The public should have a right to know why police fail to locate the body of a deceased in a motor vehicle collision. But such explanations are not being provided.
In a detailed article (“Missing Fatality – But Still No Useful Details Revealed”) posted November 14, 2025 on this Gorski Consulting website we reported on a fatal collision of November 1, 2025 at the intersection of Chinguacousy Road and Queen Street in Brampton where investigating police failed to identify that the body of a deceased was in one of the colliding vehicles. In that article we made the following comment:
“What should be concluded from the above discussion about historical methods of collision reconstruction is that, in order to conduct a properly scientific analysis of a collision, vehicle interiors must be included in that analysis and examined in detail. When a proper examination of the interior of a collision-involved vehicle is conducted there should be no reason for an injured occupant in that vehicle to be unidentified. What led to the lack of identification of a deceased inside a vehicle has not been explained. Beyond police, medical personnel and even fire department personnel have responsibilities for identifying occupants in a damaged vehicle and why their failures occurred also needs to be revealed. Up to now there has been no photo posted of a reasonable quality that could reveal the extent of damage to the Honda Civic and provide some explanation as to why no one detected the deceased passenger.”
Subsequent to these comments the official news media revealed that the body of another deceased driver was also not identified by investigating police in the Ottawa area. The following excerpt is provided from the Ontario SIU report:
“On the evening of January 23, 2026, the man drove a Dodge Caravan southbound on Bank Street. His blood alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit. Approximately five seconds before the collision, his vehicle was travelling at about 170 km/h on Bank Street, approaching Morningside Avenue in a 60 km/h zone. The man lost control of the Caravan. South of Morningside Avenue, the vehicle crossed into the northbound lane and shoulder before entering the snow-covered east-side ditch. The man was ejected from the vehicle and suffered catastrophic injuries that resulted in his death. The time was about 8:20 p.m.
At about 9:43 p.m., a passing motorist stopped at the collision and subsequently called 911. Officers were dispatched to the scene at about 10:13 p.m. After searching the vehicle and the surrounding area without locating anyone, they left the scene at about 11 p.m.
The following morning, after receiving a call from the man’s wife reporting that her husband had not returned home from work, the police service dispatched an officer to the collision scene. Upon arrival, the officer located the man’s body partially buried in the snow-covered ditch several metres from the Caravan.
Based on the SIU’s preliminary inquiries, including review of video footage that captured the incident in part and the results of the postmortem examination, Director Martino was satisfied the investigation should be discontinued. At autopsy, the pathologist attributed the man’s death to multiple blunt force injuries, and explained that given the nature of those injuries, the man would have been deceased by the time the first officers arrived at the scene following the collision. On this record, there being no reason to believe that any officer caused or contributed to the man’s death, the SIU was without statutory jurisdiction to investigate the incident.
That said, Director Martino identified what appeared to be evidence of misconduct by the officers who initially attended the scene in connection with their investigation of the collision, in contravention of section 19 of the Police Code of Conduct. Director Martino will be referring the matter to the Ottawa Police Service Chief of Police and, further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.“
There are obvious problems when “evidence of misconduct” by police becomes public knowledge but no explanation is given as to what the misconduct entails. The details of this misconduct should not be kept within the secretive confines some tribunal. Persons who read or hear of such things come to distrust the the operations of police and those who oversee them. Incidents labelled as “errors” may or may not be so depending on the details of each incident. Leaving the present matter secret and unexplained helps no one.
You must be logged in to post a comment.