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 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 26, 2025, at 5:23 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 25, 2025, at about 10:00 p.m., WRPS officers responded to an address near Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road, Kitchener, for a call for service involving a suicidal person. When officers arrived, a woman advised that the Complainant had been at her residence and tried to hang himself. She had called 911, and the Complainant fled on foot. Police officers started a ground search for the Complainant with the assistance of a canine and tactical unit. The Complainant was eventually located in the rear of a nearby residence. Officers attempted to apprehend the Complainant, who resisted and was grounded. He was taken to Grand River Hospital (GRH), and diagnosed with a fractured orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/26 at 5:47 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/26 at 6:08 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 27, 2025.

Subject Official

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

The SO was interviewed on February 19, 2025.

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on January 31, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds surrounding a residence near Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road, Kitchener.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 25, 2025, starting at about 8:23 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were captured speaking with a woman regarding the Complainant attempting suicide. The woman told WO #1 and WO #2 that the Complainant had tried to hang himself in the basement of her residence. A description of the Complainant was obtained, and the residence was searched with negative results. The woman advised that the Complainant could be at a nearby residence. The Complainant had been drinking alcohol throughout the day and was intoxicated. The woman then received a telephone call from the Complainant. WO #1 and WO #2 attempted to speak with the Complainant. The officers developed grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act (MHA).

Starting at about 8:57 p.m., WO #1 and WO #4 searched the residence but did not locate the Complainant.

WO #3 and WO #7, along with the SO, assisted in the search of the Complainant. A Remote-piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) was utilized in the search.

Starting at about 10:00 p.m., radio communication from the RPAS operator indicated they had located the Complainant. WO #1 and WO #2 went to the area and began searching backyards.

Starting at about 10:01 p.m., WO #2 located the Complainant in the backyard of a nearby residence. The Complainant stood near the rear door of the residence, and did not respond to WO #2’s instruction to show his hands. WO #2 took control of both of the Complainant’s hands, and they began to exit the yard. The Complainant had no facial injuries upon initial contact with police officers. The Complainant pulled away from WO #2. WO #1 took control of the Complainant’s right arm, and a struggle ensued. Radio communication could be heard advising “male is fighting with officers”.

Starting at about 10:02 p.m., the Complainant grabbed onto a fence post with his right hand as he and the officers were exiting the yard. Both WO #1 and WO #2 instructed the Complainant to let go of the fence, but he refused. WO #2 broadcast, “He’s just not cooperating.” Both WO #1 and WO #2 continued to try to get the Complainant to let go, without success. WO #1 attempted to strike the Complainant’s right hand with her knee, but the Complainant did not release his grip of the fence post. WO #4 arrived and took control of the Complainant’s right foot and leg. The officer lifted the Complainant’s leg off the ground as the SO arrived and kicked him in the stomach three times. The Complainant fell to the ground and landed in a prone position. Once on the ground, the SO attempted to free the Complainant’s right arm from under his torso before striking him with his right fist four to five times in an area believed to be the upper rear body. Commands were issued to the Complainant to stop resisting and to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant was eventually handcuffed with his hands behind the back.

Starting at about 10:04 p.m., blood on the Complainant’s forehead and nose could be seen. He asked, “Why you guys kicking the shit out of me?”

Starting at about 10:05 p.m., an unknown male police officer advised the Complainant he was under arrest for a mental health apprehension. The Complainant asked, “Why the fuck did you kick the fuck out of me?” WO #4 replied, “We said you were under arrest, and you resisted.” The Complainant was escorted to a police vehicle. Paramedics attended for the Complainant’s injuries.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On January 25, 2025, at about 7:14 p.m.,[3] a woman called police to advise that the Complainant had attempted suicide. He had left her residence and had no access to a vehicle. He was known to consume drugs and alcohol. He was also known to stay at a nearby residence.

Starting at about 7:54 p.m., police officers were dispatched to an address near Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road, for a domestic dispute.

Starting at about 8:32 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that he was speaking with the Complainant on the telephone, but the Complainant had hung-up. A ping to locate his cellular telephone was approved at 8:43 p.m. WO #2 requested that a canine unit assist in the search.

Starting at about 8:51 p.m., a description of the Complainant was broadcast.

Starting at about 8:57 p.m., the SO advised he would try to get a RPAS to assist. WO #1 and WO #2 checked and cleared a residence.

Starting at about 9:16 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that there were grounds for an apprehension under the MHA.

The recordings continued as police officers search for the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:54 p.m., a dispatcher provided an updated ping location of an address near Doon Village Road with a 32-metre radius.

Starting at about 10:01 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 located the Complainant at the rear of a residence. At about 10:02 p.m., WO #6 updated that the Complainant was fighting with police officers. WO #2 advised that the Complainant was not cooperating.

Starting at about 10:03 p.m., the Complainant was said to be in custody and emergency medical services were required for a small laceration to his nose. The Complainant was subsequently transported to GRH.

RPAS Footage

WO #1 could be seen delivering a knee strike to the Complainant in the footage. The SO arrived and drew his CEW, but then holstered it and delivered three kicks with his right foot towards the Complainant, who was hanging on to a fence post with police officers trying to pull him off. The kicks were successful in getting the Complainant to let go, and he went to the ground. The Complainant resisted being handcuffed and numerous officers could be seen (aerial view, black and white images) in a scrum with him. The SO delivered four or five strikes towards the Complainant’s right side. The impact sites of the strikes could not be discerned.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the WRPS between January 28, 2025, and February 11, 2025:

• BWC footage and notes from witness officials
• BWC footage from SO
• RPAS footage
• Crown Brief Synopsis

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the Complainant’s medical records from GRH on January 29, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of January 25, 2025, WRPS officers responded to a residence near Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road, Kitchener. A resident had called police to report that the Complainant had attempted suicide. WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at the residence to find that the Complainant had left. A search was organized by the police to locate the Complainant.

The SO arrived on scene with his dog and conducted a search of a wooded area near the address. That search was discontinued when a drone operator located the Complainant in the rear yard of a nearby residence. The SO made his way to the rear yard to assist in the Complainant’s apprehension.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to locate the Complainant. They took hold of the Complainant and were escorting him off the property when he took hold of a fence post and refused to let go. The officers struggled in vain to have the Complainant release his hold. WO #4 was next on scene. He lifted the Complainant’s right leg off the ground in an attempt to free him of the fence post. With the Complainant’s body lifted in this fashion, the SO arrived and kicked the Complainant in the torso three times. The Complainant let go of the post and fell on the ground below.

There followed a further struggle on the ground in the course of which the SO punched the Complainant in the rear upper body four or five times. Following those strikes, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with several right-sided facial fractures.

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 WRPS officers on January 25, 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 injuries.

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.

The Complainant was in breach of several judicial orders by having alcohol in his system outside of his home location and being at a specified residence. In the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody.

With respect to the force used by the SO against the Complainant, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. The initial strikes to the body, whether the kick or kicks described by the SO or the other arresting officers, or the kicks to the torso and punch to the face, as indicated in another body of evidence, would not appear unwarranted. The Complainant was vigorously resisting arrest by holding onto the fence post at the time and had maintained his hold notwithstanding WO #1 and WO #2’s efforts to wrestle him free. In the circumstances, the force used by the SO would not appear a disproportionate escalation in the force brought to bear. Once on the ground, there is evidence that the Complainant continued to resist by refusing to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. Whether the four of five punches struck by the SO were precisely necessary to overcome the Complainant’s resistance, I am satisfied that they fell within a range of reasonable force. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that the common law does not expect officers involved in physical engagements to measure their force to a nicety: R v Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R v Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s facial fractures were incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they are the result of excessive force on the part of the SO. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: May 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit