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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 21, 2025, at 7:03 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPS, on January 21, 2025, at 1:00 a.m., OPS officers responded to a domestic dispute at a residence near Brant Street and McArthur Avenue, Ottawa. The officers asked the Complainant to leave, and he complied. At about 8:30 a.m., the OPS received another call from the residence, reporting that the Complainant had returned and was holding a knife. When the occupants refused to open the door, the attending officers forced it open. The Complainant was ordered to exit a bedroom and show his hands. He refused to do so. One officer grabbed the Complainant and removed him with the intention of arresting him. The Complainant forcibly pulled away and was taken to the ground, his hands eventually handcuffed behind the back. The Complainant was searched, and brass knuckles and two knives were in his pockets. As he was bleeding from the mouth, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended the scene and the Complainant was transported to the Hôpital Montfort (HM), where he was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bridge. The Complainant was later remanded into custody.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/21 at 7:28 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/21 at 8:41 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 22, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 18, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on February 18, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on January 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom and hallway of a residence near Brant Street and McArthur Avenue, Ottawa.

Physical Evidence

During a search of the Complainant, incident to arrest, WO #2 found two folding knives in the left front zip-up pocket of the Complainant’s sweater. Additionally, WO #2 found two prescription pill bottles in the Complainant’s front left pant pocket, both of which contained suspected drugs. WO #1 found black brass knuckles in the Complainant’s right front zip-up sweater pocket.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPS Communications Recordings – 911

On January 21, 2025, at 8:36:14 a.m., the CW called 911 and requested assistance at a residence near Brant Street and McArthur Avenue. The CW told the 911 call-taker that several hours prior, officers had attended her residence and intervened in a dispute between her and the Complainant. The officers had instructed the Complainant to leave and not to return, warning he would be sent to jail if he did. The CW reported that the Complainant had returned and attempted to break into her apartment through a window while in possession of a knife. Subsequently, the Complainant tried to gain entry through her door. The CW requested the call-taker to expedite the officers’ arrival. The call-taker assured the CW she would remain on the line with her.

For about 12 seconds, the CW and the call-taker conversed. At one minute and five seconds into the recording, the CW uttered, "Ah." There was no further communication between the CW and the call-taker.

OPS Communication Recordings – Radio

On January 21, 2025, at 8:36:46 a.m., the dispatcher radioed WO #2 and Officer #1 that there was a break and enter at a residence near Brant Street and McArthur Avenue. The victim [the CW] reported that the Complainant had tried to break in through her window and was holding a knife.

At 8:37:32 a.m., the dispatcher reported that the Complainant was heard inside the unit and there was yelling. The dispatcher confirmed the incident was inside the apartment.

At 8:40:18 a.m., the SO radioed that nothing was visible from outside the building and inquired whether the CW was inside her apartment. The dispatcher radioed that the CW repeatedly hung-up, and calls were directed to voicemail.

The dispatcher subsequently reported that the Complainant had gained entry to the apartment, assaulted the CW and, subsequently, the line disconnected.

At 8:42:06 a.m., WO #2 radioed they were inside the apartment. The CW screamed in the background.

At 8:42:39 a.m., the SO radioed that the Complainant had gained entry and was in custody.

At 8:43:27 a.m., Officer #1 requested EMS for minor injuries to the CW.

At 8:46:23 a.m., Officer #1 radioed they were securing the scene at the front window of the apartment due to a forced entry, indicating the Complainant had likely gained entry through one of the windows.

At 8:52:13 a.m., WO #2 radioed the Complainant required medical attention due to cuts on his face and an injury to his nose.

At 8:56:13 a.m., the SO radioed EMS were on scene.

At 9:08:50 a.m., the SO radioed they planned to attend HM.

Video Footage from Residential Building

On January 21, 2025, at 8:34:16 a.m., the Complainant entered the main entrance of the building with a damaged screen in his hand and walked to an apartment. The Complainant put the screen down to the left of the door of the apartment and knocked on the door. About 16 seconds later, the camera froze with the Complainant outside the door of the apartment.

At 8:38:38 a.m., the officers approached the apartment. The first officer [the SO] kicked the door to the apartment and entered the residence. Three other officers [WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1] followed him into the apartment.

At 8:40:11 a.m., the SO exited the apartment, looked at his right arm briefly, and proceeded to the main entrance to allow three waiting officers into the building.

At 8:40:58 a.m., the Complainant was outside of the apartment. Three officers were around the Complainant, who was handcuffed with his hands behind the back. He was walked out of the building through the main entrance. The Complainant appeared alert and responsive, but the cameras were too far away to clearly show injuries to the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between January 23, 2025, and April 11, 2025:

• Witness List
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes and Investigative Action Reports - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and Officer #1
• The SO – training records - Use of Force
• OPS photographs
• Video footage from residential building
• In-car camera footage – WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from HM on January 29, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and additional police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of January 21, 2025, OPS officers were dispatched to a residence near Brant Street and McArthur Avenue, Ottawa. A woman – the CW – had called police to report a domestic disturbance. An associate – the Complainant – was attempting to break into her apartment with a knife. This was the second call to police by the CW involving the Complainant. Earlier that day, she had requested that officers attend to remove the Complainant from her apartment after the two had quarreled. On that occasion, the Complainant left with the attending officers without incident.

The SO, joined by WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, arrived on scene at about 8:40 a.m. The officers entered the apartment building and approached the apartment, noting that it was damaged and open. They entered the residence and heard the Complainant and the CW yelling inside a bedroom. The SO kicked the bedroom door opened, pointed his gun at the Complainant, and proceeded to pull him out towards the door. WO #2 was behind the SO. He grabbed hold of the Complainant from the SO and forced him out of the bedroom into the hallway. The Complainant was taken to the floor and subjected to one or two strikes to the face by the SO before he was handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was seen at hospital and diagnosed with a broken nose.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPS officers on January 21, 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 Complainant’s arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

Given what they knew of the 911 call from the CW, and finding her and the Complainant yelling inside the bedroom of the CW’s apartment, I am satisfied that the officers were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for break and enter.

I am also satisfied that the evidence does not establish reasonable grounds to believe that the Complainant was subjected to unlawful force. The takedown in the hallway made sense. At the time, the officers would have had reason to believe that the Complainant was violent and in possession of a knife, having just broken into a home. Forcing the Complainant to the floor would better position the officers to more safely manage a combative and potentially armed individual. With respect to the one or two strikes delivered by the SO, it is alleged in one body of evidence that the Complainant was not resisting the officers at the time. That evidence, however, stands in contrast to the account proffered by the SO, who says he delivered the blows when the Complainant refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. The SO’s story is buttressed by the other officers on scene, who say the Complainant struggled against their efforts to take him into custody. It also finds support in other evidence, which suggests the Complainant fought the officers at points during their engagement. Two punches, in the context of a potentially armed individual resisting arrest, would not appear unwarranted. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the incriminating evidence is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the countervailing description of what happened, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant was subjected to excessive force.

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

Date: May 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit