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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 22, 2024, at 12:45 p.m., the West Region Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 18, 2024, the OPP responded to an Intimate Partner Violence call in Leamington and arrested the Complainant for assault with a weapon. The Complainant was transported in a police cruiser to the Leamington OPP Detachment for processing. When the cruiser entered the sallyport, the Complainant was observed to lunge forward in the back seat of the cruiser and strike her head against the prisoner screen within the vehicle. During her booking, the Complainant complained of pain to her head and Emergency Medical Services were called. She was examined by paramedics but declined transport to the hospital. After she was fingerprinted and photographed, the Officer in Charge released the Complainant on a Form 10 (Promise to Appear). OPP officers drove the Complainant back to her residence where she was assisted in removing personal property. Upon leaving the residence, she requested to be taken to the hospital and the officers complied. On October 22, 2024, the Complainant returned to the Leamington OPP Detachment and complained of having suffered a concussion during her arrest on October 18, 2024. She did not provide any medical records to support the claim.

The SIU contacted the Complainant and left a voicemail asking that she forward medical records to substantiate her reported diagnosis.

On October 25, 2024, the Complainant contacted the SIU and advised that she would sign a medical release to allow the SIU to access her medical records documenting her injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/25 at 10:14 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/25 at 11:14 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 30, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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 November 16, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The in-car camera (ICC) footage (with speeds depicted) from the SO’s cruiser was provided to the SIU by the OPP on March 7, 2025.

Delay was also incurred in the investigation because of workload pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside an OPP cruiser as it travelled from an address in the area of Seacliff Drive East and Erie Street South to the OPP Leamington Detachment, 7 Clark Street West, Leamington.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

ICC Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

On October 18, 2024, at 9:51:04 p.m., the video began with a view of the empty back seat of the SO’s cruiser, with seat belts clearly visible.

Starting at about 9:51:40 p.m., the Complainant was placed into the rear of the cruiser with her hands handcuffed behind her back. She had no visible injuries and was seated behind the driver’s seat. The cruiser, operated by the SO, began to transport the Complainant to the detachment at about 9:54 p.m.

Starting at about 9:56:07 p.m., the cruiser was travelling at 62 km/h when it started to brake, causing the Complainant to lurch forward and strike her head on the plexiglass partition between the prisoner compartment and front seat area. The SO could be heard to ask, “Are you okay?” The Complainant did not respond. The officer asked again, “You okay back there?” and again the Complainant did not respond. The cruiser remained stationary for a period prior to moving again. The top speed reached during the transport of the Complainant was 74 km/h.

At 10:00:03 p.m., the cruiser arrived in the sally port, and the video concluded.

OPP Booking Photograph of the Complainant

On November 7, 2024, upon request, the SIU was provided the booking photograph of the Complainant taken by the OPP on October 18, 2024. The image did not depict visible cuts or redness, though there did appear to be possible minor swelling around the right eye.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 7, 2024, and March 7, 2025:

• Occurrence Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• Custody footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Booking photo of the Complainant
• OPP policies - Prisoner Transport / OPP Vehicles

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between November 1, 2024, and November 6, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Erie Shores Healthcare
• The Complainant’s medical records from Windsor Regional Hospital

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

In the evening of October 18, 2024, OPP officers, including the SO, attended at an address in the area of Seacliff Drive East and Erie Street South, Leamington. Police had received a call about a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and her husband. The officers spoke to the parties and proceeded to arrest the Complainant. She was handcuffed without incident and placed in the rear of the SO’s cruiser.

En route to the OPP detachment in Leamington a short distance away, the SO braked hard to come to a stop for an amber traffic control signal. The abrupt stop sent the Complainant lurching forward, her face striking the partition between the front and rear compartments of the cruiser. The Complainant did not have her seat belt on.

The Complainant complained about what had occurred at the detachment. Paramedics attended but the Complainant declined to go with them to the hospital.

The Complainant was released later that evening. She attended Erie Shores Healthcare and, subsequently, Windsor Regional Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a concussion.

Section 320.13 (2), Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm

(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 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured inside an OPP police cruiser on October 18, 2024. 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 Complainant’s injury.

The offences that arise for consideration are dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to sections 320.13(2) and 221, respectively, of the Criminal Code. As offences of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. The former 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. The latter is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

There are no questions raised on the evidence regarding the lawfulness of the Complainant’s arrest. Having attended at the scene of a domestic disturbance and spoken to the Complainant and her husband, I am satisfied the officers were within their rights in taking the Complainant into custody for assault.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his dealings with the Complainant. Having arrested and handcuffed the Complainant, the officer was obliged to ensure that she received reasonable care while in his custody. One would have thought that securing the Complainant’s seat belt was captured by that duty of care. The cruiser was equipped with seat belts in the rear, the Complainant was unable to do so herself, and it would have been a simple matter for the officer to have taken the precaution. Indeed, save for some exceptions not applicable in the circumstances of this case, OPP policy appears to require that officers ensure their detainees are seat-belted prior to transportation in their cruisers.[3] Had the SO done so, the Complainant might not have struck her face against the partition when he suddenly braked. On the other side of the ledger, officers interviewed by the SIU indicated they were unaware of any such policy and that it was routine practice to not secure a detainee’s seat belt in a cruiser. While common practice does not necessarily set the standard of reasonable care in the face of a prescribed expectation in a regulated sphere of activity, it is a factor in the liability analysis. The SO’s sudden deceleration is also subject to scrutiny. Motorists are expected to operate their vehicles carefully at all times, which includes being prepared to safely react to changes in traffic control signal lights. There are occasions, however, where motorists, despite their best efforts, find themselves in a grey zone in which the proper course of action is not immediately apparent. The evidence suggests this might have been one of those occasions. In utterances to officers after the event, the SO explained that he was suddenly caught between and betwixt on facing a yellow light whether to proceed through the intersection or come to a stop; he chose the latter, bringing his cruiser to a rapid stop. When these extenuating considerations are coupled with the fact that the SO otherwise appeared to operate his cruiser in a safe manner during the short trip to the detachment, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s indiscretions amounted to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, still less a marked and substantial one.

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

Date: August 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit