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 35-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 23-year-old woman (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 3, 2025, at 8:04 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 3, 2025, at approximately 6:21 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) of the OPP Ottawa Traffic Division was operating a marked police vehicle eastbound on Highway 417 in Ottawa when a black Ford Taurus passed him at high speed. The SO activated his emergency lights and attempted to catch up to the Taurus. The Taurus exited the highway at Innes Road and travelled to Star Top Road. The driver turned right onto Star Top Road, travelled for approximately a half-kilometre and crashed into a pole in front of 1519 Star Top Road. Paramedics responded, and the driver and passenger of the Taurus were transported to the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/03 at 8:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/04 at 12:16 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 35-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 23-year-old female; interviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between July 4, 2025, and July 30, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 4, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 23, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on the eastbound lanes of Highway 417 a distance north and west of Innes Road exit, continued west on Innes Road and then north on Star Top Road, and concluded on Star Top Road in and around 1519 Star Top Road, Ottawa.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

In the area of the incident, Highway 417 was oriented in a northbound-southbound manner. There was an exit onto Innes Road and, to the west running north of Innes Road, was Star Top Road.

Google Map aerial view depicting the area of the incident

Star Top Road was a secondary road with industrial establishments on both sides of the roadway. Travelling northbound from Innes Road, the following industrial establishments were located on the east side of Star Top Road:

• Kia 417 – 1599 Star Top Road
• Maurice Yelle Limited – 1571 Star Top Road
• New Design Kitchens & Woodwork – 1541 Star Top Road
• Gratien Proulx Building Materials Ltd. – 1499 Star Top Road
• City Locksmith Ottawa – 1495 Star Top Road

On the west side of the roadway, at 1500 Star Top Road, was Boone Plumbing Supply.

Three vehicles of interest were located within the scene of the collision.

Complainant #1’s black Ford Taurus was located in the east ditch of the roadway, in contact with a utility pole. There was extensive crush damage along the front of the vehicle. The roof of the vehicle also had significant crush damage. The airbags inside the vehicle had deployed.

A large white Isuzu delivery truck, with commercial markings, was located on its right side in the southbound lane of Star Top Road, at the driveway to Boone Plumbing Supply. It was oriented in a southwesterly direction and had extensive collision damage to the left rear portion.

An OPP fleet vehicle, the black Dodge Charger operated by the SO, was located south of the other two vehicles. The OPP vehicle had subdued markings and no roof lights. There was no damage to that vehicle.

There were multiple gouges, scrapes and scuff marks starting in the southbound lane of Star Top Road, just south of #1500, leading in a northeast direction towards the rest position of the Ford Taurus.

Forensic Evidence

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

The GPS data for the vehicle operated by the SO revealed he was travelling eastbound on Highway 417 at approximately 56 mph (90 km/h). The posted speed limit for Highway 417 was 100 km/h.

As the officer exited the highway onto Innes Road and continued onto Star Top Road, his speed did not exceed 47 mph (76 km/h) prior to pulling over and stopping.

Event Data Recorder (EDR) Data – Ford Taurus Operated by Complainant #1

The EDR data, downloaded by the Ottawa Police Service (OPS), revealed that two seconds prior to his collision with a commercial truck, Complainant #1’s vehicle was travelling at a speed of 141 km/h, with the accelerator at 100 percent engagement. One-and-a-half seconds prior to the impact, he had activated the brake. At the point of impact, Complainant #1’s vehicle was travelling 104 km/h.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO

At 6:19:16 p.m., July 3, 2025, the SO was travelling eastbound on Highway 417 in the leftmost lane. At 6:19:20 p.m., a black Ford Taurus, operated by Complainant #1, sped past him in the rightmost lane. The SO pulled in behind Complainant #1 and, at 6:19:46 p.m., the soundtrack on the ICC footage activated, indicating the SO had turned on the emergency lighting of his vehicle. Both vehicles entered the exit ramp to Innes Road.

The SO used his siren system to issue brief alerts, to draw Complainant #1’s attention. Immediately, Complainant #1 accelerated onto the right shoulder and passed a transport truck. He then pulled in front of the transport truck and exited onto Innes Road. The SO passed the driver side of the transport truck and followed Complainant #1 onto Innes Road.

At 6:20:19 p.m., Complainant #1 turned onto Star Top Road, travelling northbound, and the SO turned onto Star Top Road two seconds later.

At 6:20:21 p.m., as Complainant #1 was passing the Kia 417 automotive dealership, he found himself behind other northbound traffic. There was a vehicle delivery truck parked on the northbound shoulder of Star Top Road. To move around the traffic in front of him Complainant #1 pulled into the southbound lane, travelling at high speed.

At 6:20:29 p.m., Complainant #1’s Taurus was approximately 150 metres ahead of the SO’s vehicle. Smoke or dust appeared from Complainant #1’s vehicle, likely a result of him braking heavily. As the SO passed the vehicle delivery truck in front of the Kia dealership, he pulled onto the northbound shoulder and slowed.

At 6:20:33 p.m., the Taurus struck the commercial delivery truck, which then rolled onto its passenger side. Complainant #1’s Taurus, emitting a great deal of smoke and steam, could be seen travelling off into the ditch, where it was later observed by the SIU. The SO came to a stop at 6:20:37 p.m. and placed his vehicle in park.

At 6:20:43 p.m., the SO reported over the police radio that a vehicle that had just taken off on him crashed into a truck. Another officer asked the SO for his location and the SO reported he had exited Highway 417 but did not know what road he was on. He provided his odometer reading and requested permission to go check on the passengers of the involved vehicles. He then reported he was on Star Top Road and requested the OPS attend.

The SO remained parked on the shoulder of the roadway. A man operating a black pick-up truck pulled up alongside the SO and the SO explained to the man, “I got to go through a procedure because he took off on me.” He continued, “Yah, they’re on their way. I have to go through a procedure, I can’t go.” The SO then advised the OPP dispatcher, “And the vehicle is now on fire.” He remained parked on the shoulder of the roadway.

At 6:22:35 p.m., a communications centre sergeant asked the SO if he was stationary or at the vehicle crash site. The SO responded he was approximately 500 metres from the crash. The communications sergeant advised the SO he was authorized to go investigate the situation, but he was to keep the sergeant updated.

At 6:23:00 p.m., the SO approached the collision scene, stopping at the scene at 6:23:27 p.m. There were numerous bystanders at Complainant #1’s vehicle and Complainant #2 was sitting at the top of the ditch on the passenger side of Complainant #1’s vehicle.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) - The SO

The OPP inspector reported the SO was working an extended shift that day and his BWC battery had been exhausted. As a result, there were no BWC recordings related to this incident on the SO’s BWC.

OPP Radio Communications

The radio communications from the SO were reflected in the summary of his ICC recording. The communications recordings were consistent with that summary. Subsequent radio communications related to officers, including the WO, responding to the scene.

BWC - The WO

At 6:33 p.m., July 3, 2025, the WO exited his vehicle at the scene of the collision. He walked up to the SO’s vehicle and the SO exited the vehicle. The SO said he was alright. The WO asked whether the matter was a traffic stop or a motor vehicle collision. The SO responded it was an attempted traffic stop. The WO escorted the SO back to the WO’s vehicle and had him sit in the vehicle. The WO asked another police officer to stay with the SO and the WO then walked back to the scene.

The WO spoke to another police officer and commented the SO seemed shaken.

Video Footage from Businesses on Star Top Road

The Kia 417 video footage revealed that Complainant #1 had pulled into the oncoming traffic lane to pass two small sport-utility vehicles that were passing by Kia 417. The SO was five seconds behind Complainant #1 at that point and his emergency lights were active. The SO then pulled onto the shoulder and came to a stop.

The video footage from Maurice Yelle Limited confirmed the SO remained parked on the shoulder for two minutes and 23 seconds before pulling away to attend the collision scene.

The video footage from New Design Kitchens & Woodwork included sound. One camera revealed Complainant #1’s vehicle was ten seconds behind the commercial truck but was travelling at a much higher speed. The sound from the Taurus indicated Complainant #1 was accelerating. There followed the sound of hard braking, and smoke appeared from the area of the Taurus as the vehicle exited the image. Five seconds later, the sound of a collision was heard.

A second camera documented the commercial truck north of the business. The brake lights of the truck activated but it was difficult to determine if the left turn signal was activated. As the CW started to turn the commercial truck to the left to enter the Boone Plumbing Supply yard, he made a brief correction, indicating he had become aware of Complainant #1’s vehicle approaching in the southbound lane at high speed. The Taurus struck the left rear corner of the delivery truck, causing the rear wheels of the truck to lift off the ground. The truck rotated and then flipped onto the right side. Complainant #1’s vehicle rolled off to the opposite side of the road.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between July 4, 2025, and July 10, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Canadian Police Information Centre record for Complainant #1
• Vehicle weights for Complainant #1’s vehicle and the truck operated by the CW
• Ministry of Transportation Extended Driver Record Search for Complainant #1
• Notes - the WO
• BWC footage - the WO
• GPS data for the vehicle operated by the SO
• General Report
• ICC footage - the SO’s vehicle

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between July 4, 2025, and July 28, 2025:

• EDR data from Complainant #1’s vehicle
• Mechanical inspection results for Complainant #1’s vehicle and the truck operated by the CW
• 911 calls reporting the collision

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 4, 2025, and August 20, 2025:

• Complainant #1’s medical records from the Ottawa Civic Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of July 3, 2025, the SO was on-duty travelling eastbound on Highway 417 when a Ford Taurus passed him in excess of the speed limit. Intending to stop the Taurus for a traffic infraction, the officer pulled in behind the vehicle and activated his emergency lights.

Complainant #1 – a prohibited driver – was operating the Taurus. With him in the front passenger seat was Complainant #2. Complainant #1 did not stop with the police cruiser behind him. He continued at speed onto the Innes Road off-ramp and turned right to travel west on Innes Road a short distance to Star Top Road, where he turned right and accelerated northward. Running into northbound traffic, Complainant #1 entered the southbound lane to overtake some vehicles. He attempted to do so again with a northbound delivery truck turning left into the driveway of a business, some 400 metres north of Innes Road, but was unsuccessful. The Taurus struck the rear driver side corner of the truck, causing it to rotate and tip onto its passenger side. The Taurus veered eastward and struck a pole in the east ditch of Star Top Road, coming to a rest with significant crush damage.

The SO had pursued the Taurus onto Star Top Road and was travelling northward when he decided to disengage at about the same time as the Taurus was crashing into the delivery truck. He pulled over and came to a stop by the east side of the road. After a number of minutes, having been authorized to travel to the crash site, the SO did so.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were transported to hospital. Complainant #1 had sustained facial fractures, traumatic brain injury, contusions of the brain, a right ankle fracture, an intraventricular hemorrhage, and carotid artery dissections. Complainant #2 had fractured a toe and cheekbone.

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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Ottawa on July 3, 2025. As an OPP officer had briefly pursued their vehicle before 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.

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 within his rights in attempting to stop Complainant #1 for speeding on Highway 417.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through his brief engagement with Complainant #1 and the Taurus he was driving. In what might have been contrary to police policy, the officer continued to pursue the Taurus despite the fact he was operating a cruiser with subdued markings and Complainant #1 had only committed a Highway Traffic Act offence. That said, the evidence indicates that the SO operated his vehicle at reasonable speeds at all times, turned on his emergency lights to give warning to the travelling public of his presence and the pursuit, and quickly disengaged on Star Top Road when it became clear that Complainant #1 was endangering third-party traffic with reckless driving. Moreover, there is no evidence that the SO directly imperilled motorists around him, including Complainant #1. In fact, the officer was well back of the Taurus when it tried and failed to overtake a delivery truck, and crashed. Weighing these considerations in the balance, I am unable to reasonable conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: October 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit