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 20-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 32-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 19, 2026, at 6:36 a.m., the Kawartha Lakes Police Service (KLPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 19, 2026, at 3:23 a.m., KLPS officers responded to a 911 call from a residential address in the area of Kent Street West and Victoria Avenue North, Lindsay, for an “unknown trouble” incident. A male’s voice could be heard yelling in the background as Civilian Witness (CW) #3 requested police. The Subject Officer (SO) responded and, at about 3:26 a.m., observed a black BMW parked strangely on Regent Street, near Victoria Avenue North. The SO pulled his cruiser in behind the BMW and the driver of the BMW immediately drove off. A female [now known to be CW #3] jumped out from the rear seat of the BMW and rolled across the road. The SO slowed to check if she was okay and continued after the BMW to attempt a traffic stop. The driver of the BMW turned southbound onto Victoria Avenue North and the SO initiated a pursuit. He lost sight of the BMW but then observed dust and debris from a motor vehicle collision on Victoria Avenue South. The BMW had collided with a parked vehicle, become airborne, and struck the top of a parked vehicle in the driveway of a residence on Victoria Avenue South. The driver of the BMW was identified as Complainant #1, and the front passenger was identified as Complainant #2. Both were conscious and talking. The SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS), who arrived and removed both occupants from the vehicle. They were taken to Ross Memorial Hospital (RMH) where Complainant #1 was confirmed to have a number of internal injuries. Complainant #2 was subsequently taken to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) due to the nature of her injuries, which were unknown at the time of intake.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/19 at 9:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/19 at 10:48 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person #1 (aka “Complainant #1”): I

nterviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Affected Person #2 (aka “Complainant #2”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed on April 19, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 19, 2026, and April 20, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on April 24, 2026

The Scene

The events in question began in and around the intersection of William Street North and Regent Street, continued west on Regent Street and then south on Victoria Avenue North, and concluded in and around the exterior grounds of an address on Victoria Avenue South in Lindsay.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended the scene outside a residence on Victoria Avenue South. The roadway was a two-way asphalt roadway, which was clean and dry. Four vehicles were located on the front lawn and driveway of the residence. A fifth vehicle was located on its roof several metres south of the property, against the west curb.

The first vehicle, a black Kia Sorento, had been parked in the driveway of a residence facing east. It was found with its rear end against the north side of the front concrete steps, facing northwest. The vehicle had extensive damage to its front end, driver’s side and rear.

The second vehicle, a black 2011 BMW 328i, was located on top of the third vehicle in the driveway. It was facing north and had extensive damage to its front end, the passenger’s and driver’s sides, and the undercarriage. Some of the side damage resulted from the Fire Department’s use of the ‘Jaws of Life’ to extricate the occupants from the vehicle.

The third vehicle, a white Ford Escape, had been parked in the same driveway facing east. It had extensive damage to its roof, the entire driver’s side, and the rear. The rear of the BMW was resting on top of this vehicle.

The fourth vehicle, a white Dodge Grand Caravan, had been parked in the same driveway on the south side of the Ford Escape. It was facing east. The damage to this vehicle included the rear driver’s side quarter panel and window.

The fifth vehicle was a Nissan Versa. Based on the trail of fluid leading to the vehicle, it was believed that it had been parked on the roadway against the east curb, north of the driveway of the residence on Victoria Avenue South. It was found resting on its roof several metres south of the residence, against the west curb. The entire front end of the vehicle had been demolished.

A SIU reconstructionist later determined the 2011 BMW was too old to obtain vehicle crash data.

A route video was created, beginning at the corner of Colborne Street and William Street, facing west. The route proceeded northbound on William Street before turning left onto Regent Street and travelling westbound. At the intersection with Victoria Avenue North, the route turned left and continued southbound to the collision scene on Victoria Avenue South. The total distance travelled was 1.6 kilometres through a mix of residential and commercial areas. The route passed through two stop signs and three operating traffic lights. There were no posted speed limit signs along the route.

SIU forensic services examined and photographed the SO’s police vehicle. No damage was observed.

SIU forensic services met with the resident of a residence, who had cameras that recorded a portion of the incident.

Forensic Evidence

GPS Data Analysis – The SO’s Cruiser

Between about 3:24 a.m., and 3:26 a.m., April 19, 2026, the SO drove westbound from Lindsay Street North to William Street North at unremarkable rates of speed. About 30 metres east of the intersection of Colborne Street West and William Street North, he turned around from eastbound to westbound, then turned northbound onto William Street North.

Starting at about 3:26 a.m., the SO drove a distance of about 140 metres to Regent Street. He accelerated to 59 km/h. The SO turned westbound on Regent Street. As per Google Maps, the intersection was controlled by stop signs for east/west traffic on Regent Street, and both streets were residential. He travelled to Victoria Avenue North, a distance of about 300 metres, and accelerated from 37 km/h to 100 km/h.

The SO turned left from Regent Street onto southbound Victoria Avenue North. As per Google Maps, the intersection was controlled by a stop sign for east/west traffic on Regent Street. He turned left at rates of speed of 50 km/h and 27 km/h, consistent with not having stopped at the stop sign.

Between 3:26 a.m. and 3:27 a.m., the SO drove southbound on Victoria Avenue North. He drove through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection at Colborne Street West [which his BWC showed to be green]. He continued southbound accelerating from 33 km/h to 144 km/h.

Just north of the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Kent Street West, where Victoria Avenue North became Victoria Avenue South, the SO drove at a rate of speed of 133 km/h. South of the intersection, he drove at rates of speed of 117 km/h, and 109 km/h. This was consistent with the SO’s BWC, which showed he drove through the intersection against a red traffic signal light without stopping.

The SO drove southbound through the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Victoria Avenue South and Russell Street West at a rate of speed of 100 km/h. This was consistent with the BWC, which showed there was no power to the traffic signal lights due to the collision ahead of the police cruiser, making the intersection an uncontrolled intersection.

Between Russell Street West and Glenelg Street West, the SO’s rate of speed slowed to 108 km/h. At Victoria Avenue South and Glenelg Street West, his rate of speed was 112 km/h. The SO slowed and stopped near a residence located on Victoria Avenue South.

The SO had driven southbound on Victoria Avenue North from Regent Street to Glenelg Street West through what would appear by Google Maps to be three traffic signal light-controlled intersections (one green, one red, one with the power out). He drove a total distance of over one kilometre in about one minute, with a maximum recorded speed of 144 km/h at Peel Street, about halfway between Regent Street and Glenelg Street West.

CFS Toxicology Report [Complainant #1]

On April 19, 2026, blood was taken from Complainant #1 at the time of admission to RMH. KLPS initiated this request. The blood was analyzed with the following results:

1) The blood alcohol content (BAC) of Complainant #1 was reported as 162 mg/100 ml. The legal limit in Canada is 80 mg/100 ml

2) Benzoylecgonine, an inactive breakdown product of cocaine, was present

3) Tetrahydrocannabinol, a psychoactive compound found in cannabis products, was present

KLPS advised the SIU that Complainant #1 only had a G2 licence, and as such was prohibited from any alcohol or drugs in his system.

Expert Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation

During the early morning hours of April 19, 2026, Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 occupied a black BMW that was being pursued by the SO. At the time it crashed, Complainant #1 was driving and Complainant #2 was a front seat passenger. The BMW collided with multiple parked cars on Victoria Avenue South. A SIU reconstructionist did not attend the scene, but reviewed various SIU and KLPS documents, reports and photographs. OPP collision investigators were present and worked alongside SIU forensic services.

The SO’s police cruiser was not involved in the collision. The SO might have been positioned to witness the collision but did not avail himself for an interview or provide a copy of his duty notes, therefore, the SIU was not privy to what the SO might have seen.

The technical collision investigation found that on April 19, 2026, at 3:26 a.m., Complainant #1 was driving around Colborne Street and William Street North. Complainant #2 was a front seat passenger. CW #3 was a rear seat passenger. Multiple KLPS officers had responded to the area due to a phone call received by police from CW #3.

The SO initiated a pursuit of the BMW sometime around when he reported that he witnessed CW #3 “roll out” from inside the BMW as it fled the area where the police officers had been dispatched. About one minute after the pursuit began, the BMW was driving at a high rate of speed southbound on Victoria Avenue South at Glenelg Street West. The intersection was controlled by stop signs for east/west traffic on Glenelg Street West.

Multiple surveillance videos recorded the pursuit. As per the surveillance videos and confirmed by the GPS in his police cruiser, the SO followed behind the BMW by at least several seconds, at rates of speed reaching about 140 km/h. While operating the vehicle as it travelled south on Victoria Avenue South, Complainant #1 lost control of the BMW.

After Complainant #1 lost control, the BMW collided violently with a Nissan Versa which had been parked on the road facing north against the east curb, and a wooden utility pole. The collision with the pole knocked out the hydro in the immediate area. The force of the collision caused the Nissan to rollover onto its roof and slide more than 30 metres to the south. Over the next 20 metres or so, the BMW struck four cars that were each parked and unoccupied on the lawn and driveway in front of a residence on Victoria Avenue South.

The condition of the roads and the weather did not contribute to this collision. The movement of another vehicle, or even a pedestrian, did not contribute to this collision.

The dynamics of the collision were consistent with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 having sustained the reported injuries during the collision, and to have been wearing seat belts.

As per the SIU forensic services report, the SO’s cruiser was examined and photographed, finding no damage.

All the evidence available was consistent with the BMW being the only car involved

in the collision that was moving when the collision occurred. No other car was moving in or near the intersection. Complainant #1 lost control of the BMW due to excessive speed, likely more than double the speed limit, combined with some degree of intentional or unintentional steering input.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Tim Hortons - 191 Kent Street West[3]

On April 19, 2026, the BMW travelled on Victoria Avenue North as it crossed Kent Street West, through a red light without stopping, at what appeared to be a high rate of speed. Within seconds, the SO’s police vehicle was seen with its emergency lighting activated, driving through the intersection in the same direction. An explosion was subsequently visible at the far right of the frame on Victoria Avenue South.

Two seconds later, the SO’s cruiser could be seen travelling on Victoria Avenue South, with its emergency lighting activated, crossing Russell Street West. The traffic signal lights were out because of the BMW striking a power pole and knocking the power to the area out.

About a minute later, a group of police vehicles travelled passed the Tim Hortons on Victoria Avenue South with emergency lighting activated.

Video Footage - Children’s Aid Society - 42 Victoria Avenue North

At 3:27 a.m., April 19, 2026, the BMW passed the surveillance camera followed by the SO’s police vehicle, about five seconds later.

Video Footage - Home Hardware - 207 Kent Street West

The BMW travelled on Victoria Avenue in the area of Kent Street West at 3:27 a.m., April 19, 2026, followed seven seconds later by the SO.

Video Footage – Residence #1

At 3:27 a.m., April 19, 2026, the BMW traveled on Victoria Avenue South and was momentarily visible before it struck an object. A nearby streetlight turned off, and an explosion from a power transformer was seen in a large white flash of light. The BMW rolled forward with sparks visible underneath it. Between nine and eleven seconds after the collision, the SO’s police vehicle arrived with its emergency lighting activated. No siren was heard, but as the SO drove towards the collision, several loud pops were heard.[4]

Video Footage – Residence #2

At 3:26 a.m., April 19, 2026, a vehicle engine was audible, its sound becoming increasingly louder. Two sets of vehicle headlights were visible in the distance travelling towards the camera. Ten seconds later, the BMW passed the camera at the residence. Three seconds later, the SO passed the camera with its emergency lighting activated. No siren was heard.

KLPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

At 3:26 a.m., April 19, 2026, the SO was captured driving westbound on Regent Street with his emergency lights activated. The officer turned left from Regent Street onto southbound Victoria Avenue North, subsequently travelling through a green light at a controlled intersection at Colborne Street West.

At 3:27 a.m., the SO was travelling at 135 km. WO #1 asked the SO over the radio why he was pursuing, and the SO replied that a woman [CW #3] had been thrown out of the BMW. As he broadcast his response, the SO drove through a red light at the intersection of Victoria Avenue North and Kent Street West. The SO continued southbound on Victoria Avenue South through the intersection at Russell Street West. The traffic lights for southbound traffic at this intersection were out. The SO announced over the radio that the BMW had crashed on Victoria Avenue South. The SO stopped his vehicle on Victoria Avenue South and approached a flipped over vehicle [Nissan Versa]. The vehicle was on the west side of Victoria Avenue South. The SO requested that an ambulance attend the scene. He took a position of cover behind his open, driver’s side door, pointed his firearm at the Nissan Versa and directed the occupants not to move.

At 3:28 a.m., WO #2 arrived and, together with the SO, approached the Nissan Versa and determined there were no occupants inside. The SO subsequently walked over to the driveway of a residence located on Victoria Avenue South, where Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were located inside the BMW. The vehicle was positioned on top of a severely damaged Ford Escape. WO #1, WO #3 and WO #2 spoke to Complainant #1, who said that “the vehicle pulled around the corner like crazy” and he hit a curb and spun out.

At 3:35 a.m., WO #1 spoke to the SO and learned that the SO’s initial encounter with the BMW occurred on William Street North. As he approached the BMW from the rear, it left heading north on William Street North. At the intersection of Regent Street and Victoria Avenue North, a woman [CW #3] was ejected from the back seat and fell onto the street. The SO estimated the speed of the vehicle to be approximately 50 to 60 km/h. He said that only the emergency lighting of his police vehicle was activated. The BMW did not stop and the SO lost sight of it. The officer explained he had initiated a pursuit after CW #3 was ejected from the vehicle, and noted that he had slowed after CW #3 fell out of the vehicle. The BMW was a distance ahead of him and, due to the dust, the officer had not seen what it struck. According to the SO, when he arrived at the scene of the collision, he initially did not know if it was the BMW or the Nissan Versa that he had pursued.

WO #1 directed WO #4 to locate CW #3. WO #4 subsequently indicated that CW #3 had been located, and there were supposedly firearms in the vehicle.

At 3:59 a.m., the SO explained to WO #3 that as soon as he saw CW #3 out of the vehicle, he initiated a pursuit.

KLPS Communications Recordings - Telephone

On April 19, 2026, at 3:22 a.m., there was a four-minute and 50-second call to 911

from CW #3. Initially, with the line open, CW #3 was not communicating with the call-taker or responding to her questions; she was shouting at Complainant #1 and Complainant #2. CW #3 was heard saying, “Stop, stop, [first name of Complainant #1] stop. [First name of Complainant #1] you are going to drag me with your car, [first name of Complainant #1] stop, stop. I’m coming in the car.” CW #3 provided the call-taker with her address.

At one minute and 19 seconds into the 911 call, CW #3 shouted, "What is going on, please, please, please stop." In the background an engine was heard accelerating loudly and Complainant #1 was heard shouting, "Get out of my car, get out of my car." Ten seconds later, CW #3 was shouting, “He’s going to crash, he’s going to crash. [First name of Complainant #1] stop, stop.” At one minute and 32 seconds into the recording, CW #3 advised the call-taker that they had crashed. Complainant #1 was yelling in the background.

At two minutes and nine seconds into the recording, CW #3 stated that her head hurt.

At three minutes and 11 seconds into the recording, Complainant #1 yelled, “Get out of my car, get out of my car. I need you to get out of my car.”

At three minutes and 49 seconds into the recording, Complainant #1 shouted, “I need to get out of here, I need to get out of here.” Fourteen seconds later, CW #3 shouted, “[first name of Complainant #1], hang on, you are going to drag me, hang on,” and then, “[first name of Complainant #1] stop, stop.” Thirteen seconds later, Complainant #2 could be heard saying, “Let me out, let me out.” CW #3 then said, “[first name of Complainant #1] stop now, I’m not joking, stop now.”

KLPS Communications Recordings - Radio

At 3:23 a.m., April 19, 2026, dispatch advised KLPS units that a call had been received from CW #3 for unknown trouble at her residential address. There was a great deal of shouting and a man was screaming. The SO, WO #3 and WO #2 were dispatched.

At 3:25 a.m., there was an update that CW #3 had said something about a car accident, that her head hurt, and that she could see police vehicles nearby.

At 3:26 a.m., the SO broadcast that a vehicle had just taken off from CW #3’s address and thrown someone out of the vehicle. The SO indicated he was following.

At 3:27 a.m., WO #1 asked what the pursuit was for, and the SO responded, “They threw a female out of the vehicle.” Nine seconds later, the SO broadcast, “They just crashed, they just crashed.”

At 3:28 a.m., the SO reported the licence plate of the BMW and requested an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from KLPS between April 20, 2026, and July 3, 2026:

• Notes – WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #1
• KLPS policies - Suspect Apprehension Pursuit; Police Vehicle Operations Rules and Regulations
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #1
• Video footage – three businesses and a residence
• GPS data for the SO’s cruiser
• Centre of Forensic Sciences Toxicology Report – Complainant #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 22, 2026, and June 1, 2026:

• Complainant #2’s medical records from SMH
• Complainant #2 and Complainant #1’s medical records from RMH
• Video footage from a residence

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1, Complainant #2 and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of April 19, 2026, KLPS officers were dispatched to the area of CW #3’s residence regarding a disturbance of some type. CW #3 had called 911 and was heard to be arguing with the driver of a vehicle, pleading with him to let her out. The SO arrived on scene and located the vehicle - a BMW – on William Street North, south of Regent Street.

Complainant #1 was driving the BMW. With him in the front passenger seat was Complainant #2. Behind Complainant #2 in the backseat was CW #3. Aware of the police cruiser, Complainant #1 accelerated away north on William Street North, turning left at Regent Street and continuing west. As the BMW approached and turned left onto Victoria Avenue North, CW #3 exited the vehicle.

The SO pursued the BMW and witnessed CW #3’s exit from the vehicle. Asked by a supervising officer via radio why he was pursuing, the officer noted that a woman had been thrown from the car. He continued southward at speed, upwards of 140 km/h at one point, his emergency lights activated. On Victoria Avenue South, just south of Glenelg Street West, the SO came upon a dust cloud and debris field.

Complainant #1 had lost control of the BMW in the area of the intersection. A Nissan Versa, parked facing north along the east curb of Victoria Avenue South, south of Glenelg Street West, was struck head-on and propelled some 30 metres down the road. The BMW then veered onto the driveway of a residence on Victoria Avenue South, where it collided with three vehicles, landing and coming to rest on top of one of them.

The SO was on scene within seconds of the collision. Additional officers and first-responders arrived shortly.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were extricated from the BMW and transported to hospital. They were both diagnosed with serious injuries.

Section 320.13(2), Criminal Code of Canada – 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.

Section 2, Ontario Regulation 397/23 – Vehicle Pursuits

2. (1) A police officer or Niagara Parks constable shall not initiate or continue a vehicle pursuit unless,

(a) the officer or constable has reason to believe that,

(i) a criminal offence has been committed or is about to be committed, and

(ii) stopping the motor vehicle is necessary to apprehend an individual in connection with the offence or to prevent the commission of the offence; or

(b) the purpose of the pursuit is to identify the motor vehicle or an individual inside the motor vehicle.

(2) A police officer or Niagara Parks constable shall not initiate a vehicle pursuit unless the officer or constable has first determined that,

(a) the vehicle pursuit is permitted under subsection (1);

(b) there are no alternatives set out in the vehicle pursuit procedures that can readily be implemented in the circumstances; and

(c) the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit is outweighed by the risk to public safety that may result if,

(i) an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended, or

(ii) the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a police officer or Niagara Parks constable shall not initiate a vehicle pursuit for a non-criminal offence if the identity of an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is known.

(4) During a vehicle pursuit, a police officer or Niagara Parks constable shall continually reassess the determination of the risk to public safety made under subsection (2).

(5) A police officer or Niagara Parks constable shall discontinue a vehicle pursuit if,

(a) due to a change in circumstances, the vehicle pursuit ceases to be permitted under subsection (1);

(b) in the case of a vehicle pursuit for a non-criminal offence, the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is identified; or

(c) the officer or constable subsequently determines that the risk to public safety that may result from continuing the pursuit is no longer outweighed by the risk to public safety that would result if either of the circumstances described in subclause (2) (c) (i) or (ii) occurs.

(6) For greater certainty, a vehicle pursuit is discontinued for the purposes of this Regulation when police officers or Niagara Parks constables are no longer pursuing a fleeing motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on April 19, 2026. As the vehicle they were occupying at the time was being pursued by a KLPS officer, 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 vehicle, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the collision. In my view, there was not.

The police pursuit began in earnest when the SO observed CW #3 exiting a moving vehicle. At that point, he had reasonable grounds to believe that the driver of the BMW – Complainant #1 – was implicated in criminal activity. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in initiating a police pursuit under section 2 of O. Reg. 397/23, governing pursuits in the province.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through the duration of the pursuit. It is true that the officer reached very high speeds – at one point as high as 144 km/h – and disregarded a stop sign and a red light. He also failed to slow or stop at an intersection where the traffic control lights had gone out. This conduct was no doubt dangerous but fell short of constituting a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances. The risks attendant with the officer’s speeds and non-compliance with traffic controls were attenuated by the use of his emergency lights and the little to no traffic on the roads given the time of day. There is also no evidence that the SO was at any point not in control of the cruiser or of third-party traffic having been directly imperiled by the officer. Lastly, it is important to note that the SO had reason to believe that the driver of the BMW was engaged in potentially serious criminal conduct and that, therefore, there was a high public interest in stopping the vehicle. He had seen a passenger seemingly thrown out of the moving car and feared that he was dealing with a potential incident of forcible confinement. On this record, weighing the competing considerations in the balance, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his pursuit of the BMW.

I note possible violations on the part of the SO of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct with respect to his failure to stop at a red light during the pursuit in question. I will be referring this matter to the KLPS Chief of Police 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: August 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit