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 15-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 28, 2026, at 10:45 a.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 28, 2026, at 2:40 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) and the Service Employee Witness (SEW) were in a fully marked HPS Ford Explorer in a parking lot at the intersection of Centennial Parkway and Delawana Drive, Hamilton, when the SO observed two vehicles at speed appearing to be racing north on Centennial Parkway. The SO pulled out onto Centennial Parkway and activated his emergency lights but not his siren. He took up a position behind a black 2014 Kia Rio. The other vehicle fled the area and was not identified. As the SO approached the intersection of Centennial Parkway and South Service Road, the Kia Rio slid into the rear of a truck. The driver of the Kia Rio, CW #1, was arrested 3:07 a.m. and charged with dangerous driving and stunt driving. A passenger in the Kia Rio was identified as the driver’s brother – the Complainant. Paramedic services attended and the Complainant was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a small avulsion fracture to his left hip.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/02 at 6:50 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/03 at 9:36 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 4, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed; declined

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined

CW #4 Not interviewed; declined

CW #5 Not interviewed; statement to police reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

CW #6 Not interviewed; statement to police reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

CW #7 Not interviewed; statement to police reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

CW #1 was interviewed on March 4, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on March 13, 2026.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on March 10, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on Centennial Parkway North, at its intersection with Delawana Drive, and continued north on Centennial Parkway North until its intersection with South Service Road, Hamilton.

Physical Evidence

The posted speed limit on Centennial Parkway North was 50 km/h.

At the intersection of Centennial Parkway North and South Service Road, there were pedestrian crosswalks on the west and south sides of the intersection. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights and pedestrian crosswalk lights.

A black 2015 Kia Rio was examined by SIU forensic services. The vehicle had four doors. The front bumper cover was absent from the front of the vehicle and located inside the passenger compartment along with other damaged body panel pieces. There was extensive front-end damage with a crumpled engine hood. The front left quarter panel was absent. The front right quarter panel, both front doors, and the rear right door were heavily creased. The front windshield had cracked. The interior airbags had deployed. The damage pattern indicated a collision at the front of the vehicle and along both sides as the damage travelled rearward.

A white 2012 Hyundai Genesis was also examined by SIU forensic services. The vehicle had two doors. It was heavily damaged on the rear left corner. The wheel and the majority of the left suspension mechanism had broken off. The panels around the rear left wheel were dented and torn. The damage pattern extended from the rear of the vehicle towards the front along the driver side.

A 2007 Freightliner transport truck was examined by SIU forensic services. The Freightliner had extensive damage to the right front bumper area and the right front suspension. The suspension mount had been sheared off and the shock absorber was pulled away from the vehicle. There was damage to the body panels on the right side of the vehicle and the right saddle fuel tank. The tank was ruptured. The damage pattern appeared to travel forwards along the right side of the vehicle.

Forensic Evidence

2014 Kia Rio – Data Download

The SIU was unable to download the Airbag Control Module (ACM) due to hardware compatibility issues. The SIU retained a business called Crash Data Specialists to complete the data download. The data provided the following information.

Five seconds before the collision, CW #1 travelled at 170 km/h. Four-and-a-half seconds before the collision, CW #1 applied the brake pedal, which remained depressed until the collision. When the collision occurred, the Kia Rio was travelling at 115 km/h.

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

Between 2:37:35 a.m. and 2:42:25 a.m., February 28, 2026, the SO’s vehicle was stationary on the southeast corner of Centennial Parkway and Delawana Drive.

At 2:43:23 a.m., the SO travelled northbound on Centennial Parkway between Delawana Drive and Violet Drive at 104 km/h.

At 2:43:35 a.m., the SO travelled northbound on Centennial Parkway and was at Barton Street East. His speed was 148 km/h.

At 2:43:47 a.m., the SO travelled northbound on Centennial Parkway and was at Arrowsmith Road. His speed was 61 km/h.

At 2:43:58 a.m., the SO travelled northbound on Centennial Parkway and was at Goderich Road. His speed was 120 km/h.

At 2:44:09 a.m., the SO’s vehicle was stationary at the collision site.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

On February 28, 2026, at 2:43:06 a.m., the SO’s police vehicle was stationary and faced a roadway [westbound towards Centennial Parkway]. Two vehicles [a Kia Rio operated by CW #1 and a Volkswagen Golf] travelled parallel to each other northbound past the SO’s vehicle at a high rate of speed. The Kia Rio was in the lane adjacent to the centre median and the Volkswagen Golf was in the curbside lane.

At 2:43:14 a.m., the SO drove forwards onto the roadway and turned northbound onto Centennial Parkway. Once he faced north, the other vehicles were no longer visible.

At 2:43:25 a.m., the SO travelled northbound at a high rate of speed. He activated his emergency warning lights and travelled in the curbside lane.

At 2:43:40 a.m., the SO slowed his vehicle at a red traffic light at Arrowsmith Road and Centennial Parkway. He passed a vehicle, which also slowed for the red traffic light in the lane adjacent to the centre median. The SO travelled through the red traffic light with emergency lights activated.

At 2:43:46 a.m., after he passed through the intersection, the SO deactivated his emergency lights. He moved from the curbside lane to the lane adjacent to the centre median as he passed under a railway overpass.

At 2:44:05 a.m., the SO arrived at the intersection of Centennial Parkway and South Service Road. He parked his vehicle in the curbside lane behind a white vehicle [a Hyundai Genesis]. There were multiple vehicles in the middle of the intersection that had been involved in a collision. The SO and the SEW walked towards the collision site. Multiple people had exited their vehicles in the intersection.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 28, 2026, at 2:43:07 a.m., the SO was captured in his stationary police vehicle [now known to be at Centennial Parkway and Delawana Drive]. Two vehicles travelled past his cruiser at a high rate of speed, after which the SO drove onto the road. The SO activated his emergency warning lights. Eleven seconds later, he activated his siren.

At 2:44:09 a.m., the SO exited his police vehicle [now known to be at Centennial Parkway and South Service Road]. There were multiple damaged vehicles on the road ahead of him. A large volume of fuel leaked from a transport truck. The officer approached an intersection. A group of people exited from a black vehicle [Kia Rio]. One of them sat on the curb and another leaned against the Kia Rio. The SO approached the occupants of the Kia Rio at the curbside and spoke with them. He asked where the Volkswagen Golf was that the Kia Rio had raced. The driver of the Kia Rio [CW #1] advised the Volkswagen Golf had driven away.

At 2:44:47 a.m., Officer #1 arrived.

At 2:45:52 a.m., the SO requested that paramedic services attend.

At 2:49:25 a.m., the SO spoke with a sergeant. He explained he was at a perimeter point when he saw two vehicles racing each other as they came down a hill. He said he tried to catch up with them.

At 2:52:17 a.m., Officer #2 arrived at the collision site. The SO gave his keys to Officer #2 to move his vehicle and said, “These two were going 200 down here and fuckin’ crashed out.”

At 2:55:04 a.m., Officer #1 said, “I was right at Barton and Centennial, and I’m like holy crap, and then I see a cruiser, and I was like, I don’t even know if he’s going to chase that it’s going so fast.”

At 2:55:52 a.m., the SO spoke with CW #1 again and asked if he knew the owner of the Volkswagen Golf. CW #1 said he did not know the two occupants in the Volkswagen Golf. He said they started speeding and raced the Volkswagen Golf. The SO cautioned CW #1. CW #1 said he first saw the Volkswagen Golf at Green Mountain Road. He said his speed was approximately 150 to 160 km/h.

At 2:59:16 a.m., the SO said to a group of assembled officers, “I can probably arrest them for dangerous op…he’s like openly admitting after a caution that he’s doing 160, he’s racing another car, the collision.”

At 2:59:51 a.m., Officer #2 conducted a BWC statement with CW #7. CW #7 was stopped northbound at the traffic light in the middle lane. He said the traffic light had just turned green when he was suddenly hit by a vehicle [Kia Rio].

At 3:03:46 a.m., the SO stood next to his police vehicle with CW #1 and said, “Can I be honest with you? Every single thing you’re telling me is the stupidest excuse I’ve ever heard. You, you guys were going since Green Mountain, you admit to me you’re going through Green Mountain…you’re coming from the top of a hill going down to the bottom of a hill. You’re openly admitting that you’re going 160 km/h, you’re racing another car. And then, you get to this point where you pass not one, not two, but three police officers now at Delawana and Centennial. And when we have to do 125, 130, to catch up to you, to go through a red light, lights on, to come and grab you. We come to the bottom of this hill, and we see a four-car collision, one involving a truck with gas and oil all over the floor.” The SO stressed how someone could have died. The SO asked CW #1 if he was wrong about anything he had just said. CW #1 said nothing. The SO arrested CW #1 for dangerous driving.

At 3:09:53 a.m., Officer #2 conducted a BWC statement of CW #5. CW #5 said he was northbound on Centennial Parkway when he was struck by a vehicle on the right side of his truck. There was another vehicle [Volkswagen Golf] that had taken off. CW #5 had a dashcam in his truck.

At 3:16:58 a.m., Officer #2 conducted a BWC statement of CW #6. CW #6 indicated he was stopped at a red traffic light in the right lane when suddenly he was struck from behind.

Video Footage from Esso Gas Station, 2471 Barton Street East

On February 28, 2026, at 2:43:58 a.m., a black vehicle [Kia Rio operated by CW #1] followed by a white vehicle [Volkswagen Golf] travelled northbound through the green traffic light at Centennial Parkway and Barton Street East. Both vehicles travelled at a higher rate of speed than other vehicles seen on the video. Two seconds later, CW #1 passed another white vehicle on its right side.

At 2:44:06 a.m., emergency warning lights [the SO] entered the camera frame from the left side. The SO travelled through the intersection northbound.

At 2:44:11 a.m., the SO passed the Esso gas station with emergency warning lights activated.

Dashcam Video from Freightliner

On February 28, 2026, at 2:43:27 a.m., CW #5 stopped at a red traffic light at an intersection [Centennial Parkway and South Service Road]. He was in the middle lane of three total lanes. He was stopped behind a black vehicle [now known to be a Honda Civic operated by CW #7]. Another vehicle [Hyundai Genesis operated by CW #6] arrived at the intersection in the right lane and stopped next to CW #5 and behind another civilian vehicle.

At 2:43:44 a.m., two seconds after the traffic light turned green, the Freightliner jolted suddenly, and the engine hood lifted upwards. A black vehicle [Kia Rio operated by CW #1] travelled between CW #5’s and CW #6’s vehicles and collided with CW #5’s truck. Debris erupted into the air between the vehicles. The Kia Rio continued forward between the vehicles and drove in between CW #7 and another civilian vehicle and collided with them both. CW #1, CW #7 and the other vehicle entered the intersection and came to a rest just beyond the stop line. A white vehicle [Volkswagen Golf] passed CW #5’s truck on the driver’s side at a high rate of speed, drove through the intersection, and disappeared from camera view.

Five people exited the Kia Rio. Two of the occupants [the Complainant and CW #2] limped away from the vehicle.

At 2:44:21 a.m., two police officers [the SO and the SEW] walked into camera frame from the passenger side of CW #5’s truck. The SO and the SEW approached the occupants of the Kia Rio.

HPS Communications Recordings[3]

On February 28, 2026, at 2:44:56 a.m., the SO requested to be marked off for two vehicles, which had raced and collided with each other. He confirmed his location as Centennial Parkway just before the QEW off-ramp. He advised a “tanker” had spilled a large amount of fuel on the road.

At 2:45:08 a.m., Officer #1 advised he had arrived at the scene.

At 2:47:41 a.m., the SO requested paramedic services be dispatched to the scene. He advised there were a few injured people and one of them had leg pain.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between March 4, 2026, and May 28, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Arrest Report
• Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy
• BWC footage
• Statement transcripts – CW #5, CW #6 and CW #7
• ICCS footage
• Police communications recordings
• Notes – the SO, Officer #2, Officer #1, Officer #3, Officer #4 and the SEW
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 4, 2026, and March 17, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Hamilton General Hospital
• Video footage from Esso Gas Station
• Dashcam from Freightliner
• ACM data from Crash Data Specialists

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

In the early morning of February 28, 2026, the SO sat stationary in his marked cruiser in a parking lot at the southeast corner of Centennial Parkway North and Delawana Drive. He and his passenger – the SEW – were manning a perimeter point at that location, their cruiser stopped facing Centennial Parkway North. At about 2:43 a.m., two vehicles travelled past their location at excessive speed – a white Volkswagen Golf and a black Kia Rio - as if they were racing each other. The SO pulled onto the roadway and accelerated after the vehicles, intending to stop them in connection with their speed.

CW #1 was driving the Kia. With him were four passengers, including his brother – the Complainant – in the backseat. The Kia and the Volkswagen continued north at speeds as high as 170 km/h. Approaching South Service Road – approximately a kilometre-and-a-half from Delawana Drive, CW #1 came upon traffic stopped at a red light. He applied his brakes but crashed into two of the vehicles – a transport truck to his left and a Hyundai Genesis to his right. The Complainant suffered a fractured hip in the collision.

The SO arrived on scene and arrested CW #1 for dangerous driving.

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 Hamilton on February 28, 2026. As the vehicle in which he was an occupant was being pursued by a HPS cruiser 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 Complainant’s 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.

CW #1 was operating the Kia at speeds well in excess of the 50 km/h speed limit on Centennial Parkway North, seemingly in a race with another vehicle. His conduct constituted a clear risk to public safety and contravened provisions of the Highway Traffic Act and possibly even the Criminal Code. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights when he initiated a pursuit to stop the vehicle or, at least, to identify the vehicle or its occupants.

In the short pursuit that unfolded, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The officer did reach very high speeds himself, topping out at about 150 km/h. He also failed to come to a stop at a red light at Arrowsmith Road before travelling through the intersection to continue the pursuit, in apparent violation of section 144(20) of the Highway Traffic Act. Some of the SO’s speed is understandable given how fast the Volkswagen and Kia were travelling and the need to close the distance. The dangers associated with the cruiser’s speeds were also mitigated by the nature of the pursuit route (commercial, not residential), the use by the SO of his emergency equipment, the minimal amount of traffic on the road, and environmental conditions that were clear and dry. As for the red light violation, the officer did slow down and ensured there was no cross traffic before making his way through the intersection. Lastly, the SO was always well back of the Kia and Volkswagen, and there is no suggestion that his driving prevented the driver of either vehicle from slowing down had they been so inclined. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Before closing the file, I note for the record evidence of potential misconduct by the SO when he travelled through a red light without stopping in possible violation of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct.

I will be referring this matter to the police service for their review. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: June 12, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit