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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 28, 2026, at 8:55 p.m., the Kingston Police (KP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

A KP cruiser had been involved in a collision with another vehicle on June 27, 2026. The driver of the vehicle, initially thought not to have sustained a serious injury, had since contacted the KP to report that she had suffered a fractured sternum in the collision.

On June 29, 2026, at 7:45 a.m., the SIU contacted the KP and was provided the following information.

On June 27, 2026, at 9:39 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was travelling west on Brock Street, approaching Victoria Street, en route to a call involving a vehicle that had reportedly driven off the road and become submerged in water.[2] The SO’s cruiser was a fully marked Chevrolet Tahoe and its emergency equipment was activated. The SO entered the intersection on a red traffic signal and collided with a 2015 Subaru Forester driven by the Complainant. The resulting collision rendered both vehicles inoperable. The SO was transported to Kingston General Hospital (KGH), as was the Complainant and her passenger, Civilian Witness (CW) #1. It was believed that all were treated and released with no threshold injuries. However, on June 29, 2026, the Complainant reported that she was subsequently diagnosed with a fractured sternum.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/29 at 9:41 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/29 at 10:26 a.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”)

71-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 29, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

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 30, 2026, and September 2, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on September 28, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 3 and 6, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question began on Brock Street, Kingston, several hundred metres east of Victoria Street, continued west on Brock Street, and concluded in and around the intersection of Brock Street and Victoria Street, Kingston.

Physical Evidence

The intersection of Brock Street and Victoria Street was a signalized four-way urban intersection in Kingston. Brock Street consisted of two westbound lanes, a bicycle lane adjacent to the north curb, and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Victoria Street consisted of a single lane of travel in each direction [north - south]. The roadway surface was paved asphalt and in good condition, with clear lane markings, pedestrian crosswalks, and traffic signals controlling all approaches. At the time of the collision, the posted speed limit on Brock Street was 40 km/h.

Photograph of the intersection at Brock Street and Victoria Street in Kingston(Source: KP)

Expert Evidence

SIU Collision Reconstructionist’s Findings

The following is a summary of the reconstructionist’s findings:

• The SO’s police cruiser was equipped with technology which captured and recorded the location, rate of speed, and other fleet management data prior to and at the time of the collision.
• Just before the collision occurred, the SO drove westbound on Brock Street through three intersections between Alfred and Victoria Streets, a distance of about 450 metres, in about 15 seconds.
• He accelerated from 81 km/h to 132 km/h. The posted speed limit was 40 km/h.
• At Brock and Victoria Streets, the traffic light was red for westbound and green for southbound traffic
• The SO did not stop for the red traffic light. He slowed and entered the intersection at about 77 km/h.
• The police cruiser struck the Subaru driven by the Complainant at 66 km/h.
• Because of the house on the northeast corner, both drivers would not likely have been able to see each other’s vehicle approaching until just before they each entered the intersection. This was consistent with the lack of pre-impact road evidence created by sufficient heat and friction from pre-impact collision avoidance braking and/or steering. This was also consistent with the Crash Data Retrieval data, indicating both the SO and the Complainant did not brake until about one-half-second prior to the impact, which would be about the moment each other’s vehicle would be visible.
• The physical evidence was consistent with the Complainant driving her Subaru properly and entering the intersection on a green light with the right of way. About one-half-second before the collision, the accelerator was zero and the brake was applied. The Subaru slowed from 30 km/h to 27 km/h at about the time of impact.
• The physical evidence was consistent with the SO having entered the intersection against a red traffic signal light.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

KP Communications Recordings – Radio

On June 27, 2026, at 9:36:12 a.m., the dispatcher radioed directing police officer attendance to 4200 Bath Road. A car had reportedly gone over a cliff and was upside down in the water.

The SO radioed dispatch that he was involved in a motor vehicle collision at Victoria Street and Brock Street, and needed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) immediately.

The SO radioed dispatch requesting two EMS units, advising that there were two elderly female occupants who were breathing. WO #1 radioed dispatch that he would assist the SO. The dispatcher radioed the SO that EMS had been notified. The SO radioed dispatch that the driver [the Complainant] was conscious and breathing but was complaining of chest pain.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the KP between June 30, 2026, and September 29, 2026:

• General Occurrence Reports
• Motor Vehicle Collision Reports
• Ontario Police College Basic Constable Training Grades – the SO
• Advance Log Data and Collision Reports
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• Notes – the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Mechanical Inspection – the SO’s cruiser
• KP policies– Patrol; Vehicle Collisions and Collision Reconstruction
• Global positioning system data – the SO’s cruiser

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 21, 2026, and September 16, 2026:

• City of Kingston – Brock Street and Victoria Street – Traffic Signal Light Timings
• City of Kingston – Traffic Signal Light Test Results
• The Complainant’s medical records from KGH
• Video footage from Kingston Transit

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of June 27, 2026, the Complainant was operating her vehicle – a Subaru Forester – southbound on Victoria Street with her friend, CW #1, in the front passenger seat. She approached and entered the Brock Street intersection on a green light and was struck by a westbound police cruiser.

The SO was operating the cruiser – a Chevrolet Tahoe. About a minute prior to the collision, a priority call had been dispatched involving a vehicle that had reportedly gone over a cliff and was submerged in water in the area of 4200 Bath Street. The officer was en route to the call, travelling westward on Brock Street, when he entered the intersection at speed without stopping for a red light and struck the Complainant’s Subaru. The emergency lights and sirens of the Tahoe were activated for some time prior to and while entering the intersection.

The Complainant suffered a fractured sternum in the collision and CW #1 was diagnosed with two hematomas in the abdomen. The SO was not seriously injured.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code – 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.

Sections 144(18) and 144(20), Highway Traffic Act – Red light exemption

144 (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

144 (20) Despite subsection (18), a driver of an emergency vehicle, after stopping the vehicle, may proceed without a green indication being shown if it is safe to do so.

The Complainant was seriously injured when her vehicle was struck by a KP cruiser on June 27, 2026. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO 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 injury.

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 SO was engaged in the exercise of his lawful duties responding to a call for first-responder assistance involving a vehicle reportedly submerged in water. The issue is whether the officer, in the discharge of that duty, failed to comport himself with the care required of the criminal law. Pursuant to sections 144(18) and (20) of the Highway Traffic Act, the SO ought to have come to a stop at the red light and only entered the intersection when it was safe to do so. Had he done so, it is very likely that the collision with the Complainant’s vehicle would not have occurred. Moreover, in reaching speeds upwards of 130 km/h westbound on Brock Street, more than three times the posted 40 km/h limit, and entering the intersection without stopping, the officer constituted a danger on the roadway that imperiled public safety. This, however, does not answer the criminal law question, that is, did the SO’s driving constitute a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances? The fact that the SO had his emergency lights and siren on as he approached the intersection and was responding to a potentially life or death situation are important considerations. Though the SO would have been better advised to moderate his speed and ensure compliance with the rules of the road, the officer’s conduct was motivated by what was itself a compelling public safety objective. It is also worth noting that traffic was light at the time in question, the environmental conditions were favourable, the officer did slow and look both ways before entering the intersection, and the driving behaviour in question was relatively short-lived in time and distance. On this record, weighing the pros and cons of the SO’s conduct, I am unable to reasonably conclude on balance that the officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

I note possible contraventions by the SO of sections 19 and 27 of the Police Code of Conduct in relation to his failure to stop at a red light. I will be referring this matter to the

police service for their review. Pursuant 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: October 26, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit