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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 24, 2025, at 3:00 a.m., Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of an injury sustained by the Complainant.

According to HPS, on July 23, 2025, at 11:40 p.m., police officers in a marked cruiser observed a stolen vehicle. They activated the cruiser’s emergency equipment, and the vehicle accelerated travelling east on Aikman Avenue South. The vehicle disobeyed a stop sign at Sanford Avenue South and collided with a northbound taxi. Both vehicles mounted the curb and came to rest on the lawn of a home at that intersection. The Complainant was the driver of the stolen vehicle. He was extricated from the vehicle, taken to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and diagnosed with a fractured rib. The taxi driver sustained minor injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/24 at 3:24 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/24 at 4:52 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”):

34-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 24, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on July 25, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 7, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on King Street East, a distance east of Wentworth Street South, continued south on Wentworth Street South and east on Aikman Avenue, and concluded in the intersection of Aikman Avenue and Sanford Avenue South, Hamilton.

Figure 1 – The scene of the collision

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

Sanford Avenue South was a one-way street with three lanes for northbound traffic. The road was straight and level, and the lane markings were visible. There was street lighting on the east side of the street, which was a posted 50 km/h zone.

Aikman Avenue was a two-way, two-lane road oriented in an east/west direction and governed by a posted 40 km/h speed limit. The road was straight and level with no road markings. Street lighting was present on the north side of the road. There were stop signs controlling vehicle traffic entering the intersection at Sanford Avenue South.

The stolen vehicle that was operated by the Complainant was resting against a residence.

The CW’s taxi was straddling the north sidewalk on Aikman Avenue, east of Sanford Avenue South.

The police vehicle being operated by the SO was undamaged and positioned in the intersection in a northeast direction.

Expert Evidence

SIU Collision Reconstruction

Relying on Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data and in-car camera (ICC) footage from the SO’s cruiser, an SIU collision reconstructionist arrived at the following findings.

On July 23, 2025, at 11:38:16 p.m., the SO was driving westbound on King Street East at Sherman Avenue at 51 km/h before slowing to 42 km/h.

At 11:38:56 p.m., the SO was westbound on King Street East at Holton Avenue. The Honda being driven by the Complainant was ahead in the third lane from the left. Both vehicles passed Fairleigh Avenue.

At 11:39:06 p.m., the SO changed lanes and was behind the Complainant. The Complainant activated the left turn indicator and moved to the left lane. The SO was west of Fairleigh Avenue driving 56 km/h.

At 11:39:21 p.m., just east of Sanford Avenue South, the SO was in the third lane from the left driving 42 km/h while the Complainant was in the second lane from the left.

At 11:39:24 p.m., the SO and the Complainant were westbound through King Street East and Sanford Avenue South on a green traffic signal. The Complainant turned on the left turn indicator and changed to the first lane from the left.

At 11:39:33 p.m., the SO slowed and changed to the second lane from the left just west of Sanford Avenue driving 37 km/h.

At 11:39:40 p.m., the Complainant approached Wentworth Street South and indicated a left turn. The Complainant turned left onto southbound Wentworth Street South on a green traffic signal. The SO turned left onto Wentworth Street South at 39 km/h.

At 11:39:49 p.m., the Complainant braked and turned left onto Aikman Avenue. The SO accelerated.

At 11:39:55 p.m., the SO turned left onto Aikman Avenue.

At 11:39:56 p.m., the SO’s turning motion was almost complete and he was eastbound on Aikman Avenue. The vehicle’s flashing emergency lights were turned on. The Complainant was ahead eastbound on Aikman Avenue approaching Sanford Avenue South.

At 11:39:57 p.m., the SO was eastbound on Aikman Avenue east of Wentworth Street South travelling at 43 km/h.

At 11:40:01 p.m., a collision between the vehicles operated by the Complainant and CW occurred at Aikman Avenue and Sanford Avenue South. The Complainant did not apply his brakes as his vehicle entered the intersection.

As per Google Maps, the distance on Aikman Avenue between Wentworth Street South and Sanford Avenue South was about 200 metres. The SO was about 100 metres east of Wentworth Street South, and about 100 metres west of Sanford Avenue South, when the collision occurred.

At 11:40:10 p.m., the SO was eastbound on Aikman Avenue approaching Sanford Avenue South at 24 km/h.

Starting at 11:40:11 p.m., the SO stopped at the scene.

The maximum speed attained by the SO while behind the Complainant was 56 km/h, which occurred on King Street East as the SO initially began to follow the Complainant. The maximum speed attained by the SO with the flashing emergency lights on was 43 km/h, which was recorded when the SO first turned on the flashing emergency lights as he turned onto Aikman Avenue. The SO followed the Complainant eastbound on Aikman Avenue for about five seconds with his flashing emergency lights on prior to the collision. Given the increase in speed of the Complainant after turning off King Street East onto Wentworth Street South, and his average rate of speed while on Aikman Avenue just prior to the collision, he was likely driving at a rate of speed of at least 62 km/h and likely higher, which was consistent with the collision dynamics and the damage sustained to the vehicles in the collision.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On July 23, 2025, starting at 11:39:32 p.m., the SO radioed dispatch requesting a check on a licence plate number. The officer was around King Street East and Fairleigh Road.

At 11:40:02 p.m., dispatch advised that the licence plate was attached to a Honda, which was on file as “stolen”.

At 11:40:04 p.m., the vehicle was said to be fleeing.

At 11:40:19 p.m., a motor vehicle collision was reported at Aikman Avenue and Sanford Avenue South.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from HPS between July 24, 2025, and August 20, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian witness statement
• General Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Body-worn camera footage
• ICC footage
• Video footage – Hamilton Cab
• GPS data – the SO’s cruiser
• Notes – the SO and WO
• Policy – Suspect Apprehension Pursuit

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 24, 2025, and July 31, 2025:

• Video footage from several addresses
• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the evening of July 23, 2025, the SO was on patrol in a marked cruiser with the WO, when their vehicle’s Automatic Licence Plate Reader identified a stolen vehicle. The vehicle – a Honda Accord - was travelling westbound ahead of the cruiser on King Street East. The SO followed the cruiser while waiting for confirmation from the police communications centre that the Honda was, in fact, reported stolen. By the time confirmation arrived a short time later, the Honda was accelerating away from the cruiser south on Wentworth Street South.

The Complainant was operating the Honda. He turned left onto Aikman Avenue from Wentworth Street South and continued eastward. Approaching Sanford Avenue South, without braking, the Complainant disregarded a stop sign, entered the intersection and struck a northbound taxi. The collision propelled both vehicles towards the northeast corner of the intersection where they both came to rest.

The SO had activated his cruiser’s emergency lights at about the time he was turning onto Aikman Avenue after the Honda. He travelled at moderate speeds and was well back of the Sanford Avenue South intersection when he saw the collision. The SO and WO continued to the intersection to render aid.

The Complainant was removed from the wreckage and transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with a sternal fracture. The driver of the taxi was fortunate to have escaped serious injury.

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.

Section 354(1), Criminal Code – Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

354(1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or

(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision in Hamilton on July 23, 2025. As he was fleeing from a police cruiser at the time, 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 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.

With information at his disposal that the Complainant was operating a stolen vehicle, the SO was within his rights in attempting to stop and arrest him for an offence under section 354(1) of the Criminal Code.

It is also apparent that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety through his brief engagement with the Complainant. He activated his emergency lights to signal the Complainant to pull over, travelled at reasonable speeds, obeyed the rules of the road and was well back of the Honda when it entered the Aikman Avenue and Sanford Avenue South intersection and collided with the taxi. Seeing the collision, he and his partner approached the scene and rendered aid.

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

Date: November 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit