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 death of a 49-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 9, 2024, at 1:10 a.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the HPS, on July 8, 2024, at about 10:49 p.m., HPS received a call for assistance from emergency medical services. Reportedly, paramedics were at a house in the area of York Road and Watsons Lane assisting the Complainant, who had a history of cocaine use. He was naked, flailing on a bed, unresponsive and pulling at the headboard. Police officers attended and found the Complainant incoherent and unresponsive. He was restrained by the police officers to assist paramedics; no other force was used. Paramedics administered multiple doses of sedation before the Complainant went vital signs absent. He was transported to St. Joseph’s Hospital (SJH) and remained in critical condition.

On July 11, 2024, the HPS advised the SIU that the Complainant had died.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/11 at 12:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/11 at 1:14 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

49-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 17, 2024.

Subject Official

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between August 1, 2024, and August 9, 2024.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 31, 2024.

Service Employee Witness

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on July 31, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on May 21, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside a bedroom of a residence in the area of York Road and Watsons Lane, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

On July 8, 2024, at 10:51:06 p.m., Hamilton Paramedic Services requested the services of HPS officers to assist with the Complainant, who was aggressive and non-verbal.

At 11:11:25 p.m., SO #2 and SO #3 saw the Complainant, who was very agitated, on his bed while his CW #1 was attempting to dress him.

At 11:15:19 p.m., HPS officers were in the bedroom with the Complainant. He was on the bed, shirtless and sweaty. He was incoherent and unresponsive.

At 11:17:18 p.m., the Complainant was restrained on the bed.

At 11:23:14 p.m., paramedics administered multiple doses of sedation.

At 11:40:01 p.m., the Complainant was not doing well.

At 11:45:27 p.m., the Complainant had no pulse and CPR had commenced.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between July 11, 2024, and August 1, 2024:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes - SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, the WO and the SEW
• Policy - Responding to Persons in Crisis
• Policy - Prisoners - Care and Control
• Policy - Restraint of Hospital Patients

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 12, 2024, and May 21, 2025:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• The Complainant’s medical records from SJH
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officials, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of July 8, 2024, SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3, together with the WO and the SEW, attended at an address near York Road and Watsons Lane, arriving shortly after 11:00 p.m. They were there following a call to police from the paramedic service requesting assistance with a patient – the Complainant. CW #1 had called 911 for help after observing the Complainant thrashing about naked in his bed.

The officers met the paramedics at the address and learned they planned to sedate the Complainant because of his agitation before transporting him to hospital. Entering the Complainant’s bedroom, each officer took control of one of his limbs, applying pressure to keep them pinned to the bed as the Complainant lay prone. Paramedics administered two doses of a sedative. While they waited for the medication to take effect, and as the officers continued to hold the Complainant’s limbs, SO #2 noticed that the Complainant had stopped breathing.

The Complainant was turned onto his back, placed on a stretcher, and taken to the ambulance for transport to hospital.

The Complainant subsequently died in hospital.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to “complications of cocaine toxicity in a man with hypertensive heart disease, atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and physical activity”.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

On July 9, 2024, the HPS notified the SIU that a male with whom they had interacted the day before – the Complainant – had lapsed into acute medical crisis. He would pass away the following day in hospital. The SIU initiated an investigation naming three HPS officers subject officials – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The subject officials were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s loss of vital signs on July 8, 2024. Following CW #1’s 911 call for help in relation to the Complainant, and the subsequent call by paramedics seeking police assistance, the officers were within their rights in doing what they reasonably could to protect and preserve the Complainant’s life – an officer’s foremost obligation.

In the discharge of that duty, I am satisfied that the subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing. It was apparent upon their arrival at the residence that the Complainant was in need of immediate medical attention, which in turn was dependent on the Complainant being sedated. In the circumstances, the officers acted reasonably when they took control of the Complainant’s limbs to facilitate his sedation by injection, being careful not to apply pressure to his back as he lay prone on the bed. This was done in full view of the paramedics and with their tacit approval. That the Complainant was kept in a prone position by the officers is itself a risk factor with respect to medical crises of this nature, whether or not additional pressure was placed on his back, but here too the presence of the paramedics and their tacit approval of what was happening must be taken into account. More importantly, the medical evidence did not identify restraint asphyxia as a contributory factor in the Complainant’s death. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the subject officials transgressed the limits of care prescribed by 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