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 16-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 20, 2025, at 3:54 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 12:54 a.m., because of his intoxication, the Complainant was denied access by door staff to Door FiftyFive bar (Door FiftyFive), 55 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga. In response, the Complainant punched the security guard in the face and fled the area on foot. The incident was immediately reported to PRP. The Subject Official (SO) located the Complainant in the vicinity of the business attempting to conceal himself behind a concrete flower bed. The SO called out to him and the Complainant immediately ran onto Lakeshore Road East, where he was struck by a vehicle that failed to stop after the collision. The Complainant was arrested for assault and transported to St. Michael’s Hospital, where he was admitted into the intensive care unit. He was diagnosed with a broken leg and unspecified head injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/20 at 10:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/20 at 11:14 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 24, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 24, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Lakeshore Road East, in the area of 114 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga.

On July 20, 2025, at 6:22 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene.

Lakeshore Road East had fast food restaurants and small businesses on both sides of the road. Sidewalks on both sides of the road abutted the roadway. There were overhead streetlights on the north side of the street and additional smaller streetlights on the south side. The area was a posted 40 km/h zone. There was parking on both sides of the street.

About 30 metres east of Helene Street North was an area of evidence that had been protected from the rain by police. Tarps protecting the evidence were in the curb lane of westbound traffic, next to two parked vehicles. There were two grey and black running shoes on the ground not covered by the tarps. When the tarps were removed, it was determined that the rain had obliterated the evidence – likely, blood stains – they were covering.

Figure 1 - Scene image taken by an SIU forensic services

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

PRP Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 12:37 a.m.,[3] July 20, 2025, the CW called 911 and reported that a security guard

from Door FiftyFive had been assaulted by two men. A detailed description of the men was given. The two men were said to have entered the Roc’N Doc’s bar, after which one man [the Complainant] left and walked towards the Pizza Pizza.

At 12:40 a.m., the dispatcher asked for police units to respond to a priority one assault call and broadcast the information received in the 911 call.

At 12:48 a.m., the CW ended her 911 call as an officer – the SO – was said to be waving at her.

At 12:50 a.m., the CW told the SO the men were at the Pizza Pizza.

At 12:54 a.m., the SO requested Emergency Medical Services (EMS) because the Complainant had been struck by a vehicle and was bleeding from the head.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On July 20, 2025, starting at about 12:47 a.m., the SO was captured walking to the front of a Pizza Pizza store and looking inside. Four men were at the counter. The SO returned to his cruiser, parked on Helene Street. A woman [the CW] approached him and identified the Complainant by what he was wearing. Another man with the Complainant was also said to have assaulted the security guard at Door FiftyFive.

Starting at about 12:53 a.m., the SO walked towards the front exit of Pizza Pizza as the Complainant left the store. The SO called out, “Hey, bro.” The Complainant immediately started to run along the sidewalk away from the SO. Four seconds later, the Complainant ran between two parked cars onto Lakeshore Road East and was struck by a westbound SUV travelling in the curb lane. The SUV made contact with the Complainant at the right front area of the vehicle and continued to travel along Lakeshore Road East.

The SO immediately called for EMS as the Complainant was making a snoring sound and blood was seen on the roadway. The Complainant was placed in the recovery position. One of the Complainant’s running shoes lay on the roadway. Other police officers arrived, and they noted the Complainant was bleeding from his left leg. The SO applied a tourniquet to the leg.

The remainder of the BWC recordings dealt with the aftermath of the impact.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between July 20, 2025, and July 29, 2025:

• Body-worn camera (BWC) footage - the SO, the WO and another PRP officer
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Notes – the WO
• General Occurrence Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with a civilian eyewitness and video footage that captured the incident, 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 20, 2025, PRP received a call from the CW in relation to events at Door FiftyFive, a restaurant and bar located at 55 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga. The door person at Door FiftyFive had been punched in the face by two males after refusing them entry because of their intoxication. The males travelled on foot westbound on Lakeshore Road East. One of them – the Complainant – was said to be wearing a “John Deere” T-shirt.

The SO arrived on scene and spoke to the CW at the intersection of Lakeshore Road East and Helene Street, approximately 250 metres east of the site of the reported assault. The CW described what had occurred and identified the males, including the Complainant, inside the Pizza Pizza shop at 114 Lakeshore Road East. While the SO was waiting for additional officers to arrive on scene, the Complainant exited the shop onto the north sidewalk of Lakeshore Road East. The officer, who had seen the Complainant nearing the front door through the shop’s window, called out to the Complainant, “Hey, bro.” The Complainant immediately ran east on the sidewalk a dozen or so strides before darting right between two parked cars. He entered onto the curb lane of traffic and was struck by a westbound SUV, collapsing onto his back. The time was 12:53 a.m.

The SO had chased the Complainant and was within a metre or two of him when the collision occurred. He immediately called for an ambulance and checked on the Complainant, turning him onto his left side.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and reportedly diagnosed with a broken left leg and an unspecified head injury.

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 fleeing from a PRP police officer on July 20, 2025. 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 Complainant’s injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence 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 injuries. In my view, there was not.

With information at his disposal from an eyewitness that the Complainant was one of the two males who had punched a doorman in the face, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in moving to arrest the Complainant for assault when he exited the pizza shop.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety during his brief engagement with the Complainant. The SO was entitled to give chase when the Complainant failed to stop for the officer and, instead, ran away. When that happened, there was always the risk that the Complainant would run onto the roadway and place himself in danger by passing traffic. However, the events unfolded so quickly – about three to four seconds from the start of the foot chase to the collision – that it is not at all clear there was reasonable opportunity for the SO to appreciate the risk. Nor is it apparent, in the circumstances of this case, in which the Complainant could have decided to stop at the direction of the officer, that the SO should be held responsible for the consequences of the Complainant’s decision to enter the roadway as he did.

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

Date: November 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit