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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 6, 2025, at 10:52 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 5, 2025, at 4:38 p.m., police received an intimate partner violence (IPV) call from Civilian #1. Civilian #1 stated that Civilian #2’s ex-partner, the Complainant, had attended her residence at Guelph Line in Milton. The Complainant was subject to a court order from a previous domestic violence incident not to have any contact with Civilian #2. Uniformed police officers responded and determined that the Complainant was arrestable for forcible confinement and breach of an undertaking. The Complainant, alone in the residence, refused to exit and surrender. Containment was set up around the residence, and emergency medical services (EMS) and the HRPS IPV Unit were engaged. An IPV investigator prepared a Feeney warrant[2] for entry. The warrant was issued at 10:42 p.m. Further attempts to contact the Complainant for a peaceful surrender were unsuccessful so the matter was treated as a ‘barricaded person’ incident. After numerous attempts to establish communications, the HRPS Tactical Response Unit (TRU) began a search of the residence to locate the Complainant. At 1:34 a.m., February 6, 2025, the Complainant was located in the home. He resisted and was combative. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, and the Complainant sustained a cut to his face. He was assessed by tactical emergency medical services (TEMS) and taken to Milton District Hospital (MDH). At 7:02 a.m., police officers at the hospital were advised that the Complainant might have sustained a facial fracture. At 9:45 a.m., hospital staff confirmed the Complainant had sustained a complex blowout fracture of his right eye.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/06 at 11:18 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/06 at 2:55 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 12, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 7, 2025, and February 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a bedroom on the second-floor of a residence situated on Guelph Line, Milton.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On February 6, 2025, at 1:34:00.137 a.m.,[3] WO #1 pulled the trigger of his CEW, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged at 1:34:00.399 a.m. for 1.06 seconds. At 1:34:01.433 a.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 2 was deployed and, at 1:34:01.761 a.m., electricity was discharged for 3.890 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data – The SO

On February 6, 2025, at 1:33:50.988 a.m., the SO pulled the trigger of his CEW, Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged at 1:33:51.251 a.m. for 0.662 seconds. The trigger was pulled again at 1:33:51.923 a.m., and electricity was discharged at 1:33:52.325 a.m. for 4.950 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Communications Recordings

On February 5, 2025, at 4:38 p.m., the HRPS received a call, which was transferred from the OPP. Civilian #1 reported that Civilian #2 had told him that she and her ex-partner, the Complainant, had quarreled. It was unknown if the dispute was physical. Reportedly, the Complainant had taken Civilian #2’s cell phone and would not allow her to leave the residence. Civilian #1 had driven past the property five minutes before he called the police, and had seen the Complainant’s vehicle on the lot. Subsequent information indicated that Civilian #2 had left the residence and was staying in a hotel. She was unaware that Civilian #1 had called the police. There were no weapons on the property. The Complainant had been previously charged with possession of cocaine and had a history of heavy alcohol use. Civilian #1 advised that the Complainant had broken into Civilian #2’s residence about a month prior. There was no history of mental health issues for either party. Civilian #2 had retrieved her telephone from the Complainant. Civilian #1 was concerned about Civilian #2 due to prior domestic violence and abusive behaviour. Civilian #1 indicated he was parked at a nearby gas station. He was advised to keep his telephone on.

At 4:44 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 advised they would telephone Civilian #1.

At 6:07 p.m., the same police officers were en route to see Civilian #1. Officer #3 and Officer #4 also attended.

At 6:12 p.m., a request was made for the attendance of the HRPS Canine Unit.

At 6:29 p.m., Officer #3 and Officer #2 had a position on the north side of the residence, with a view of the vehicles on the lot. They confirmed that the Complainant’s vehicle was present.

At 6:55 p.m., Officer #5 advised that the front light had just come on, and that the south-side door opened and closed. Officer #6 advised she could see movement, but was unable to tell if it was a man or a woman.

At 6:56 p.m., Officer #1 advised that the Complainant, if mobile, could be arrested.

At 7:01 p.m., Officer #1 broadcast that the subject, the Complainant, could be arrested for a domestic-related breach of release order and forcible confinement. The mission was to arrest the Complainant and bring him into custody as safely as possible keeping the safety of the victim as the highest priority. Officer #1 called Civilian #2 on her cell phone to come out the front or right side.

At 7:18 p.m., Civilian #2 came out the door, and she confirmed that the Complainant was in the residence.

At 7:20 p.m., Officer #1 called the Complainant to have him surrender. Three more calls plus three loud hailer callouts were made with negative results.

Communication continued regarding the containment of the residence.

At 9:34 p.m., an IPV detective advised that a Feeney warrant application would be submitted in the next couple of hours.

At 9:53 p.m., a man dropped a comforter out of a second-floor window, at the rear of the building. The man [believed to be the Complainant] partially exited the window and was instructed to go back inside and come out the front door with his hands up.

At 11:03 p.m., Officer #1 advised the light on the main floor had just turned off.

At 11:12 p.m., the HRPS IPV Unit had the Feeney warrant, and they would arrive at the staging area at about midnight. A floor plan of the residence was obtained.

On February 6, 2025, at 12:35 a.m., the TRU entered the driveway.

At 12:36 a.m., the TRU made callouts and used a siren. By 12:39 a.m., the TRU had made multiple callouts, and used loud hails and sirens, but nothing was heard or seen.

At 12:42 a.m., the incident commander broadcast the mission statement, and advised that the Complainant was inside the residence, and was arrestable for a criminal offence.

At 12:52 a.m., the TRU made entry and located several external cameras. A loaded crossbow was located. Someone reportedly turned on a light on the second-floor. Rooms were cleared on the second-floor and, at 1:28 a.m., the TRU were said to have activated their night vision devices (NVDs).

At 1:31 a.m., the TRU entered the last room on the left and, at 1:34 a.m., contact was made. The Complainant reportedly resisted arrest, and a CEW was deployed.

At 1:36 a.m., the Complainant was in custody and TEMS were brought up to the room.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between February 6, 2025, and February 13, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Statement – Civilian #1
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Civilian Witness List
• Crown Brief
• Feeney
• General Report
• HRPS Policies - Use of Force; Tactical Rescue Unit; and, Intimate Partner Violence
• HRPS Tactical Unit - Colour Codes for Structures
• HRPS Tactical Unit –-Call-signs
• List of Involved Police Officers
• Notes - Officer #2, Officer #7, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5
• CEW deployment data

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records between February 18, 2025, and March 4, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from the Halton EMS, and
• The Complainant’s medical records from MDH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of February 5, 2025, a HRPS TRU team, including the SO, were deployed to a scene at Guelph Line, Milton. Following a call to police about a domestic disturbance at the address earlier that afternoon, uniformed officers had attended at the residence to arrest the Complainant. When the Complainant refused to exit the home and submit to arrest, the police decided to obtain a Feeney warrant and dispatch the TRU to execute it.

With the warrant issued, the TRU, led by WO #3, entered the home through the front door following multiple callouts that went unanswered by the Complainant. A loaded crossbow was found on the main floor. The team proceeded to the second-floor and began to clear the bedrooms. Entering the last bedroom, the officers observed a deflated air mattress on a bed. They lifted and removed the mattress to find the Complainant.

The officers physically engaged the Complainant on the bed. WO #3 and the SO deployed their CEWs, and WO #2 punched the Complainant four times in the face. The Complainant was eventually taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was seen at hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured right orbital bone.

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 HRPS officers on February 6, 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.

The Complainant was subject to arrest for being present at the address in violation of a court order that he not have any contact with Civilian #2, a resident of the home.

With respect to the force used by the TRU members in taking the Complainant into custody, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing it was unlawful. The SO and his team would have had information to believe that the Complainant would physically resist arrest. Civilian #2 had described the Complainant as belligerent and hostile towards her on that date. And the Complainant had failed to respond to multiple attempts by police to communicate with him. The loaded crossbow that officers came across would have also given them cause for concern. On this record, the officers acted reasonably when they promptly took hold of the Complainant after finding him under the deflated mattress. There is some evidence that the Complainant did not resist arrest but was nevertheless tasered multiple times and punched in the face. That narrative is belied to an extent by the Complainant’s preceding behaviour. It is also contested by the accounts of the officers, which in their totality indicate that force was brought to bear after the Complainant refused to surrender his arms to be handcuffed. On their evidence, the use of the CEWs, which failed to incapacitate the Complainant, and the punches would appear an appropriate use of force given the risks he presented and the corresponding need to handcuff him as soon as possible. In light of this conflict in the evidence, and there being no reason to believe the more incriminating rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that of the officers, and some reason to doubt it, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the TRU officers, including the SO, transgressed the limits of permissible force under the criminal law.

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

Date: May 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit