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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 18, 2025, at 8:07 a.m., the Kingston Police (KP) called the SIU with the following information.

On February 17, 2025, at 11:59 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #4 contacted the KP to report that her family member, the Complainant, had taken her vehicle without consent. At around 12:05 p.m., Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 attended CW #1’s residence in the area of Henderson Boulevard and Bayridge Drive, Kingston. The officers attempted to arrest the Complainant for theft of the vehicle. The Complainant, who was under the heavy influence of cocaine, resisted, and attempted to disarm both officers [firearm and conducted energy weapon (CEW)]. Eventually, the Complainant was grounded and handcuffed. At 12:30 p.m., other KP officers arrived on scene, and emergency medical services (EMS) were called as the Complainant had suffered unknown injuries. At 12:50 p.m., the Complainant arrived at the Kingston General Hospital (KGH), where he remained. It was believed the Complainant had suffered a cartilage fracture to his nose, sore ribs, and a suspected minor brain bleed. It was also understood that the Complainant was being monitored for a potential drug overdose. At no time did the Complainant lose consciousness.

On February 18, 2025, at 12:45 p.m., a SIU investigative manager contacted KP for an update. It was learned that the Complainant remained in the Emergency Unit but had not been admitted to hospital. Hospital staff were awaiting the results of X-rays and CT scans prior to his discharge.

At 4:22 p.m., KP advised the SIU that the Complainant was remanded into custody and not diagnosed with any threshold injury. He was not admitted to hospital, though he remained in the Emergency Unit given that he had been "freebasing" cocaine prior to the police interaction. It was agreed that if the Complainant was admitted to hospital, KP would notify the SIU.

On February 19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., KP informed the SIU that the Complainant had been admitted to KGH for "observation" purposes as related to the brain bleed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/19 at 10:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/19 at 11:33 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 19, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between February 20, 2025, and March 31, 2025.

Subject Officials

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 on April 2, 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

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

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

WO #8 Not interviewed; cancelled off the call, no notes

The witness officials were interviewed on March 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the main floor of a residence situated in the area of Bayridge Drive and Henderson Boulevard, Kingston.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - SO #1

At 12:29:19 p.m.,[2] February 17, 2025, Bay 1 was deployed, discharging electricity for 4.943 seconds.

At 12:29:33 p.m., Bay 2 was deployed, discharging electricity for 4.981 seconds.

At 12:29:42 p.m., the trigger was pulled, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 4.933 seconds.

At 12:29:55 p.m., the trigger was pulled, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 5.080 seconds.

At 12:30:14 p.m., the trigger was pulled, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 5.085 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - SO #2

At 12:35:10 p.m., February 17, 2025, the right arc button was pressed, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 0.741 seconds.

At 12:35:12 p.m., Bay 1 was deployed, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 4.909 seconds.

At 12:35:19 p.m., the left arc button was pressed, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 5.027 seconds.

At 12:35:25 p.m., the left arc button was pressed, resulting in an electrical discharge lasting 4.913 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

KP Communication Recordings

Transmission files numbered one to 27 dealt specifically with KP officers being dispatched to a report of a vehicle taken without consent, as reported by CW #4. CW #4 indicated that the Complainant had taken the vehicle from her home while she was asleep. Units were dispatched to the address as the Complainant was reported to have returned the vehicle and was home.

At 12:30:29 p.m., an officer voiced over the radio that a CEW had been deployed; however, it was ineffective, and the Complainant was still fighting.

At 12:34:07 p.m., an officer was heard yelling, “Let go of the taser, let go of the taser.”

At 12:34:23 p.m., an emergency panic button was set off.

At 12:40:44 p.m., the Complainant was said to be still fighting and resisting.

At 12:41:11 p.m., an officer voiced over the radio that everyone was “10-4”, but the Complainant was still fighting.

At 12:43:32 p.m., the officers were attempting to get the Complainant handcuffed.

At 12:44:00 p.m., a request was made for the status of EMS. About one minute later, an officer advised that the Complainant had a facial injury.

At 12:46:17 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed and under control. Nine seconds later, EMS was at the scene. About ten minutes later, paramedics sedated the Complainant. Ten minutes later, an officer advised dispatch that the Complainant had been struck by CEW deployments twice, and he had attempted to obtain an officer’s firearm.

At 12:59:23 p.m., the Complainant was in the rear of the ambulance. WO #3 was in the ambulance and WO #2 was following it in his cruiser.

At 1:10:29 p.m., EMS was en route to Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) with the Complainant. They arrived at KHSC approximately nine minutes later.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from KP between February 25, 2025, and April 30, 2025:

• Officer List and Roles
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications Recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Witness statements – CW #2, CW #4 and CW #1
• Scenes of Crime Photographs
• Notes and statements – WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, and WO #1
• Notes – SO #2, SO #1 and SO #3
• Use of Force Reports – SO #2 and SO #1
• CEW deployment data – SO #2 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 27, 2025, and March 18, 2025:

• Cellular telephone video recording – CW #1
• Cellular telephone photographs – CW #1
• The Complainant’s medical records from KHSC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, all three subject officials and civilian eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

At about noon on February 17, 2025, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at a residence located in the area of Bayridge Drive and Henderson Boulevard, Kingston. They were there to investigate the theft of a vehicle from the address earlier that day. CW #4 had called police to report that her family member – the Complainant – had taken her vehicle without permission. The officers entered the home and spoke to the Complainant and some of his family members. Satisfied there were grounds to take the Complainant into custody for the theft, the officers told him he was under arrest.

The Complainant objected to his arrest and there ensued a physical struggle of several minutes on the main floor of the residence. The officers had difficulty overcoming the Complainant’s resistance; he flailed his arms and feet, struck out at the officers, and attempted to disarm them of their weapons. The officers punched the Complainant’s head and torso multiple times, and used their CEWs, and still the altercation continued. SO #1 sent out an emergency request for assistance and additional officers began to arrive on scene, SO #3 the first among them. SO #3 delivered several hand strikes as well, following which the officers were able to handcuff the Complainant to the front. With the arrival of other officers, and additional punches by SO #3 as the Complainant continued to resist, the Complainant was forced into a prone position and handcuffed to the rear.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and eventually diagnosed with a subdural hematoma.

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 KP officers on February 17, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. 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 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 evidence establishes that the Complainant was subject to arrest for the theft of CW #4’s vehicle. Based on the information that had been reported via the call to police, and their inquiries at the scene, it is clear that the officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody for the theft.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the subject officials in effecting the Complainant’s arrest, the evidence does not reasonably establish that it was excessive. There is no doubt that significant force was used by the officers – upwards of ten punches and multiple CEW deployments. That force, however, was proportionate to the nature and extent of the Complainant’s resistance. Despite being outmanned and repeatedly tasered, he was able to prevent SO #1 and SO #2 from handcuffing his arms. Of particular note were the efforts by the Complainant to dispossess the officers of their CEWs and firearms. At that point, the risk to the officers increased exponentially, entitling them to escalate their use of force to prevent that risk from materializing. All in all, I am unable to reasonably conclude on this record that any of the subject officials resorted to unnecessary force in subduing the Complainant.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, there are no reasonable grounds to believe it was attributable to any unlawful conduct on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: June 13, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit