconds before impact, the Charger travelled at 111 km/h, the brake was disengaged, and the accelerator was at 16%

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On February 1, 2026, at 11:29 p.m., the BPS received information that a potentially impaired driver had left a lot on Dundas Street East, Belleville, driving a Dodge Charger eastbound on Dundas Street. The vehicle licence plate was not obtained from the Charger. It had reportedly struck two vehicles on the lot, and the driver was suspected to be impaired. The windows of the Charger were tinted but the driver looked like a man.

BPS Unit #1 [now known to be Officer #1] and BPS Unit #2 [now known to be Officer #2] received a broadcast to be on the lookout for the Charger.

At 11:39 p.m., BPS Unit #3 [now known to be the SO] advised that he was following the vehicle, which had spun-out, and it was now backed up at the corner of Elmer Street.

At 11:39:49 p.m., the SO advised that the Charger had made contact with his police vehicle. The licence plate was identified, and it was headed eastbound. The SO subsequently broadcast that the Charger was on Moira Street. It had failed to stop for the stop sign and was accelerating.

At 11:41 p.m., the Charger was said to be travelling south of Coleman Street at a speed of about 70 km/h. It had failed to stop for the stop sign at Bridge Street West. The SO broadcast that the charger was travelling eastbound on the bridge.

At 11:42 p.m., the SO reported that traffic on the bridge was light.

At 11:42:12 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that she was eastbound on the bridge. A sergeant broadcast a direction that the pursuit be terminated.

At 11:42:16 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Charger had collided into a pole at George Street and Bridge Street.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the BPS between February 3, 2026, and May 5, 2026:

• Communications recordings
• Body-worn camera (BWC) footage
• ICC footage
• Photographs
• Map of GPS coordinates - the SO’s cruiser
• GPS data – the SO’s, WO #2’s and WO #1’s cruisers
• Arrest Report
• CAD Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Motor Vehicle Collision Reports
• Notes – WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1, WO #4 and WO #5
• Occurrence Summary
• Offence Record Report
• Involved Officer List
• BPS policies – Use of Force; Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; Arrest Procedure
• Reconstruction Report
• Training records – the SO
• Undertaking Release – the Complainant
• Toxicology Report – the Complainant

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 12, 2026, and March 4, 2026:

• Ambulance Call Reports from Hastings Quinte EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from KGH

In the evening of February 1, 2026, BPS officers were on the lookout for a Dodge Charger being operated by someone who was possibly impaired. Police received information that a suspected impaired driver had left an address on Dundas Street East. The time was about 11:30 p.m. About ten minutes later, the SO radioed that he had located the vehicle and was pursuing it northbound on Sidney Street.

The Complainant, who was driving the Charger, did not stop for the SO. Instead, he led the officer on a chase during which he disregarded stop signs and traffic lights, and travelled well over the speed limit, at times on the opposite side of the road. Having crossed eastward over the Moira River on Bridge Street, the Complainant continued at pace and lost control of the Charger at George Street, his vehicle slamming into a utility pole at the southeast corner of the intersection. The time was about 11:42 p.m. The Complainant was transported to hospital from the scene and diagnosed with clavicle, neck and rib fractures.

The SO was a few car lengths away from the Complainant at the time of the collision. He had tracked the Charger over a distance of about three kilometres, at times well over the speed limit and, on at least two occasions, through red lights without first coming to a stop.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

320.13 (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.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red Light Exemption

144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Belleville on February 1, 2026. As he was being pursued by BPS officers at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 collision.

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 cruiser, 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 driving while intoxicated, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in initiating a police pursuit to stop the Charger and investigate the driver for a criminal offence.

With respect to the manner in which the SO operated his cruiser, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that it transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The officer’s driving and decision-making during the pursuit are subject to legitimate scrutiny. The SO drove for periods at significant speeds, at times about twice the speed limit. He did so over roads that were wet and, in spots, covered with hard-packed snow. Arguably, there came a point before the collision where considerations of public safety should have dictated an end to the pursuit. At the intersection of Yeomans Street and Purdy Street, for example, after the Complainant’s vehicle had spun out and made minor contact with the officer’s cruiser, the SO might have considered discontinuing the chase because it had become too dangerous. The ICC footage also captured the officer driving through red lights without first stopping, on one occasion doing so at speed. That conduct was extremely risky and a violation of sections 144(18) and (20) of the Highway Traffic Act. On the other hand, the SO did a decent job of broadcasting speeds and directions over the radio, putting supervisory personnel in a position to make informed decisions about the pursuit. In fact, a sergeant had ordered the termination of the pursuit at about the same time as the collision occurred. The officer also had his emergency equipment on, giving the public notice of his presence and the pursuit, and he maintained control of the cruiser throughout, notwithstanding the speeds and the wet conditions. Lastly, traffic was light at the time of the events in question and there was no evidence of any close calls with third-party motorists or pedestrians along the pursuit route. Weighing these and other considerations in the balance, I am unable to reasonably conclude on the totality of the evidence that the officer’s driving amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care.

I note that the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 travelled through red lights in apparent contravention of section 144(18) and (20) of the Highway Traffic Act, and sections 10, 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct. There was also evidence in the investigation that the BPS removed the SO’s and WO #1’s cruisers from the scene of the collision, in apparent contravention of section 20 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, and section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct. I will be referring these matters to the BPS Chief of Police for their review. Pursuant to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring these matters to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: May 15, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit