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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 13, 2026, at 6:53 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 13, 2026, a police vehicle was eastbound on Petrolia Line, St. Clair Township, when it was struck by a southbound vehicle on Kimball Road that had failed to stop for a stop sign. The driver of the southbound vehicle [the Complainant] was taken to Bluewater Health and diagnosed with a fractured femur and ankle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/13 at 7:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/13 at 10:15 p.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”):

36-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on February 17, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed; interview deemed unnecessary

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 4, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on March 20, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Petrolia Line and

Kimball Road, St. Clair.

Scene Diagram

Source: OPP

Physical Evidence

Kimball Road was a marked, paved highway consisting of two lanes of traffic, one southbound and one northbound. Approaching the intersection with Petrolia Line, the southbound and northbound lanes were divided by a double solid yellow line. At the intersection with Petrolia Line, southbound and northbound traffic on Kimball Road was controlled by oversized stop signs, four in total (two facing north and two facing south) located on the west and east sides of the roadway. A thick white stop line was visible at the intersection for both the southbound and northbound lanes. A flashing red light faced southbound and northbound traffic and was hung overhead in the middle of the intersection. The speed limit on Kimball Road in the area was 80 km/h.

Petrolia Line was a marked, paved highway consisting of two lanes of traffic, one eastbound and one westbound. Approaching the intersection with Kimball Road, the eastbound and westbound lanes were divided by a double solid yellow line. At the intersection with Kimball Road, eastbound and westbound traffic on Petrolia Line was controlled by a flashing amber light, hung overhead in the middle of the intersection. The speed limit on Petrolia Line in the area was 70 km/h.

SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

Three vehicles were involved in the incident at the intersection.

Vehicle 1 was a Toyota Rav 4 [the Complainant]. It was located facing southbound, south of the intersection in the northbound lane on Kimball Road, directly in front of Vehicle 3. Extensive damage was noted to the entire front of vehicle. Curtain airbags on both sides and driver airbags at the steering wheel and knees had been deployed.

Image 1 – The Complainant’s Toyota Rav 4 - Vehicle 1

Vehicle 2 was a marked Chevrolet Tahoe [the SO]. It was located to the east and south of the intersection in a field. After impact within the intersection, the vehicle spun several times and came to rest facing southbound. Extensive damage to the driver side of the vehicle was noted. Curtain airbags on both sides of the vehicle had been deployed.

Image 2 – The SO’s Chevrolet Tahoe - Vehicle 2

Vehicle 3 was a Ford Escape [CW #2]. It was located facing northbound in the northbound lane on Kimball Road and had minor damage to the front grill and hood.

Image 3 – CW #2’s Ford Escape - Vehicle 3

Forensic Evidence

Airbag Control Module (ACM) Data for The Complainant’s and The SO’s Vehicles

The Complainant’s Toyota was southbound at 82 km/h five seconds before impact. It maintained that speed until just before the collision, when the driver braked and steered starting 0.3 seconds before impact. The speed was recorded as 74 km/h at impact, suggesting full emergency braking by the driver for 0.3 seconds.

The SO’s cruiser was eastbound at 69 km/h five seconds before impact. The vehicle slowed to about 67 km/h three seconds before impact and maintained that speed until impact. The driver did not brake before impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Camera at Scene

The camera was affixed to a building and captured a view of the intersection.[3]

Starting at the 19-minute, 37-second mark of the footage, the SO’s OPP vehicle was captured eastbound on Petrolia Line approaching the intersection at Kimball Road. The Complainant’s vehicle was southbound on Kimball Road. It failed to stop for the stop sign at Petrolia Line and entered the intersection at speed, striking the driver side of the SO’s vehicle and sending it spinning into a field on the southeast corner. The Complainant’s vehicle spun and struck the front of CW #2’s vehicle, which was facing north and stopped on Kimball Road south of Petrolia Line.

OPP Communications Recordings

Telephone

On February 13, 2026, starting at 4:21 p.m., the SO advised the Provincial Communications Centre he was involved in a motor vehicle collision at Kimball Road and Petrolia Line. An ambulance was required.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between February 17, 2026, and March 20, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Global Positioning System data from the SO’s cruiser
• ACM data from the SO’s and the Complainant’s vehicles
• Vehicle examination field notes
• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Scene video, photographs and diagram
• Notes – the SO
• Video footage from camera in vicinity of the scene

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Bluewater Health on February 24, 2026.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of February 13, 2026, the SO was operating a marked cruiser eastbound on Petrolia Line. He was on patrol with a front seat passenger, CW #1, a crisis worker with the Mobile Crisis Response Team. The SO’s cruiser entered the intersection of the roadway with Kimball Road and was struck by a southbound vehicle. The collision propelled the cruiser in a southeast direction where it came to rest in a field. Neither the officer nor CW #1 were seriously injured.

The southbound vehicle was a Toyota Rav 4 being operated by the Complainant. She had entered the intersection at speed without stopping at the stop sign for southbound traffic on Kimball Road. Following impact, the Rav 4 came to rest in the intersection. The Complainant sustained a fractured femur and a fracture dislocation of an ankle joint.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision with an OPP cruiser in St. Clair on February 13, 2026. 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 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 vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The SO had the right-of-way at the intersection, and had approached and entered it in compliance with the 70 km/h speed limit. There is no indication in the evidence of any want of care on the part of the officer. In contrast, the Complainant disregarded a stop sign and entered the intersection at speed. She alone bears legal responsibility for the collision, and her unfortunate injuries.

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

Date: May 22, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit