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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 6, 2026, at 11:41 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 6, 2026, at 12:08 a.m., LPS officers attended a McDonald’s restaurant on Fanshawe Park Road East, London, on information that a woman [now known to be the Complainant] appeared intoxicated and was reporting having been sexually assaulted. The Complainant relayed some details of an attempted sexual assault from earlier in the evening. Police officers contacted a relative to gauge a willingness to house her for the night, but the request was denied. The relative asked that the Complainant be dropped off at her own residence and she would check on her in the morning. The Complainant indicated she wanted to go home and would report the sexual assault in the morning. The Complainant was driven home by police officers. At 10:18 a.m., the Complainant was checked by her relative and found deceased on her bedroom floor, surrounded by drug paraphernalia.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/06 at 12:12 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/06 at 3:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

32-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 6 and 9, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on March 23, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a McDonald’s located on Fanshawe Road East, London, and an apartment in the area of Fanshawe Park Road West and Wonderland Road North, London.

Physical Evidence

The apartment was located in a residential apartment building. The apartment building had controlled entry. The door to the apartment where the Complainant lived was undamaged.

The Complainant was discovered lifeless on the floor of a bedroom within the apartment, lying on her left side. A plate on the floor next to her right leg contained an unknown residue. A side table contained burnt pieces of aluminum foil, two lighters, a glass bong, a butcher-style knife, an injection pouch, scissors, and an empty plastic bottle with a tube inserted into it.

Forensic Evidence

Postmortem Examination

The postmortem examination was completed on March 8, 2026, at the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSCBod). Toxicological examination of blood showed three central nervous system depressants, which the forensic pathologist opined in combination could account for the death. The cause of death was: “MULTIPLE DRUG TOXICITY (FLUOROFENTANYL, FENTANYL, ETHANOL).”

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Shell Canada

On March 5, 2026, starting at 11:42 p.m. CW #1 stood at the front exterior customer service window. The Complainant, alone, approached CW #1 and the two appeared to engage in conversation. The Complainant was unsteady on her feet and staggered slightly when she walked. The Complainant pulled on the locked entry doors, and the attendant partially opened the door and words were exchanged. The Complainant attempted to pull the door open; however, the attendant resisted and closed the doors. CW #1 and the Complainant walked into the parking lot out of camera view.

Video Footage from McDonald’s Restaurant

Starting at 11:51 p.m., March 5, 2026, the Complainant and CW #1 entered a McDonald’s. The Complainant was unsteady and held a wall to maintain balance. She took a seat while CW #1 obtained a drink. CW #1 spoke on his cell phone [now known to be calling LPS] and provided food to the Complainant. She stood and was unsteady, staggered, and struggled to maintain her balance before returning to her seat. A police officer [now known to be SO #2] arrived.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage –The WO and SO #2

On March 6, 2026, starting at 12:07 a.m., SO #2 entered McDonald’s and met with the Complainant. She was seated at a table, crying, and spoke incoherently before alleging being sexually assaulted, slapped in the face and robbed of five hundred dollars. Unknown individuals had stolen her purse and apartment keys, and she offered them twenty dollars for crack. The Complainant declined an ambulance. She was animated while describing the events and spoke with slurred speech and raised voice. The Complainant cried while continuing to speak of having her purse stolen the day before by “crackheads”. She was slapped in the face and told she owed money by the end of the week. SO #2 tried to confirm details of the sexual assault allegation, but the Complainant struggled to remain on topic and would speak of other life experiences.

Starting at 12:14 a.m., the Complainant indicated the events she was describing happened a year prior and she had already reported them to the police. The Complainant said she wanted Emergency Medical Services (EMS) because she did not have a phone, and not because she was in medical distress. SO #2 replied that EMS did not respond for phone-related issues. He told the WO he was going to complete a records check and cancel EMS as he walked away. The Complainant told the WO she was getting evicted tomorrow. She lived alone after asking a male roommate to leave. He was nice and tried to help her, and she no longer knew where he was. The WO asked the Complainant if they could drive her somewhere, and she responded they could take her home and provided her address. The Complainant said she was feeling okay and volunteered that she did not do drugs.

Starting at 12:21 a.m., SO #1 engaged with the Complainant, who provided him and the WO details about her sexual assault allegation. She was addicted to crack and the associated lifestyle. The Complainant adverted to having consumed alcohol earlier. SO #1 asked the Complainant how they could help her, and she replied that she wanted to go home. She again spoke of being robbed earlier in the day and that CW #2 was going to report it tomorrow. She was speaking clearer than before, with more focus and less emotion. The Complainant expressed a desire to go home, and despite not having a door key, she explained she could get in because her door was unlocked. She had a mediation at 8:30 a.m., respecting her eviction. She was planning on waking at 7:00 a.m. and meeting with CW #2. The Complainant retraced the evening’s events prior to her arrival at McDonald’s. The Complainant indicated that she had been sexually assaulted earlier that evening and again provided details of the alleged assault.

Starting at 12:31 a.m., SO #1 asked the Complainant if a police officer could drive her home, which she welcomed. SO #1 made the decision that that was what would happen. SO #2 directed her to gather her belongings, and indicated he would drive her home.

Starting at 12:32 a.m., SO #2 and the Complainant walked out of the restaurant together and she entered the back of his police vehicle. SO #2 drove her to her residence, arriving at 12:40 a.m. She thanked the police officer, wished him a good night, got out unassisted and walked towards the front entrance.

Video Footage from Apartment Building

Starting at 12:40 a.m., March 6, 2026, SO #2 stopped his police vehicle by the front entrance. The Complainant got out and walked towards the entrance. She was unsteady and staggering. The Complainant entered the vestibule. She was carrying a fast-food drink and swinging her right arm while french fries were falling to the ground. She entered the lobby. She passed through the lobby towards the elevators, continuing to drop food. As she walked towards the elevators, she was no longer carrying the drink. Liquid was visible on the floor and a drink container located on its side in the hallway. She was staggering and stumbling as she waited for the elevator to open. She hit the button for floors four and five.

Starting at 12:45 a.m., she entered the elevator on the fourth floor and pushed the buttons for the third and fifth floors.

Starting at 1:20 a.m., the Complainant exited the elevator at the ground floor. She had changed her clothing from when she was dropped off by SO #2.

Starting at 1:20 a.m., she exited the vestibule and walked towards the driveway. She approached a vehicle that was stopped in the driveway and appeared to have a conversation with the driver. She walked south towards the roadway and turned west. Her staggered walk was less pronounced.

Starting at 1:34 a.m., the Complainant returned to the parking lot from a pedestrian walkway on the north side of the building and walked to the front entrance.

Starting at 1:35 a.m., she walked to the elevator and pushed the buttons. She entered the elevator, and it moved upwards.

Starting at 1:53 a.m., the Complainant exited the elevator and, with a pronounced stagger, walked to the lobby, passing through to the vestibule. She exited the building and sat on a retaining wall out front.

Starting at 2:00 a.m., she returned through the vestibule and walked to the elevator. She had a significant stagger.

Starting at 2:01 a.m. she entered the elevator and hit the third floor button.

LPS Communications Recordings

On March 5, 2026, starting at 11:55 p.m., the LPS Communications Centre received a telephone call from CW #1 requesting a welfare check of a woman [now known to be the Complainant]. The Complainant was at McDonald’s and reporting that she was the victim of an attempted sexual assault. SO #2 and the WO were dispatched.

Starting at 12:16 a.m., March 6, 2026, SO #2 cancelled EMS.

Starting at 12:18 a.m., SO #1 arrived.

Starting at 12:36 a.m., SO #2 advised that the Complainant would be transported to her residence.

Starting at 12:40 a.m., SO #2 dropped the Complainant off at her residence.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the LPS between March 6, 2026, and April 17, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• Call Information Summary
• Police communications recordings
• General Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage
• Witness statements from SO #2 and the WO
• Notes - the WO
• LPS policies: Arrest; Investigative Detention; Elder Abuse and Vulnerable Adult Abuse

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between March 7, 2026, and May 26, 2026:

• Video footage from Shell Canada
• Video footage from McDonald’s
• Video footage from an apartment building
• Report of Postmortem Examination from LHSC
• Toxicology Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes. SO #2 did provide a written statement.

In the late evening of March 5, 2026, police were dispatched to a McDonald’s on Fanshawe Park Road East, London, following a call about a woman in distress. A concerned citizen – CW #1 – had contacted police after a disheveled and distraught Complainant had approached him about being sexually assaulted earlier by unidentified males.

SO #1, SO #2 and the WO arrived on scene shortly after midnight, March 6, 2026, and spoke to the Complainant. The Complainant was upset, confused and slurred her speech. She had trouble conveying her complaint in a coherent manner, and was unsteady on her feet. Believing the Complainant to be intoxicated, they contacted a relative – CW #2 - and asked if she (the Complainant) could spend the night at her place. Concerned with the impact on the Complainant’s children, in her care at the time, CW #2 declined. The Complainant refused medical attention at the scene but accepted the officers’ offer to escort her home. SO #2 drove the Complainant home, arriving at her apartment building in the area of Fanshawe Park Road West and Wonderland Road North at about 12:40 a.m.

The Complainant entered her building and then her apartment. She left and returned on a couple of occasions, and was last scene on the apartment building’s cameras at about 2:00 a.m.

At about 10:00 a.m., CW #2 and a sheriff arrived at the Complainant’s apartment. The sheriff was present because of an eviction the Complainant was facing, and CW #2 was there having agreed to join the Complainant that morning to deal with the eviction matter together. The Complainant was discovered deceased in her bedroom.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple drug toxicity (fluorofentanyl, fentanyl, ethanol).

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

Section 31, Liquor Licence and Control Act - Intoxication

31 (1) No person shall be in an intoxicated condition in,

(a) a place to which the general public is invited or permitted access; or

(b) any part of a residence that is used in common by persons occupying

more than one dwelling in the residence.

(2) A police officer or conservation officer may arrest without warrant any person who is contravening subsection (1) if, in the opinion of the officer, it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person.

On March 6, 2026, the LPS notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant in her London apartment. As police had been called to check on the wellbeing of the Complainant the evening prior, the SIU initiated an investigation. Two LPS officers were identified as subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s passing.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of either subject official, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

This is not a case where the circumstances cried out for the Complainant’s apprehension under either section 17 of the Mental Health Act or section 31 of the Liquor Licence and Control Act 2019. While there might have been a basis in these provisions to take the Complainant into custody based on intoxication or mental health distress and a concern for her wellbeing, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the subject officials’ decision to drive her home was reckless. The Complainant was scattered, emotionally distraught and seemingly intoxicated. However, she was able to communicate her plans for the following day as far as her eviction was concerned, had accepted and consumed food and, though unsteady on her feet, had managed to get by on her own power. She indicated she wanted to go home and was happy to accept a ride by police. At no time did she express any thoughts of self-harm. On this record, I am satisfied that the subject officials had a reasonable basis for acting as they did, and their conduct cannot fairly be characterized as a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care expected of police in these circumstances.

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

Date: June 24, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit