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 75-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 18, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 8:49 a.m. of the same date, the Subject Officer (SO) was operating a marked cruiser travelling westbound in the left lane on Lorne Street, responding to a sudden death call in Copper Cliff. As he proceeded through the intersection on Lorne Street at Regent Street, a male was riding a bicycle northbound in the pedestrian crossing on the west side of Lorne Street. The cruiser and the bicycle collided in the crosswalk in the westbound lane of Lorne Street. Paramedics were notified and attended the scene. The cyclist, identified as the Complainant, initially refused treatment by paramedics but was convinced by an attending police officer to go to hospital. He was taken to Health Sciences North (HSN) where he was diagnosed with a broken collar bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/18 at 1:51 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/18 at 2:38 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Number of SIU Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 19, 2025

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 19, 2025, and October 24, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on November 27, 2025

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Regent Street and Lorne Street, Sudbury.

Source – Google Maps

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services arrived in the area of Lorne Street and Regent Street, Sudbury, at 9:00 p.m., October 18, 2025. A large area was cordoned off by yellow security tape and two GSPS police vehicles. A marked GSPS vehicle and a bicycle were resting within the cordoned area.

Lorne Street and Regent Street intersected in a ‘T’ type intersection. Lorne Street was oriented in an approximate east-west direction and Regent Street was oriented in an approximate north-south direction. The roads were asphalt-paved with clearly visible roadway, lane and pedestrian markings. Automated traffic and pedestrian control signals managed vehicle and pedestrian travel through the different parts of the intersection.

Two gouges were visible on the roadway. One of the gouges was slightly north of the bicycle with the second gouge slightly north of the first gouge. Both were visible on Lorne Street east of both vehicles.

The bicycle was a Pedego brand electric bicycle. It was fitted with a bell, mirror, radio, headlight and large battery pack beneath seat. The front tire was facing west, and the bicycle was resting on the roadway in the curb lane. There was visible damage to the front sprocket, the mirror was bent, and the front wheel, handlebar and both pedals were out of alignment.

The marked GSPS vehicle – a 2024 Chevrolet Tahoe - had emergency roof lights. It was resting in the curb lane facing west. Its front passenger tire rested on the north curb of Lorne Street, and its front passenger corner was near a utility pole. Its engine and roof lights were not on during the scene examination. The engine, siren and emergency roof lights were turned on by SIU forensic services and found to be in good working order. There was visible damage to the driver side front headlight. The lower quarter panel was displaced and out of alignment, and there was a visible light colour mark on the front crash bar (driver side), located 0.86 metres up from the roadway.

The electric bicycle’s handlebar was the same height as the cruiser’s damaged headlight.

Photos were taken of the scene.

Travelling west on Lorne Street, there were two dedicated left-turn lanes for motorists to travel south onto Regent Street with two dedicated left-turn traffic signals. An additional two lanes were dedicated for motorists travelling westbound with automated, dedicated traffic signals. White stop lines were clearly visible on the roadway on the eastern part of the intersection.

Travelling east on Lorne Street, there was a dedicated right-turn lane for motorists opting to travel south onto Regent Street with two traffic signals, both of which had advanced green right-turn arrows. An additional single lane was dedicated for motorists travelling eastbound, also with dedicated, automated traffic signals. White stop lines and a large pedestrian crosswalk area were clearly visible on the roadway on the western part of the intersection. A double-yellow centre line and a traffic signal island separated the roadway.

Travelling north on Regent Street, there was a single dedicated right-turn lane for motorists wanting to travel east onto Lorne Street, with a double-white stop line visible on the roadway before the lane continued onto eastbound Lorne Street. A double-yellow centre line separated the roadway. There was no lane for travel onto westbound Lorne Street. A single, automated pedestrian signal was visible on the north side of Lorne Street in the northwest section of the intersection.

Forensic Evidence

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

On October 18, 2025, at about 8:43 a.m., the SO left the police station on Brady Street.

Between about 8:43 a.m. and 8:46 a.m., the cruiser travelled in a southwest direction at rates of speed in the range of 60 km/h to 70 km/h.

At about 8:46 a.m., the cruiser turned right onto Douglas Street West.

Between about 8:46 a.m. and 8:47 a.m., the cruiser travelled westbound on Douglas Street West. The cruiser slowed from a maximum recorded speed of 62 km/h to a stop at the traffic signal light-controlled intersection of Douglas Street and Lorne Street.

Starting at about 8:47 a.m., the cruiser turned left onto Lorne Street. It travelled in a southwest direction a distance of about 350 metres and approached the intersection of Lorne Street and Regent Street.

About 200 metres east of Regent Street, the cruiser travelled steadily at a rate of speed of about 60 km/h.

The road began to curve gently to the SO’s right at about Haig Street.

About 125 metres east of the stop line at Regent Street, the cruiser travelled at a rate of speed of 58 km/h.

Starting at about 8:48 a.m., the cruiser was about 100 metres east of Regent Street and travelled at a rate of speed of 43 km/h.

At Haig Street (about 60 metres east of Regent Street), the cruiser travelled at a rate of speed of 51 km/h.

Five or six metres east of the stop line at Regent Street, the cruiser travelled at a rate of speed of 66 km/h. The cruiser crossed over the stop line and entered the intersection. The vehicle passed through the intersection and stopped about eight metres west of the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection.

Expert Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Findings

Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Report

• There were no data related to the speed, acceleration, braking, steering or seat belt usage from this collision retrieved from the police cruiser’s air bag control module.
• This was indicative of a low rate of speed associated with the collision.

Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) Report

• The Complainant’s estimated rate of speed was said to be 15 km/h, and the SO’s estimated rate of speed was reportedly 55 km/h.
• The posted speed limit on Lorne Street was 50 km/h.

• Mathematical Calculations of the Rate of Speed of the SO’s Cruiser
• The SO said when he was in the intersection, he saw the Complainant and immediately steered and braked to avoid a collision.
• The distance from about the middle of the intersection to the final resting position of the SO’s cruiser was about 15 or 20 metres.
• Using this distance to brake to a stop, and assuming the SO braked quickly and as efficiently as possible, the SO was likely driving at a rate of speed of between about 55 km/h and 60 km/h in the intersection when he braked. This was generally consistent with the GPS data, which indicated the SO drove at a rate of speed of 66 km/h just prior to entering the intersection.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Business

A local business provided two video recordings to the SIU, which were taken by an exterior camera mounted on the north side of the building. The camera was pointed in a westerly direction and provided a westerly view of the intersection of Ontario Street and Regent Street. Although partially obstructed, it also afforded a view of the traffic signal for the left-turn lane on Lorne Street to southbound Regent Steet.

Both video recordings were date and time-stamped, October 18, 2025, starting at 8:30:01 a.m. and ending at 9:30:00 a.m.

At 8:46:43 a.m., a person on a bicycle – the Complainant - travelled north on the west side of Regent Street and crossed the intersection at Ontario Street out of camera view.

At 8:47:39 a.m., the traffic signal for the left-turn lane on Lorne Street to southbound Regent Street turned from red to green and traffic in the left-turn lane moved forward.

At 8:47:47 am., from the southwest corner of Lorne Street and Regent Street, the Complainant travelled northbound on Lorne Street across the intersection. At the same time, a white SUV – a fully marked cruiser operated by the SO - entered the frame westbound on Lorne Street, just east of the intersection at Regent Street. The police vehicle’s emergency lights were not illuminated.

At 8:52:51 a.m., an ambulance arrived on scene.

GSPS Communication Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

The CAD Report and two audio recordings of the relevant communications from October 18, 2025, were received from GSPS. They were reviewed and found to be consistent.

On October 18, 2025, at 8:48 a.m., the SO went on the air and said, “Headquarters, can you send an ambulance to Killer’s Crossing – I just struck a pedestrian.”

At 8:49 a.m., the SO requested a traffic unit and an additional unit to block traffic. At the same time, the police dispatcher requested that another unit attend the scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the GSPS between October 21, 2025, and December 11, 2025:

• Occurrence Report
• Traffic Unit Scene Examination Report, including photographs and drone footage
• GPS data from the SO’s cruiser
• CDR Report
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• MVC Report
• Civilian Witness List

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 24, 2025, and November 7, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SN
• Video footage from a business located in a building proximate to the scene of the collision
• Correspondence from Greater Sudbury regarding traffic light control functions

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

In the morning of October 18, 2025, the Complainant was riding his electric bicycle and stopped at the south end of the pedestrian crosswalk across the west side of the Lorne Street and Regent Street intersection, Sudbury. Intending to travel north across Lorne Street, the Complainant entered the crosswalk on his bicycle and cleared the eastbound lanes, where vehicular traffic had stopped for a red light. He continued northward into the westbound lanes and was struck by a cruiser.

The SO was operating the cruiser. He was proceeding through a green light at the intersection en route to a call for service when the bicycle appeared in front of his path. The officer attempted but failed to avoid an impact by braking hard and swerving to the north of the Complainant. The SO immediately stopped his cruiser and exited to check on the Complainant’s wellbeing.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured clavicle.

Section 320.13(2), Criminal Code of Canada – 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.

The Complainant was seriously injured when he was struck by a GSPS cruiser on October 18, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the driver of the cruiser – 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 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.

There is no evidence that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in the manner of his driving leading to the collision. He approached the intersection at a moderate speed, had the right of way through a green light, and attempted to avoid striking the Complainant when he appeared in front of the cruiser. The officer did not have his emergency lights and siren on, but one would not expect them activated as he was not rushing to get to the scene of a call for service. It seems that the Complainant is solely responsible for the collision when, ill-advisedly, he attempted to beat traffic against a red light and miscalculated his window of opportunity.

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

Date: February 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit