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 71-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 14, 2025, at 6:01 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 12, 2025, at 1:38 p.m., a NRPS officer was patrolling westbound on Lundy’s Lane in Niagara Falls when a citizen waved him down. The citizen reported a red vehicle travelling erratically behind them that had nearly struck their vehicle. The officer located the vehicle travelling westbound on Lundy’s Lane and observed it fail to stop for a stop sign at Strathmore Crescent. The officer activated the emergency lights on the police cruiser and followed the vehicle southbound on Glamis Crescent. The vehicle left the roadway and nearly collided with a parked vehicle. It continued northbound on Glamis Crescent where it failed to stop at a stop sign at Royal Manor Drive. The involved officer lost sight of the vehicle at Windsor Crescent. It was located a short distance away at Royal Manor Drive and Dorchester Road where it had collided with another vehicle. The driver, Civilian Witness (CW) #1, was arrested and transported to the detachment for processing. The driver of the other vehicle – the Complainant – was transported to Greater Niagara General Hospital (GNGH) where she was treated and released with no apparent injuries. On November 14, 2025, a family member contacted the NRPS and reported that the Complainant had attended her family doctor. X-rays were taken and she was diagnosed with a broken foot.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/14 at 6:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/15 at 1:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

71-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on November 15, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #2 Not interviewed[2]

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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question began on Lundy’s Lane, a distance east of Royal Manor Drive, continued north and east on Royal Manor Drive, and culminated on Royal Manor Drive on the bridge over the Hydro Canal, Niagara Falls.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

Starting at about 1:46 p.m., November 12, 2025, the SO’s vehicle was captured travelling northbound on Strathmore Crescent at the intersection of Royal Manor Drive. Well ahead of the SO’s vehicle was a red sedan, also travelling northbound [vehicle known to be operated by CW #1.] The area was residential in character. The roads were damp, and light snow was visible on the boulevards and lawns.

Starting at about 1:46:06 p.m., CW #1’s vehicle was observed to fail to stop for a stop sign at the corner of Royal Manor Drive and Strathmore Crescent before turning right onto Royal Manor Drive. The SO approached the stop sign, slowed, and turned right without coming to a full stop. CW #1 was seen up ahead making a right turn at the next intersection [known to be Glamis Crescent].

Starting at about 1:46:18 p.m., CW #1’s vehicle was captured travelling on the north boulevard of Glamis Crescent, before it re-entered the roadway and continued around the street [known to be a U-shaped crescent].

Starting at about 1:46:23 p.m., the SO turned right onto Glamis Crescent and activated his emergency lights as he followed CW #1. There was no other vehicle or pedestrian traffic visible. The speed of both vehicles was at or near the unposted 50 km/h speed limit for the area.

Starting at about 1:46:28 p.m., CW #1’s vehicle was following a left turn in the road when it nearly collided with the rear of a parked car.

Starting at about 1:46:46 p.m., CW #1 failed to stop at the stop sign at Royal Manor Drive and turned right.

Starting at about 1:46:54 p.m., CW #1 failed to stop at the three-way stop at the intersection of Royal Manor Drive and Windsor Crescent.

Starting at about 1:46:56 p.m., the SO approached the three-way stop. His emergency blue and red lights could be seen reflecting off the stop sign. CW #1’s vehicle appeared to accelerate quickly as she followed Royal Manor Drive in an easterly direction. The SO came to a stop at Windsor Crescent and then continued in the direction of travel of CW #1. CW #1 could not be seen at this time due to the curvature of the roadway.

Starting at about 1:47:18 p.m., the SO’s vehicle slowed as he approached the westerly intersection of Windsor Crescent and Royal Manor Drive, before continuing eastbound.

Starting at about 1:47:33 p.m., the SO followed the large bend in the roadway towards the Hydro Canal bridge. A collision could be seen ahead involving CW #1’s vehicle and a blue Kia Soul. The SO’s emergency lights could be seen reflecting off street signs as he entered onto the bridge. Both vehicles in the collision had come to a rest facing west.

Starting at about 1:47:50 p.m., the SO arrived at the scene and was heard communicating with NRPS communications, advising that he was at the scene of a collision on Royal Manor Drive. The SO advised that a vehicle had taken off from him after failing to stop at a couple of stop signs before the collision scene. NRPS communications inquired if the SO had been pursuing the vehicle and he responded that he had not. The driver of a car had taken off from him when he attempted to stop it for going through a couple of stop signs. No siren or horn was in use by the SO during the recording.

NRPS Communications Recordings

Starting at about 1:48:47 p.m., November 12, 22025, the SO notified the dispatcher of a motor vehicle collision on Royal Manor Drive and Frederica Street. He stated he had been behind one of the vehicles involved [now known to be a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze, driven by CW #1] when it went through a couple of stop signs, fled from him, and travelled erratically.

Starting at about 1:48:53 p.m., the dispatcher asked the SO if he was in pursuit of the vehicle. He replied, “No, I was just behind her – she just ran a couple of stop signs….”

Starting at about 1:49:07 p.m., the SO requested an ambulance and the fire department.

Starting at about 1:54:36 p.m., WO #1 requested the fire department after CW #1’s vehicle began to smoke.

Starting at about 2:00:47 p.m., WO #3 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had sustained an injury and complained of chest pain.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between November 17, 2025, and November 19, 2025:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Show Cause Reports
• Communications recordings
• ICC footage
• NRPS forensic photographs and reports
• Motor Vehicle Collision Report
• Niagara Regional traffic camera footage
• Audio statements - the Complainant and CW #2
• Breath Room camera footage
• NRPS Vehicle Pursuit Policy
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from GNGH on November 24, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a civilian eyewitness, and video footage that largely 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 afternoon of November 12, 2025, the Complainant was driving westbound on Royal Manor Drive when she was involved in a motor vehicle collision on the bridge over the Hydro Canal, just west of Dorchester Road. An eastbound Chevrolet Cruze, operated by CW #1, had entered her lane and struck the Complainant’s Kia head-on.

Shortly after, the SO arrived at the collision site in a marked cruiser. The officer had been following the Chevrolet for about two minutes after a citizen waved him down on Lundy’s Lane to complain of CW #1’s erratic driving. During that time, CW #1 had failed to stop at multiple stop signs, jumped a curb and driven on a boulevard for a brief period, and almost collided with a parked car. The officer stopped to render assistance and radioed for help.

CW #1 was taken into custody. An ambulance transported the Complainant to hospital where she was cleared of any serious injury.

The Complainant subsequently visited with her family doctor. Additional X-rays were taken and she was diagnosed with a fractured right foot.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a collision with a motor vehicle on November 12, 2025. As a NRPS officer was attempting to stop the vehicle 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in following CW #1 upon receipt of a complaint about her driving. CW #1’s subsequent erratic driving gave the officer further cause to attempt to stop her vehicle to investigate the potential offences of dangerous driving and impaired driving. The SO briefly turned on his emergency lights before de-activating them when it appeared that CW #1 was not stopping, after which he continued to follow her at a distance.

I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety. The officer had full control of the cruiser at all times, travelled at reasonable speeds and made judicious use of his vehicle’s emergency lights. He was always a safe distance behind the Chevrolet and was well back from CW #1 at the time of the collision. Though the SO did not come to a full stop at a couple of stop signs, he slowed significantly and did not impede or imperil other motorists at those intersections. In fact, neither he nor CW #1 came across any other motorists during their brief engagement.

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

Date: March 11, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit