Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 23 -year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 5, 2026, at 12:43 p.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 5, 2026, at 11:09 a.m., an unknown caller reported an erratic driver [subsequently identified as the Complainant] in a red sedan in the area of Tupper Street (County Road 10), Township of Cavan-Monaghan. At 11:19 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) observed the reported vehicle travelling southbound on Tupper Street. As the vehicle approached the stop sign at King Street, the SO activated his marked cruiser’s emergency warning lights. The Complainant failed to stop and fled southbound on Distillery Street. The SO stopped his police vehicle and promptly notified dispatch of what had occurred. Distillery Street was a dead-end roadway and the Complainant was forced to turn around and continue northbound on Distillery Street. The Complainant approached the police vehicle and passed the officer in an unsafe manner. The SO followed the vehicle northbound on Tupper Street at a distance with emergency lights activated but ultimately lost sight of it. At 11:22 a.m., the PPS received a call about a motor vehicle collision on County Road 10, just south of Highway 115, Township of Cavan-Monaghan. The SO was the closest officer and responded to the area. The vehicle he had attempted to stop had collided with several vehicles and landed in a nearby ditch. Paramedic services attended and the Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), Toronto, where a preliminary diagnosis indicated a compound fracture of his left femur and left arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/05 at 1:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/05 at 5:22 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 8, 2026

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 5, 2026, and June 16, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 11, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on Tupper Street (County Road 10) in and around the area of its intersection with King Street and continued north on County Road 10 until the area in and around Highway 115, Cavan-Monaghan.

Physical Evidence

County Road 10 was a north-south directional road. South of Highway 115, the roadway of County Road 10 was a single lane in each direction divided by a double yellow line. There was a large gravel shoulder on each side of the road. The posted speed limit was 80 km/h. The scene around the area of the collision stretched across 150 metres of road with its southern boundary approximately 200 metres south of Syer Line.

The southernmost vehicle within the scene was a black pick-up truck operated by CW #1. The vehicle faced east in the northbound lane. The only part of the vehicle that was damaged was the trailer hitch, which was bent downwards. The vehicle had been towing an unoccupied flatbed trailer that was detached and flipped upside down. The hitch side of the trailer faced southbound. The trailer was located in the ditch and on the shoulder on the west side of County Road 10. The two left side tires of the trailer had been ripped off and the tires on the right side were bent. The vehicle was located approximately 200 metres south of Syer Line.

A white pick-up truck operated by CW #2 was located approximately 150 metres south of Syer Line. The vehicle faced southbound on the southbound shoulder of County Road 10. There was damage to the front left corner and entire front bumper. The airbags had deployed. There was a debris trail that began underneath the vehicle and continued northbound.

There was a red bumper and an engine located approximately 125 metres south of Syer Line. The engine was in the east ditch. The grass around the engine was scorched from a fire.

North of the white pick-up truck was a red sedan operated by the Complainant located upside down in the west ditch. The vehicle was approximately 50 metres south of Syer Line. The front bumper, engine and transmission were missing from the vehicle. The airbags had deployed. The front wheels were detached from the vehicle. The windshield of the vehicle was located in the centre of the roadway.

SIU forensic services attended the PPS headquarters and examined a fully marked police SUV operated by the SO. The vehicle had no damage.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On June 5, 2026, at 11:17:29 a.m., the SO travelled southbound on County Road 10.

At 11:18:04 a.m., the SO’s siren activated as he came upon a red sedan [being operated by the Complainant] travelling southbound. The Complainant activated his right turn signal and pulled his vehicle to the side of the road outside the Premiere Studio of Dance [44 King Street East,]. He moved forwards slowly to the stop sign at King Street East.

At 11:18:48 a.m., the Complainant suddenly accelerated through the intersection at King Street East, driving southbound onto Distillery Street [a dead-end residential area]. The SO broadcast that the vehicle had failed to stop. He followed the Complainant through the intersection with his siren still activated.

At 11:18:59 a.m., the SO stopped his vehicle on the side of the road just past the intersection of Distillery Street and Needlers Lane. He broadcast a radio transmission advising he would not pursue. The SO had disappeared from view around a bend in the road on Distillery Street with a cloud of dust from his tires still visible.

At 11:19:23 a.m., the SO deactivated his siren. The Complainant drove around the bend in the road towards the SO. The SO reversed his vehicle.

At 11:19:31 a.m., the Complainant passed by the driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser.

At 11:19:42 a.m., the SO drove forwards, turned around in a driveway and continued north on Distillery Street. The Complainant’s vehicle was not visible. A civilian on the east side of the road pointed northbound. The SO drove northbound through the intersection of King Street East. Two civilian vehicles pulled to the side of the road [as if in response to his emergency lights]. The SO drove northbound and passed a speed radar device, which indicated his speed was 40 km/h. A sign indicated it was a Community Safety Zone and another sign indicated the speed limit was 40 km/h.

At 11:21:14 a.m., the SO pulled over to the side of the road, came to a complete stop, and broadcast that the Complainant was last seen southbound [northbound] on County Road 10 at a “very high rate of speed”. He resumed his travel northbound. The Community Safety Zone ended, and the speed limit became 50 km/h and then 60 km/h.

At 11:22:19 a.m., the SO passed the Cavan-Monaghan Community Centre [986 County Road 10] and a sign, which indicated the speed limit had changed to 80 km/h. There was a radio broadcast from a dispatcher indicating there had been a call about a collision at County Road 10 and Highway 115.[3]

At 11:23:19 a.m., the SO arrived at a black pick-up truck [CW #1], which faced east across the northbound lane. Just past CW #1’s vehicle was an overturned flatbed trailer in the west ditch. Beyond the trailer was a damaged white truck [CW #2] on the west shoulder of the road. There was a large debris field across both lanes. Smoke rose from the east ditch across from CW #2’s truck. The SO requested fire services to attend for a vehicle fire. An unidentified civilian approached the SO and indicated there was a man [the Complainant] trapped in a vehicle. The SO ran towards the west ditch and disappeared from camera view.

At 11:28:38 a.m., another police vehicle [WO #1] arrived and stopped behind CW #2’s truck.

At 11:29:03 a.m., paramedic services arrived.

At 11:35:05 a.m., fire services arrived.

At 11:38:55 a.m., an off-screen conversation between the SO and WO #2 was captured. WO #2 said, “You’re going to be the subject right, so you can’t have involvement.” The SO said, “Oh, like I didn’t pursue him.” WO #2 said, “No, I know that, but it’s a…just because you activated your lights it happens, they take off and get hurt somewhere else, they still shut it down, lock it down.” The SO drove his vehicle out of the collision site.

PPS Communications Recordings

On June 5, 2026, at 11:08:54 a.m., a 911 call was received from a male, reporting a suspected impaired driver operating a red sedan with a particular make and model [the Complainant]. The vehicle travelled southbound towards Millbrook from Highway 115 on County Road 10. The Complainant drove on the wrong side of the road, travelled over several garbage cans and had thrown a beer can from his vehicle window.

A dispatcher broadcast the description of the vehicle, the licence plate, and the behavior of the driver over the radio.

At 11:14:04 a.m., there was a call from an unidentified 911 caller, who reported a suspected impaired driver. The caller said she had seen the driver [the Complainant] drink from what she believed was an open can of beer. The Complainant’s vehicle swerved all over the road. The vehicle had turned from County Road 10 onto Bank Street, Millbrook. She provided a description of the vehicle and the licence plate. The license plate was the same as the one provided by the earlier male 911 caller.

A dispatcher broadcast an update about the second 911 caller and the last known position of the red sedan.

At 11:19:01 a.m., the SO reported he had located the driver, who did not stop for him. He advised he did not pursue the vehicle. He broadcast that the vehicle had returned and now travelled towards him. He reported the vehicle was last seen southbound [northbound] on County Road 10 at a high rate of speed.

At 11:21:39 a.m., there was a third 911 call from a caller reporting a red sports vehicle [the Complainant] northbound on County Road 10, passing vehicles in both lanes of traffic. The caller estimated the Complainant drove at 120 km/h all over the roadway.

At 11:22:48 a.m., there were multiple 911 calls from people reporting a motor vehicle collision on County Road 10 near Highway 115. Reportedly, a red vehicle was involved and a person [the Complainant] was trapped beneath a vehicle.

Paramedic services and fire services were requested to attend.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PPS between June 9, 2026, and August 26, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• Arrest Reports
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Notes – the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• ICCS footage
• Police communications recordings
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser
• Scene photographs
• Aerial drone footage
• Supplementary Report – the Complainant’s vehicle
• Vehicle Manufacturer Report
• Suspect Apprehension Pursuit Policy
• Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) data – the Complainant’s vehicle and the white pick-up truck

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between June 11, 2026, and June 17, 2026:

• Incident Reports from Township of Cavan-Monaghan
• Photographs from CW #6
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree to an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of June 5, 2026, the SO was on the lookout for a particular make and model of red sedan following calls to police shortly after 11:00 a.m. of erratic driving. One of the callers suspected the driver was impaired. He reported that the red sedan, proceeding south on County Road 10, had travelled on the wrong side of the road and struck several garbage cans. Another 911 caller indicated that the driver was drinking a can of beer.

The driver was the Complainant. He was inebriated at the time and operating the red sedan without a licence.

The SO located the red sedan on County Road 10, closed the distance behind the vehicle and activated his cruiser’s siren. The Complainant pulled over just north of the stop sign at King Street and momentarily came to a stop before accelerating away southbound onto Distillery Street. The SO followed the red sedan past King Street a short distance before bringing his cruiser to a stop and radioing that he had chosen not to pursue.

Seconds later, the Complainant, having reached the dead-end on Distillery Street, turned the red sedan around to travel north at speed. He passed by the SO’s stopped cruiser and continued north on County Road 10. He reached speeds in excess of 100 km/h and passed other vehicles in the oncoming lanes of traffic. Approaching the roadway’s overpass at Highway 115, the Complainant drove onto the southbound lane and struck a flatbed trailer being towed by a pick-up truck. He continued north a short distance and collided head-on with another southbound pick-up truck.

The SO had resumed travel north on County Road 10 when he received news of the collision. He increased his speed and arrived at the crash site at 11:23 a.m., about a minute after he had received the radio transmission about the collision.

The Complainant was trapped under the wreckage of the red sedan. He was eventually extracted by fire services personnel and subsequently flown to hospital in Toronto. He had sustained multiple fractures in the collision.

Section 320.13(1), Criminal Code of Canada – Dangerous Operation

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.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision on June 5, 2026. As his vehicle had briefly been pursued by a PPS officer before the collision, 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. The evidence establishes there was not.

The SO was within his rights in pulling the Complainant over following calls to police about his reckless and dangerous driving. Moments later, with information to believe that the Complainant had engaged in dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code, the officer was justified in initiating a pursuit of the red sedan as it sped away from him at King Street. Quickly thereafter, the SO pulled over and terminated the pursuit. That was a prudent decision in the interests of public safety given what the officer knew of the Complainant’s previous driving and what he had personally observed trying to stop him. The officer resumed his patrol at ordinary speeds north on County Road 10 and was about two kilometres from the scene of the collision when it occurred. Receiving word of the crash via radio, the SO picked up his pace and arrived on scene about a minute later, where he did what he could to render assistance. In none of this can it be said that the SO comported himself other than reasonably.

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

Date: September 23, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit