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 29-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and the serious injuries of a 25-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 28, 2025, at 9:17 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 28, 2025, at around 7:30 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was driving a marked OPP police vehicle northbound on Highway 400 to attend scheduled training when he rear-ended a disabled vehicle occupied by Complainant #1. Complainant #1 was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) with serious injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/28 at 9:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/28 at 11:53 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Collision Reconstructionists assigned: 1

Affected Persons (aka “Complainant”)

Complainant #1 29-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 25-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainants were interviewed on December 4, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 4 and 5, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official (WO)

WO Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The incident occurred in lane five (second from the right) of northbound Highway 400, approximately 50 metres north of where the westbound Highway 401 off-ramp merged. Highway 400 consisted of six lanes with lanes five and six being the extension of the two on-ramp lanes from Highway 401 westbound. The posted speed limit was 100 km/h.

SIU forensic services attended the scene.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The involved OPP cruiser and GMC Terrain are depicted below.

2017 Ford Taurus

2010 GMC Terrain

Forensic Evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – OPP Cruiser

Starting at 6:57 a.m., November 28, 2025, the SO left the OPP Toronto Detachment (2682 Keele Street) and drove southbound on Keele Street. He entered westbound Highway 401 from Keele Street and drove from 103 to 107 km/h for about three kilometres.

Starting at 7:00:51 a.m., the SO was in the right-most lane at the beginning of the ramp from Highway 401 westbound to Highway 400 northbound driving 100 km/h.

Between about 7:00:55 and 7:01:04 a.m., the SO drove from 96 to 103 km/h.

Starting at about 7:01:08 a.m., the SO passed a vehicle to his left at 101 km/h.

Starting at about 7:01:13 a.m., the SO drove 109 km/h as he changed from the right-most ramp lane to the left-most ramp lane with his left turn signal illuminated.

Starting at about 7:01:15 a.m., the SO was about 140 metres south of Complainant #1’s vehicle that was stopped in the live lane ahead with hazard lights activated. He was driving 103 km/h. There were no other vehicles between the SO and Complainant #1. The SO’s rate of speed was 105 km/h as the road curved gently to the right.

Starting at about 7:01:16 a.m., the SO drove between 103 to 105 km/h and collided with the rear of Complainant #1’s vehicle.[2]

Expert Evidence

SIU Technical Collision Investigation

Tire Marks and Road Evidence

There were no pre-impact tire marks, which suggested the SO did not brake prior to the collision. The area of impact was across the width of lane five of six, north of the end of the painted median at the end of the ramp from westbound Highway 401 to northbound Highway 400. Scratches on the road were consistent with the undercarriages of the front of the police cruiser and the rear of the Terrain being forced downwards and contacting the asphalt as the collision occurred.

Police Vehicle CDR

The SO did not apply the brake pedal in the five seconds prior to the collision. From about five seconds before the collision to about two-tenths of one second before the collision, the steering wheel was turned slightly to the right consistent with the gradual curve of the ramp the SO was driving on. Between five seconds prior to the collision and two seconds prior to the collision, the accelerator was depressed between 20 to 23 percent. Between two seconds prior to the collision and one second prior to the collision, the accelerator was depressed about 13 percent and then about nine percent. About one-half second prior to the collision, the accelerator pedal was at seven percent (consistent with the SO taking his foot off the accelerator pedal). Between five seconds prior to the collision and one second prior to the collision, the rate of speed was 103 km/h and 104 km/h. About one-tenth of a second prior to the collision, the steering wheel turned to the left. When the collision occurred, the accelerator pedal was not depressed, nor were the brakes applied. The steering wheel was turned sharply to the left, and the rate of speed was 101 km/h.

GMC Terrain CDR

The GMC Terrain was struck from behind while stopped and likely in “Park”.

Lighting Condition

The collision occurred at 7:01 a.m. The sun did not rise until 7:29 a.m. The area was artificially lit by large overhead streetlights.

SIU Mechanical Inspection of OPP 2017 Ford Taurus

On December 1, 2025, a mechanical inspection was completed on the 2017 Ford Taurus operated by the SO. The licenced technician concluded in his report received February 9, 2026, that the vehicle was in good operating condition.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Compass Camera Footage

Starting at about 6:59:36 a.m., November 28, 2025, a GMC Terrain (operated by Complainant #1) was northbound on Highway 400 in the right-most lane.

Starting at about 6:59:47 a.m., the Terrain’s four-way hazard lights were illuminated and brake lights from vehicles approaching from behind illuminated.

Starting at about 6:59:59 a.m., the Terrain appeared to be moving to its right onto the painted median area between the northbound right-most lane and the left-most lane of the ramp from Highway 401 westbound.

Starting at about 7:00:09 a.m., with its hazard lights on, the Terrain moved to its right across the painted median and into the left-most lane of the ramp. The brake lights from vehicles behind the Terrain illuminated.

Starting at about 7:00:25 a.m., the Terrain appeared to be stopped in the left-most lane from the ramp, just north of the end of the painted median, in lane five of Highway 400. Vehicles approached the Terrain, braked, changed lanes and passed it.

Starting at about 7:01:11 a.m., the police vehicle driven by the SO was driving in the right-most lane on the westbound Highway 401 to northbound Highway 400 ramp.

Between about 7:01:12 a.m. and 7:01:14 a.m., the police vehicle’s left turn signal illuminated and the vehicle changed to the lane to the left as it neared the painted median.

Starting at about 7:01:15 a.m., the police vehicle was northbound on Highway 400 in the left-most ramp lane about 140 metres south of where the Terrain was stopped in the same lane with its hazard lights on. There were no vehicles between the Terrain and the police vehicle when the police vehicle struck Complainant #1’s Terrain.

OPP Communication Recordings – Telephone

Starting at about 7:04:27 a.m., November 28, 2025, the SO telephoned the OPP Provincial Communications Centre and advised he was involved in an accident. He was driving northbound on Highway 400, north of Highway 401, when he struck a vehicle.

OPP Communication Recordings – Radio

Starting at about 7:07:14 a.m., November 28, 2025, police officers were dispatched to the collision.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 28, 2025, and December 4, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian witness list and statements provided
• General Report
• ICC footage
• MTO Compass Camera footage
• GPS data for involved police vehicle
• CDR data for involved police vehicle
• Notes – the WO
• Event Details Summary
• Communications recordings

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 9, 2026, and February 17, 2026:

• Vehicle Inspection Report for involved police vehicle
• CDR data for Complainant #1’s vehicle
• Complainant #1’s medical records from SHSC
• Complainant #2’s medical records from SHSC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with Complainant #1 and Complainant #2, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 morning of November 28, 2025, Complainant #1 was operating a GMC Terrain northbound on Highway 400 when his vehicle began to lose power. With him were Complainant #2 and CW #1. Complainant #1 managed to maneuver the vehicle to the second-lane from the right before it stopped on the road. He was several hundred metres north of Highway 401 and on the left-most of the two lanes that were part of the ramp to the highway from westbound Highway 401. Activating his emergency flashers, Complainant #1 stepped out of the vehicle and popped the front hood to investigate what had happened. Traffic behind him slowed and switched lanes to continue northbound. Complainant #1 had just closed the hood when a vehicle slammed into the rear of the Terrain. The impact propelled Complainant #1 backward on the highway.

The SO had crashed his marked OPP cruiser into the Terrain. He had entered the highway moments before from westbound Highway 401.

Complainant #1 suffered fractures of the right leg and right hand. Complainant #2 also sustained multiple fractures.

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 with an OPP cruiser on November 28, 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 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.

It remains unclear why the SO did not take notice of a stopped vehicle in his lane of traffic with its emergency flashers activated. As was his legal right, the officer chose not to provide an interview or release his notes. Other motorists were able to safely maneuver around Complainant #1’s vehicle whereas the SO drove right into the rear of the Terrain at speed. It may well be that the SO was simply not paying sufficient attention to the road ahead of him as he travelled northbound in one of the two ramp lanes to Highway 400 from westbound Highway 401.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the evidence to reasonably conclude that the SO’s indiscretion was anything more than a momentary lapse in attention, which the case law makes clear will only rarely amount to a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. There is no indication, for example, of any questionable driving by the SO in the lead up to the collision. On the contrary, the ICC depicts an officer travelling at reasonable speeds and in full control of the cruiser. It is also worth noting that as the SO negotiated the curve on the ramp and began to straighten out, he was no more than 100 metres or so from the stopped Terrain ahead of him. That left the officer only seconds to process what he was observing ahead of him and take the necessary evasive action. While not excusing the SO from his role in the collision, this is important context going to the momentary nature of the officer’s inattention.

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

Date: March 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit