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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 22, 2026, at 12:34 a.m., the East Region Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 21, 2026, at 10:54 p.m., the Subject Official (SO), operating a cruiser westbound on Highway 33, Napanee, had activated his emergency lights and attempted to stop a white Audi suspecting the driver was impaired. The driver failed to stop. The Audi subsequently left the roadway, entered and exited a ditch, travelled through a fence and became submerged in a water inlet connected to an Ontario Power Generation Plant (OPGP). The OPP Dive Team responded but was unable to deploy because of the murky water conditions and strong currents. A shoreline search was conducted for possible victims, and recovery operations were to commence in the daylight hours.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/22 at 1:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/22 at 6:25 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

62-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 24 and 29, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 30, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 20, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on Highway 33 in the area of 234 Main Street, Bath, and continued west on Highway 33 until the OPGP at 7263 Highway 33, Greater Napanee.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Highway 33, in the area of concern, was a level, two-lane roadway running east-west, with one lane in each direction. Lake Ontario was located south of the highway. The OPGP, located at 7263 Highway 33, was situated on the north side of the highway. A steel guardrail began immediately west of the OPGP driveway and extended westward with a grassed area beyond it. Approximately 57 metres west of the OPGP driveway was a drainage canal associated with the station’s cooling system. The canal was approximately 10.5 metres wide and contained about three metres of water. Metal fencing was located on the east and west sides of the canal, with the east fence situated approximately 54 metres west of the driveway. A grass knoll was located approximately 44 metres west of the driveway.

The image below depicts the scene with identified points of interest (north aligned to the top of the image).

Blue arrow: Highway 33

Orange arrow: OPGP driveway and location where Subaru left the roadway

Red arrow: Grass knoll and impact site of metal fence next to the OPGP drainage canal

Green arrow: Approximate location where the vehicle came to rest

The above images depict the tire marks left by the Subaru as it left the roadway, struck the grass knoll, travelled through the fence, and entered the OPGP drainage canal.

The Complainant’s vehicle left the roadway on the north side of Highway 33, upwards of 300 metres east of the OPGP driveway, where a westbound tire mark extended onto the gravel shoulder and produced a 5.7-metre scuff mark along the north-side guardrail. The tire mark curved back towards the asphalt in line with the roadway’s bend before another area of disturbed gravel was observed 7.3 metres east of the OPGP driveway. From the west edge of the driveway, tire impressions continued across the grass towards a knoll, where investigators observed disturbed soil, furrowing and a piece of Subaru-stamped plastic debris. No tire marks were visible between the knoll and the canal; however, the canal fence exhibited impact damage bent westward, and a licence plate was located in the water directly behind the damaged section. The vehicle was later located approximately 30 metres south and slightly east of the concrete pylons at the canal outlet into Lake Ontario, confirming that it had travelled over the knoll, breached the fence, and entered the water.

The Complainant’s vehicle, a black Subaru Forester, was recovered from the water. It had sustained extensive front-end damage.

SIU forensic services examined the SO’s cruiser. It showed no damage.

Forensic Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation

The SIU collision reconstructionist conducted a technical and visual assessment of the OPP cruiser driven by the SO and confirmed the vehicle showed no collision-related damage. It also contained no Crash Data Retrieval data relevant to the incident.

At the collision scene at the OPGP facility on Highway 33, the SIU collision reconstructionist reviewed physical evidence that established a clear, continuous westbound trajectory of the Complainant’s Subaru.

The Subaru Crash Data Retrieval findings and subsequent forensic examination supported a clear, uninterrupted sequence of events leading to the fatal collision. The Subaru showed extensive collision and water damage but was otherwise mechanically sound. The Complainant was belted during the collision, and road and weather conditions played no role in the loss of control.

The Complainant travelled westbound at a constant speed of around 90 km/h. As the roadway straightened after a gentle curve between the lake and the OPGP facility grounds, the Complainant lost control, veered right, and sideswiped the north guardrail roughly 300 metres east of the facility driveway. Maintaining speed, she crossed the right-turn lane and partially entered the gravel shoulder before continuing across the driveway a few metres north of the westbound lane. Still travelling near 90 km/h, she proceeded onto the grassy embankment, briefly applied the brake, and—at approximately 62 km/h—struck the ground with sufficient force for the undercarriage to dig in and launch the vehicle airborne. The Subaru clipped a 1.2-metre fence and plunged into the active water discharge canal, where fast-moving outflow carried it into Lake Ontario. The SO slowed and stopped east of the bridge over the channel. At no point did his cruiser contact the Subaru.

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

On April 21, 2026, at 10:50 p.m., after passing the Circle K at 234 Main Street, Bath, the SO travelled west at approximately 70 km/h. Through Bath, his speed ranged from 65 km/h to 76 km/h over about two kilometres. After leaving the community, he accelerated to speeds between 88 km/h and 100 km/h.

At 10:52 p.m., the SO travelled through the large westbound curve at 113 km/h. Ten seconds later, he activated his emergency lights while travelling at the same speed.

His speed generally ranged from 95 km/h to 110 km/h. In the area of the OPGP, his speed decreased from 96 km/h to 28 km/h. The GPS data indicated he stopped and his cruiser was stationary at the collision scene by 10:56 p.m.

The SO followed the Complainant’s vehicle for approximately five minutes over a distance of about eight kilometres. Emergency lights were activated for two minutes and 47 seconds over approximately 4.5 kilometres, during which the SO’s speeds ranged from 95 km/h to 110 km/h, with a maximum recorded speed of 113 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - OPGP[3]

The Complainant’s Subaru travelled westbound past the OPGP driveway, followed by the SO’s cruiser with its emergency lights activated. The SO’s cruiser appeared to be about six car-lengths behind the Complainant’s vehicle. The speeds did not appear excessive. The Complainant’s vehicle passed the OPGP driveway without slowing and veered onto the grassed area on the north side of the roadway. It travelled down a slightly inclined embankment to the right of the highway guardrail and continued in a straight trajectory out of view to the right of the camera. The SO’s cruiser slowed and remained on the highway until it also moved out of view to the right.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The OPP provided the SIU with ICC recordings from the cruisers of Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3 and WO #3, which documented the shoreline response. No ICC footage was available from the SO’s cruiser due to a pre-existing repair ticket that had taken the system offline. WO #3’s ICC recording provided the earliest visual record of the response.

WO #3 arrived on scene on April 21, 2026, at 11:04 p.m. He and another officer [believed to be the SO] used flashlights to examine the shoreline south of the roadway.

At 11:08 p.m., the officers confirmed that the vehicle was fully submerged.

The Fire Department arrived at 11:12 p.m.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, WO #1 and WO #3

On April 21, 2026, at 10:55 p.m., the SO arrived westbound at the OPGP with his emergency lights activated and moved directly towards a damaged section of fence on the north shoulder of Highway 33. He advised dispatch that a vehicle had entered the water beneath the Highway 33 bridge and was drifting south towards Lake Ontario, initially remaining afloat and visible. After crossing to the south side of the bridge, he maintained visual contact with the vehicle and continued providing updates. The SO called out towards the vehicle to communicate with any occupants.

At 10:58 p.m., the SO reported that the vehicle was being carried farther into Lake Ontario by a strong current. He retrieved a rescue rope and requested the Coast Guard. The SO reported that he did not have sufficient rope to safely enter the water and that the current was too strong.

At 11:00 p.m., the SO advised that the vehicle was barely visible above the surface.

At 11:04 p.m., WO #3 arrived and suggested checking the shoreline in case the occupant had escaped. The SO confirmed to WO #3 that he had activated his emergency lights after he first observed the vehicle leaving Bath, explaining that he initiated a traffic stop after observing the vehicle activate its turn signals unnecessarily while negotiating curves. Once the emergency lights were activated, the vehicle began swerving. Believing the driver intended to stop, he continued following until the collision occurred.

OPP Dive Team Footage

On April 22, 2026, OPP officers conducted the first dive at 2:17 a.m., during which the submerged Subaru Forester was located. The vehicle exhibited significant front-end damage and had deployed airbags, confirming substantial impact prior to entering the water. Later that same day, a second dive was conducted to attach a recovery rope.

On April 23, 2026, the final dive focused on recovering the Complainant’s body.

OPP Communications Recordings

On April 21, 2026, at 10:54 p.m., the SO reported that he was following a swerving vehicle, had attempted to initiate a traffic stop, and observed the vehicle leaving the roadway and entering the water before being carried into Lake Ontario. He requested Fire, EMS, Coast Guard, and additional police assistance. Officers were advised that no boat was available and that the OPP Underwater Search and Recovery Unit could not deploy overnight. WO #3 also broadcast that the SO had activated his emergency lights for approximately one kilometre before the collision, that the driver had exhibited signs of impairment, and that the vehicle had been travelling at highway speeds.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP between April 21, 2026, and April 23, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Collision Report
• ICC footage
• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #3
• OPP photographs and video recordings
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser
• Video footage – OPGP

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 24, 2026, and July 10, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination and Toxicology Reports from the Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of April 21, 2026, the Complainant was driving from Kingston travelling westbound on Highway 33. She was operating a Subaru Forester and was the lone person in the vehicle. She had been drinking and was intoxicated at the time.

The SO was on patrol in a marked cruiser. He was headed westbound on Highway 33 to a destination where he was to perform fishing enforcement when he came across the Complainant’s Subaru in the area of 234 Main Street, Bath. The vehicle drew his attention because it was swerving on the roadway. The officer decided to conduct a traffic stop. The Subaru did not stop. In the area of a cement plant at 6501 Bath Road, the Subaru swerved into the northside ditch before it corrected and re-entered the roadway.

Some 300 metres east of the driveway entrance / exit of the OPGP at 7263 Highway 33, Greater Napanee, the Complainant again swerved to the right, this time sideswiping a guardrail. Shortly after, as she approached the driveway, she entered the right-turn lane, continued straight across the driveway entrance without turning right and entered a grassy field west of the driveway. She lost control of the vehicle as it continued west, struck a metal fence and entered the plant’s water reservoir that discharged into Lake Ontario to the south.

The SO was several car-lengths behind the Subaru as it entered the field and the reservoir. He brought his cruiser to a stop, exited and observed the vehicle, its front end submerged in the water. Its back end was pointing up out of the water. The Subaru began to float southward towards the lake. The officer radioed what had happened.

Additional officers arrived on scene. A rescue operation was precluded at the time because of the water conditions. An OPP dive team subsequently confirmed that the driver was deceased in the vehicle. The vehicle was recovered a short distance from shore on April 23, 2026.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to drowning.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(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.

(3) 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 the death of another person.

The Complainant passed away by drowning after a single motor vehicle collision on April 21, 2026. As her vehicle was being pursued by an OPP officer 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 collision and the Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is dangerous driving causing death contrary to section 320.13(3) 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was justified in trying to stop the Complainant, initially for a potential traffic infraction but soon enough because of indications she was driving dangerously and could be impaired.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through his pursuit of the Complainant. His speeds, though high at points, did not compromise the travelling public or the Complainant. There was no traffic on the roadway, he had his emergency lights on, and he was comfortably behind the Subaru. Quickly after the Subaru entered the reservoir, the SO alerted his communications centre. He also considered a rescue attempt but was directed to stand down by a superior officer. That was a prudent decision - he was alone at the time, it was dark and the water conditions were not ideal.

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

Date: August 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit