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 25-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 1, 2025, at 1:06 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 1, 2025, at approximately 1:00 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating a marked OPP vehicle on County Road 45, in the area of Fenella, when his speed radar activated and he observed a vehicle approaching him. The vehicle registered 158 km/h in a posted 80 km/h zone. The SO activated his roof lights, turned his vehicle around, and started heading southbound. A short distance up the road, the SO came across a single motor vehicle collision involving the speeding car. Paramedics responded and transported the driver to hospital in Cobourg, where doctors determined he had sustained a fractured pelvis. The scene was being held for examination by the SIU.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/01 at 1:26 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/01 at 4:07 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”):

25-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 28, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 1, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed on July 7, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on County Road 45, in the area of Elder Road, and concluded on County Road 45, in and around its intersection with Duncan Road, Alnwick/Haldimand.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

County Road 45 is a paved two-lane roadway oriented in a north-south manner, travelling north from Cobourg. There are several small hamlets along County Road 45 and the speed limit fluctuates frequently from 80 km/h to 50 km/h.

Approximately 4.8 kilometres south of the collision scene, Elder Road intersects with County Road 45. Northbound from that intersection the area is rural, with infrequent residential properties lining the roadway.

Entering the hamlet of Fenella, the roadway bends slightly eastward. Tire marks along the east shoulder of the roadway indicated the Complainant’s vehicle drifted onto the east shoulder and then entered the east ditch. At the scene of the collision were two driveways providing access to a property on the east side of the roadway. The Complainant’s vehicle struck the embankment of the first driveway, then struck the embankment of the second driveway. His vehicle became airborne and markings on the east shoulder of the roadway indicated the tires of his vehicle dug into the gravel shoulder and his vehicle rolled. His vehicle came to rest when the driver side struck a concrete culvert, opposite the intersection of County Road 45 and Duncan Road.

The Complainant’s vehicle sustained extensive damage. The front passenger side wheel assembly and suspension were sheared off and the roof of the vehicle was significantly crushed. Various components of the vehicle were strewn over the roadway.

The SO’s police vehicle was parked diagonally across County Road 45, just north of the Complainant’s vehicle.

Figure 1 - OPP unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) image of the collision scene

Forensic Evidence

Telemetry from Complainant’s Vehicle

The OPP were intending to obtain vehicle telemetry information from the Complainant’s vehicle but had not sent the recovered electronic components to the manufacturer in Europe by the time this report was completed.

OPP Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

The OPP vehicles involved in this incident were equipped with GPS receivers, which provided time, location, heading and speed data for the vehicles. The OPP provided the GPS data for the vehicles driven by the SO, WO #2 and WO #1 from 12:00 a.m. to 12:15 a.m., July 1, 2025.

At 12:01 a.m., July 1, 2025, WO #2, WO #1 and the SO (in that order) turned from eastbound County Road 18 to southbound County Road 45. Between approximately 12:01 a.m. and 12:07 a.m., they travelled southbound in the same order, at unremarkable speeds.

At approximately 12:07 a.m., the SO was travelling southbound on County Road 45 at a constant speed just above 100 km/h. The SO’s in-car camera (ICC) footage captured the Complainant passing the SO, at which point the SO slowed to 74 km/h. The SO was at Elder Road at the time.

The SO executed a U-turn just south of Elder Road and began driving northbound on County Road 45. The SO activated his emergency lights, which caused his ICC system to start recording.

At 12:07:48 a.m., approximately 30 seconds after the Complainant’s speed was recorded on the SO’s radar, the SO had accelerated to 160 km/h.

Between approximately 12:08 a.m. and 12:09 a.m., the SO continued northbound on County Road 45 at speeds between 160 km/h and 180 km/h.

At 12:09:11 a.m., the SO approached the community of Fenella, and his speed was 185 km/h. At 12:09:14 a.m., the SO entered the slight curve in the roadway to the right.

At 12:09:18 a.m., approximately one minute and 46 seconds after he had turned around at Elder Road, the SO slowed to 140 km/h as he entered the collision scene (his ICC footage revealed there was a cloud of dust in the air). The SO slowed and, at 12:09:27 a.m., he was stationary at the collision scene on County Road 45 and Duncan Road.

The SO had driven approximately five kilometres northbound on County Road 45 from Elder Road. He reached a maximum recorded speed of approximately 195 km/h. The SIU collision reconstructionist determined his average speed was approximately 166 km/h.

WO #1 also turned around in the area of Elder Road, approximately five seconds after the SO did so. As WO #1 approached the collision scene, his speed was 127 km/h. At approximately 12:10:23 a.m., WO #1 was stationary at the collision scene. His maximum recorded speed northbound was 150 km/h.

WO #2 turned around approximately 600 metres south of where the SO turned. His maximum recorded speed northbound on County Road 45 was 150 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings & Event Details Report

On July 1, 2025, at 12:07 a.m., the SO reported he had a vehicle travelling northbound on County Road 45 at high speed. The licence plate he provided was reported by the dispatcher to be registered to a grey Hyundai.[3] At 12:09:10 a.m., the SO reported he was trying to catch up to the vehicle. He asked if there was a Peterborough or Hastings patrol vehicle available to assist.

At 12:09:53 a.m., the SO reported the vehicle he was trying to locate was “high miling” and had crashed.

ICC Footage – The SO

At 12:07:24 a.m., the SO was travelling southbound on County Road 45 in the area of Elder Road when two vehicles approached travelling northbound. As the first vehicle passed him, the SO pulled onto the shoulder of the roadway, performed a U-turn and activated his emergency lights. The SO started to travel northbound, accelerating aggressively.

At 12:09:04 a.m., as the SO entered the town of Fenella, the taillights of a vehicle could be seen in the distance. The SO entered a slight bend in the roadway and the taillights of the distant vehicle were no longer visible.

At 12:09:16 a.m., the SO entered an area with dust in the air and, at 12:09:18 a.m., he entered a debris field of car parts from the Complainant’s vehicle. The SO struck a wheel that was in the roadway. The Complainant’s vehicle then appeared in the east ditch.

The SO advised the dispatcher of his location. He reported the vehicle was a “high miler” that he was trying to catch up to and the vehicle had rolled. He reported there was a single male occupant in the vehicle, was alert and moving, but definitely in need of emergency medical services. The SO reported he had detected the vehicle travelling at 158 km/h northbound on County Road 45.

At 12:17 a.m., the dispatcher reported the OPP had received a telematics notification from Jaguar regarding a collision in the area, and the vehicle identification number was registered to the Complainant.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

The SO’s BWC recording started when he initially activated his emergency lights at Elder Road. The recording was consistent with his ICC footage. Once at the collision scene, the recording documented the Complainant seated in his severely damaged vehicle.

At 12:21 a.m., a paramedic on scene asked the SO if the Complainant had been drinking. The SO responded, “Unknown at this point.”

At 12:22 a.m., the SO spoke to a sergeant and explained the events to her. He reported the Complainant went past him and the SO was trying to determine whether (the measured speed on his radar) was the Complainant’s vehicle or the vehicle travelling behind him. He stated he recorded the Complainant’s speed at 158 km/h. The SO stated he activated his emergency lights, at which point he could no longer see the northbound vehicle in his mirror. He stated he could see the Complainant’s taillights at times, but was unsure whether the Complainant ever saw his emergency lights.

The sergeant asked about the driver’s sobriety, and the SO responded he was unsure. He stated although he would like to evaluate the Complainant, the first priority was the Complainant’s medical situation.

The sergeant suggested an officer follow the ambulance to the hospital. The SO responded he was unsure whether the SIU would be responding, so his vehicle needed to stay at the scene. The sergeant asked if the Complainant was under arrest for anything, and the SO responded the Complainant was under arrest for stunt driving and dangerous driving.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between July 1, 2025, and August 14, 2025:

• ICC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• List of involved officers
• Notes - WO #2 and WO #1
• Event Details Report
• General Report
• Supplementary Report - Officer #1 canvass of neighbourhood
• Audio recordings from Officer #1 during canvass
• Communications recordings
• GPS data for the police vehicles operated by the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Scene photographs
• UAV camera images
• E-mail from OPP SIU-Liaison Officer regarding status of analyses of the airbag control module from the Complainant’s vehicle

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained e-mails from the Complainant’s lawyer, on August 11, 2025, regarding injuries sustained by the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses, both police and non-police, 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 July 1, 2025, the Complainant was operating a Jaguar northbound on County Road 45 when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed. While negotiating a rightward bend in the road, the Jaguar drifted into the east ditch of the road and became airborne and rolled, coming to a rest in the east ditch around the Duncan Road intersection. The Jaguar sustained massive damage.

Shortly after the collision, three marked police cruisers, led by the SO in a Dodge Durango, arrived at the scene of the collision. They rendered emergency first-aid to the Complainant and controlled traffic pending the arrival of paramedics and firefighters.

The SO had been chasing the Complainant at the time of the collision. He had come across the Jaguar on County Road 45 in the area of Elder Road, where the officer’s radar clocked it going 158 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. The officer had executed a U-turn, activated his emergency lights, and accelerated northbound to catch up to and stop the Jaguar. The SO had travelled about five kilometres when he came upon the crash site.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed witha fractured pelvis, a traumatic brain injury, a punctured lung and severe lacerations to an arm.

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.

Section 128 (13)(b), Highway Traffic Act – Police Vehicles and Speeding

128(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,

(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officer’s duties.

Section 128(14)(d), Highway Traffic Act – Speeding Penalty

128 (14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,

(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;

(b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;

(c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and

(d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, to a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit.

Section 172(1), Highway Traffic Act – Offence

172 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, on a bet or wager or while performing a stunt.

Section 172(2), Highway Traffic Act – Penalty

172 (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition, the court shall make an order suspending the person’s driver’s licence,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not less than one year and not more than three years;

(b) on a second conviction under this section, for not less than three years and not more than 10 years; or

(c) on a third or subsequent conviction under this section, indefinitely.

Section 172(2), Highway Traffic Act – Stunt Definition to be set by Regulations

172 (23) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(c) defining the terms “race”, “contest” and “stunt” for the purposes of this section;

Sections 3 and 7, Ontario Regulation 455/07 - Races, Contests and Stunts – Definition of Stunt

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 40 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, if the speed limit is less than 80 kilometres per hour.

7.0.1 Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, if the speed limit is 80 kilometres per hour or more.

7.1 Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 150 kilometres per hour or more.

Section 4, Ontario Regulation 455/07 - Races, Contests and Stunts – Exceptions

4(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, “race”, “contest” and “stunt” do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Alnwick/Haldimand on July 1, 2025. As the Complainant was being pursued by OPP officers at the time of the crash, 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 injuries.

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.

Having registered the Jaguar at about twice the legal speed limit, the SO was within his rights in attempting to stop the vehicle for possible infractions of the Highway Traffic Act, including speeding contrary to section 128(14)(d) and stunt driving contrary to section 172(1).

I am also satisfied that the SO did not operate his police cruiser in contravention of the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. The speeds reached by the officer are subject to legitimate scrutiny. Travelling at more than twice the speed limit for much of his engagement with the Complainant, the SO’s vehicle constituted a danger on the roadway. Contributing to that danger was the low light conditions at the time, and the hilly and winding nature of the road. On the other hand, officers engaged in the execution of their duties are exempt from speed limits by virtue of section 128(13)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act and section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 455/07. Though the provisions do not provide carte blanche for officers to speed as they wish without regard to public safety, it is a mitigating factor in the liability analysis – a recognition that an officer speeding is not the same thing as a civilian speeding given an officer’s law enforcement duties and specialized training in motor vehicle operations. The fact that the officer had his emergency lights on and was travelling in a rural area with little traffic on the roadway are also extenuating considerations. Lastly, it bears noting that no one was directly imperilled by the SO’s driving, including the Complainant, who does not appear to have even been aware of the officer accelerating after him. On this record, whether or not the SO’s speed fell below a reasonable standard of care, it did not amount to a marked departure from that standard.

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

Date: October 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit