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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 3, 2026, at 3:38 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 2, 2026, at 11:08 a.m., the local fire chief in Exeter was approached by a citizen and advised that two unconscious men were in a vehicle at Main Street South and Wellington Street East, Exeter. Upon arrival, a male passenger [Civilian #1] stood outside the vehicle and the driver [now known to be the Complainant] fled the area in what is now known to have been a stolen vehicle. Civilian #1 was left behind. Police officers attended and it was revealed that the Complainant and Civilian #1 had been involved in a string of auto thefts and pursuits in the Stratford area several days prior. Civilian #1 was arrested without incident. The Complainant was reported to have approached a citizen at an unknown location brandishing a firearm, demanding the citizen’s vehicle. The Complainant fled the area in the stolen vehicle and approached another citizen at an unknown location. The Complainant stole the second citizen’s white pick-up truck, which he fled the area in. Due to overwhelming media attention, at 12:00 p.m., information was received from a citizen that the Complainant was observed driving the white pick-up truck in the area of the Hullett Marsh at 40650 Conservation Road, Clinton. Police officers flooded the area and set up containment; however, the Complainant evaded the police officers and breached the perimeter. Police officers from both South Bruce Detachment (SBD) and Huron County Detachment (HCD) of the OPP continued to search the area throughout the day in an effort to locate the Complainant. Direction was provided to all police officers to refrain from pursuing the vehicle due to the knowledge of the previous pursuits in the Stratford area days prior, in addition to information that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm. At 6:23 p.m., a call was received which indicated a possible sighting of the Complainant in the area of a particular intersection in the municipality of South Bruce. Numerous police officers attended the area from both detachments, and approximately ten police vehicles were said to have set up position once again in order to attempt to arrest the Complainant. It was reported that the Complainant was observed to drive through a farmer’s field. At 9:14 p.m., police officers observed the stolen white pick-up truck approximately 200 metres west of the intersection within the field. The white pick-up truck attempted to cross south over the roadway, but as the truck crossed over the roadway it landed in a ditch on the south side of the road and became lodged. The Complainant exited the white pick-up truck and fled on foot until he became stranded in spring-thaw water run-off in the field. At 9:51 p.m., the Complainant surrendered to police officers and was arrested. The Complainant had a laceration to his lip and, as a result, he was transported by police to the Wingham and District Hospital (WDH) at 270 Carling Terrace, Wingham. The Complainant was assessed by medical staff and diagnosed with having sustained an L2 vertebra fracture, three fractured ribs and hemorrhaging in the lungs. The Complainant was admitted to hospital and, at 3:51 a.m., he was transferred to the London Health Sciences Centre - Victoria Hospital (LHSC-VH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/03 at 7:36 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/03 at 11:56 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 4, 2026

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 2, 2026, and April 8, 2026.

Subject Officials

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 Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 17, 2026, and April 28, 2026.

The Scene

On April 3, 2026, at 11:56 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene of a collision at Road #1 and Road #2, South Bruce. Road #1 travelled directly south from and ended at Road #2. The road was closed with emergency closure signage located at Road #3 to the east and Road #1 to the west. The scene of the incident was located approximately 250 metres east of Road #1. Road #2 was a paved two-lane-width road with no pavement markings and soft gravel shoulders. The road was orientated east/west. The road was elevated from the fields, and there were swales on either side of the road to manage water run-off. There were no streetlights. The road character was flat and straight at the area of the incident. The field to the north was a plowed farmer’s field and appeared to have the remnants of corn stalks from harvest. The field was soft earth and saturated with water. There was what could be described as a river to the east of the incident site in the field. The field to the south was also a farmer’s crop field. It was significantly wetter and of lower elevation to the field on the north. The entire field was covered in two centimetres of water and fine grassy rows of crop. Further into the field was what could be described as a lake, presumably accumulated from spring run-off. The grade from both fields to the road was steep. A single set of tire tracks were visible in the field to the north. These tracks were straight for as far as visible, and they were perpendicular to Road #2. The tire tracks were approximately 250 metres east of Road #1. The tracks ended abruptly at the swale on the north side of Road #2 in deep ruts and plowed dirt and mud. The surface of Road #2 was covered in a thick layer of mud and dirt approximately the width of a vehicle. On the south side of Road #2 were short tire tracks that ended immediately in the swale. There were only minor pieces of vehicle debris at the scene. All involved vehicles had been removed from the scene.

Physical Evidence

The involved vehicle was a 4-door, white pick-up truck. The pick-up was secured at a local towing yard. The vehicle was covered in mud. The front bumper and grill were severely damaged. The truck was equipped with a plow bracket that was also severely damaged. No airbags were deployed in the vehicle, and the seat belt was not locked.

Forensic Evidence

CDR Data Download of White Pick-up Truck

Five seconds prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 110 km/h at full acceleration with the brake off. Four seconds prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 99 km/h at 88% acceleration with the brake off. Three seconds prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 91 km/h at 89% acceleration with the brake off. Two seconds prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 86 km/h at 72% acceleration with the brake off. One second prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 87 km/h at 0% acceleration with the brake on. At 0.1 seconds prior to the collision, the pick-up truck travelled at 0 km/h at 0% acceleration with the brake on.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage[3]- SO #2

On April 2, 2026, at 9:03 p.m., SO #2 drove his police vehicle down a single lane dirt path through a heavily wooded area. It was dark and the only light provided was from the headlights of his police vehicle. He arrived at a cabin and was accompanied by canine officer, WO #2.

At 9:09 p.m., WO #3 entered the camera view and walked towards SO #2 and WO #2.

At 9:11 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that he could hear the suspect’s vehicle but they could not see it.

At 9:13 p.m., SO #2 returned to his police vehicle and drove out of a heavily wooded area and through a grass field as he followed WO #2’s police vehicle. SO #2 broadcast that he was about to come up to Road #2.

At 9:29 p.m., WO #2 advised dispatch that he had observed the white pick-up truck in the field just north of Road #2. SO #2 continued to drive, and he activated his emergency lights. An unidentified police officer broadcast that the Complainant was driving north towards Road #2 and that he was going to come out at a particular address on Road #2.

At 9:30 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised that the Complainant was trying to find his way out, and that he was in the corner of the field. A further radio transmission from an unidentified police officer indicated that the pick-up truck was now eastbound on Road #2.

At 9:30:51 p.m., Officer #1 advised that he had spoken to the Critical Incident Commander (CIC), who advised that units were not to pursue the vehicle.

At 9:35 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised that the vehicle was westbound on Road #4 and had entered the laneway to the cabin they had previously attended.

At 9:37 p.m., SO #2 stopped his police vehicle and advised dispatch that he was stationary at Road #1 and Road #2.

At 9:41 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised that the vehicle was back in the field and was heading towards Road #2. SO #2 told WO #1 that the vehicle was going to come out just down the road. SO #2 drove down Road #2 as he followed WO #1. WO #1 advised broadcast that he had located the white pick-up truck directly in front of him stuck in the ditch. WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was out on foot in the field.

At 9:42 p.m., SO #2 continued to drive behind WO #1. The white pick-up entered into camera view stuck in a ditch. WO #1 drove to the farmhouse to prevent the Complainant access to the house. SO #2 stopped his police and observed from the road. SO #2 broadcast that he had his spotlight on the Complainant, who was walking through a flooded field.

At 9:46 p.m., WO #2 and SO #1 came into camera view as they entered the field. SO #2 exited his police vehicle and entered camera view as he ran towards WO #2 and SO #1 to join them in the field. WO #1, SO #1 and SO #2 faded into the darkness as they walked further into the field.

At 9:51 p.m., WO #1 advised dispatch that the Complainant was in custody.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage[4]

On April 2, 2026, at 9:02 p.m., SO #1 operated his police vehicle with the emergency equipment activated. He received information about the whereabouts and activities of the Complainant. He said he was coming into the area and advised another police unit to shut off their lights. A police officer – WO #2 - broadcast that they could not see the vehicle, but they could hear it. SO #1 broadcast that he, and WO #7 and WO #4, would attend the residence at an address on Road #2 [now known to be the residence of the Complainant’s family]. Units discussed over the radio the deployment of spike belts.

At 9:20 p.m., an unidentified officer reported that the Complainant had gone westbound and, at 9:29 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that he could see the truck in the field, north of Road #2, east of Road #1. The truck was backing out.

At 9:30 p.m., Officer #1 from communications broadcast to all units that he had spoken to the CIC, who advised they were not to pursue the vehicle.

At 9:31 p.m., SO #1 broadcast he had set up a spike belt on a roadway at his location, in case the vehicle came that way. He indicated he was just north of Road #2.

At 9:41 p.m., WO #3 approached a cabin, which had a Chevrolet pick-up truck parked in front. He spoke to a male present at the cabin, whose family owned the cabin. WO #3 informed this male that the police would like him to leave the area due to the efforts to arrest the Complainant.

At 9:42 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was out on foot. WO #1 parked his police vehicle at a farm property to prevent the Complainant from being able to enter that area. The Complainant was out on foot in a nearby field. WO #1 asked for a canine unit in the event the Complainant was able to get out of the field. WO #1 directed the police units for containment, and he notified dispatch that the canine unit was 100 meters from the Complainant.

At 9:43 p.m., radio communications could be heard about the Complainant being in deep water in a field. WO #6 spoke to an unknown police officer on the telephone, who advised the Complainant was walking in a field after getting the truck stuck and that they had him in sight. He was advised that the Complainant was in a flooded field 100 meters from police officers, and the canine officer was on site.

At 9:51 p.m., an unidentified officer broadcast that the Complainant was in custody.

At 9:59 p.m., WO #3 arrived at a residence [now known to be the home of the Complainant’s family members].

At 9:59 p.m., on WO #4’s BWC, two police officers emerged from the field with the Complainant in custody.

At 10:09 p.m., an unidentified police officer advised WO #6 that the Complainant had a hole through his lip, and that he was shivering. WO #6 advised officers to take him to hospital.

Police Communications Recordings

On April 2, 2026, at 9:41 p.m., WO #2 advised that the stolen white pick-up truck [now known to be operated by the Complainant] was in a field heading towards Road #2.

At 9:41:52 p.m., WO #1 broadcast the that he was eastbound on Road #2, and the vehicle was right in front of him stuck in the ditch. The Complainant was out on foot in a field. WO #1 further advised that he was heading towards the family farmhouse to make sure the Complainant did not have access. SO #2 advised that he had his spotlight on the Complainant, who was walking through a very flooded field.

At 9:42 p.m., WO #2 advised that he was at the scene, and SO #1 advised dispatch that he was with WO #2.

At 9:46 p.m., SO #2 advised dispatch that he was also with WO #2.

At 9:51 p.m., an unidentified male OPP officer advised that the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between April 3, 2026, and July 2, 2026:

• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Reports
• Call signs of involved officers
• Civilian Witness List
• CPIC record – the Complainant
• Reconstructionist Report
• GPS data
• Master Document with Timeline
• Media release
• Collision Report
• Involved Occurrences – the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1, WO #6, WO #4, WO #5, WO #2, WO #3, WO #7, WO #9 and WO #8
• Officer identifications
• General Report
• Supplementary Occurrence Report
• Statements – CW #1, CW #2, CW #3, CW #4, CW #5, CW #6, CW #7, CW #8 and CW #9

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 20, 2026, and April 22, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from
• The Complainant’s medical records WDH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other police and non-police witnesses, video footage, forensic evidence from the pick-up truck and the scene, give rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes.

Over several days leading to April 2, 2026, the Complainant was believed by police to be involved in a series of vehicle thefts in the area of Stratford. On the morning of April 2, 2026, police received information that the Complainant had fled from a stolen vehicle and carjacked another vehicle. They subsequently learned that the Complainant had then stolen a white pick-up truck in the area of the town of Zurich.

Throughout the day police attempted to locate and apprehend the Complainant but these efforts were unsuccessful.

At 6:23 p.m., April 2, 2026, police received information that there had been a potential sighting of the Complainant in the area of his family’s residence. Acting on this information, numerous police units were dispatched to the area in order to apprehend him. At 9:09 p.m., three officers, WO #2, SO #2 and WO #3, drove into a wooded area behind the Complainant’s family residence because they understood the Complainant might have attended a sugar shack in the vicinity. This wooded area was accessed from Road #4, which was the first roadway to the north of the family residence, which itself was accessed from Road #2. Once in the area of the sugar shack officers could apparently hear the Complainant’s vehicle engine revving but could not see it.

At 9:29 p.m., officers observed the white pick-up truck being driven by the Complainant exiting a farmer’s field onto Road #2 before it drove eastbound and then north onto Road #3. The Complainant turned westbound on Road #4 and then drove south into the forested area, where the sugar shack was located, using the same road that officers had used earlier.

While the vehicle was on the roadway, there was a reminder sent out to officers involved in attempting to apprehend the Complainant that they should not pursue the vehicle.

The Complainant stopped his vehicle in the forested area but then began to drive again when he saw what he believed to be the lights of a police vehicle. He drove south through a field towards Road #2 at high speed. The headlights of the pick-up truck being driven by the Complainant were apparently not working well and he did not see or misjudged the steepness of the embankment leading from the roadway into the field he was driving through. The pick-up truck collided with the roadside embankment at high speed before it travelled upward onto and over the roadway ending up in the ditch on the south side of Road #2. There were only one set of vehicle tracks leading south through the field to the location where the pick-up truck impacted the embankment. There is information that suggests that the Complainant was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the crash.

At 9:41 p.m. WO #1 came across the pick-up truck, which was stuck in the ditch, and observed the Complainant on foot in the field some distance from the roadway. Various officers converged on that location. SO #1 and SO #2 entered the field to arrest the Complainant along with WO #2 and his police dog.

The Complainant, who was in a flooded portion of the field a significant distance from Road #2, at first moved in the direction of a residence before changing directions, possibly due to the lights of a police vehicle. Ultimately, the Complainant was convinced to give himself up. SO #1 and SO #2 effected the arrest and grounded the Complainant, handcuffed him and subsequently took him to a cruiser. He was noted to have a bloody lip at the time of his arrest.

The Complainant was taken to a local hospital by police where he was diagnosed with multiple fractured ribs as well as a fractured vertebra and a laceration to his face.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on April 2, 2026. As the vehicle involved in the collisionwas believed to be stolen, and police were actively seeking the driver for arrest in connection with several other stolen vehicle investigations, and the driver was attempting to evade apprehension at the time of the collision, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that SO #1 or SO #2 committed a criminal offence in connection with the collision.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The subject officers and their fellow officers were lawfully placed and acting in the execution of their duties through the series of events that culminated in the Complainant crashing his stolen pick-up truck into the roadside embankment and his subsequent arrest in the field where the vehicle came to rest. The Complainant was arrestable for a number of criminal offences and there was a reasonable concern he could be armed with a firearm.

The Complainant fled of his own volition at the appearance of the vehicle lights he believed to belong to a police vehicle and drove at speeds of up to 110 km/h through a farmer’s field in order to evade arrest before crashing into the roadside embankment. There is no evidence that there was any sort of police pursuit in this case.

When arresting the Complainant, SO #1 and SO #2 grounded him before applying handcuffs. This made sense in the context of information that he might have been armed with a handgun given that it enabled the officers to quickly gain control of the Complainant, limiting any threat he may have posed to them. There is no indication that any additional force or strikes were used beyond the force used to ground the Complainant. There is nothing in the circumstances of his arrest by SO #2 and SO #1 that would suggest that the Complainant’s injuries were caused by the officers grounding him. Rather, the evidence indicates that the injuries were incurred in the vehicle’s collision with the embankment.

As a result, there being no reason to believe that police had any role in causing the Complainant’s injuries, and their having used only the minimal force necessary to effect his

arrest, I am satisfied that there is no basis for proceeding with charges against either SO #1 or SO #2 in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 31, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit