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 injuries of a 52-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 5, 2025, at 11:15 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 5, 2025, at 3:28 a.m., a Witness Official (WO) located a silver Toyota Corolla in the Town of Halton Hills. A routine licence plate check showed the licence plate was ‘unattached’. She followed the Corolla believing the driver to be impaired. The WO turned on her emergency equipment to conduct a traffic stop and the Corolla sped off. The officer used her police radio and reported the incident. A short time later, a tire deflation device (TDD) was deployed on Tenth Line by the Subject Official (SO). The Corolla drove over the TDD, deflating the tires, but continued for a short distance and came to a stop at a private residence situated on Tenth Line south of Wellington Road 42. The driver [now known to be the Complainant] exited the Corolla and tried to flee from police. Both the WO and the SO pursued the Complainant on foot and momentarily lost sight of him. The officers heard the Complainant yell out and learned he had fallen into a ditch. The Complainant was arrested after a brief struggle and handcuffed. He complained of pain to his right shoulder and paramedics were called. The Complainant was transported to Georgetown District Hospital (GDH) by paramedics. At 9:00 a.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right clavicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/05 at 11:39 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/05 at 1:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 17, 2025.

Subject Official

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

The subject official was interviewed on May 23, 2025.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on April 29, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the end of a private driveway on Tenth Line south of Wellington Road 42. The area contained a 1.5-metre high retaining wall and a snow-covered footpath at the bottom of the wall.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - the WO

At 00:31 minutes into the video, a vehicle [a HRPS cruiser driven by the WO] was captured following a sedan [now known to be a grey Corolla driven by the Complainant]. The Corolla was travelling erratically along Tenth Line, which was wet and slushy due to rain.

One second later, a second HRPS cruiser appeared in camera view driven by the SO.

Twelve seconds later, the SO’s cruiser travelled past the Corolla.

Five seconds later, the Corolla veered right, left the roadway proper and entered a private driveway.

Eighteen seconds later, the Corolla continued down the driveway, and travelled into a snowbank at the end of the driveway.

Thirteen seconds later, the WO’s cruiser travelled up to the Corolla’s rear bumper.

Three seconds later, the Complainant exited the Corolla through the passenger door. He tripped and fell onto the snowbank. Two seconds later, the Complainant stood and continued to move forward into the darkness, disappearing from camera view.

Five seconds later, the WO walked across the front of the cruiser in the direction of the route taken by the Complainant.

Six seconds later, the SO appeared in camera view walking to the passenger door of the Corolla. Four seconds passed when the SO, with his sidearm drawn, looked down a stone embankment or fence to where the Complainant had disappeared from camera view.

Four seconds later, the SO holstered his sidearm and jumped from the high elevation [now determined to be a retaining wall] out of camera view.

Five seconds later, the SO came back into camera view, appearing to struggle with the Complainant. After seven seconds, the SO climbed out of the ditch or embankment alone.

Eight seconds later, the Complainant was lifted out of the ditch into camera view by the SO and the WO. It appeared the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

Thirty-three seconds later, the Complainant was escorted out of camera view.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS on March 6, 2025:

• Occurrence Report
• Notes - the WO
• ICC footage - the WO
• HRPS Policy - Vehicle Pursuits

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from GDH on April 22, 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 early morning of March 5, 2025, the WO was in her cruiser patrolling in Halton Hills when she came across a Toyota Corolla stopped in a cul-de-sac. The vehicle was missing its front licence plate and there was a male in the driver’s seat with his head in his chest. The officer ran a check of the vehicle’s rear licence plate and learned that it was not registered to the Corolla. Suspecting the driver was impaired, the WO turned on her emergency lights intending to approach and speak to the driver. The Corolla, however, began to travel, entering onto Tenth Line and accelerating northward. The WO radioed what had occurred.

The driver of the Corolla was the Complainant. He continued north on Tenth Line for about five kilometres and drove over a spike belt deployed in the northbound lane. His tires began to deflate but he continued to drive for another two kilometres before turning into the driveway of a property situated on Tenth Line south of Wellington Road 42.

Aware that the pursuit was headed in his direction, the SO, also on patrol at the time, had laid the spike belt before returning to his cruiser to join in the chase with the WO. The officers had positioned their vehicles ahead of, and behind, the Corolla when it turned right onto the driveway. They followed the Complainant and brought their cruisers to a stop behind the Corolla, which had stopped in front of a snowbank beside a garage.

Just prior to the officers’ arrival, the Complainant exited the front passenger door of the Corolla and travelled on foot a short distance before, failing to recognize in the dark that he was on a retaining wall, he fell and landed on the other side – a drop of about a metre-and-a-half.

The SO was the first to reach the Complainant on the other side of the wall, joined shortly by the WO. Following a physical engagement of some type, the Complainant was taken into custody.

The Complainant was subsequently diagnosed at hospital with injuries that included a fractured right clavicle and dislocated right shoulder.

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.

Section 320.17, Criminal Code - Flight from Peace Officer

320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by HRPS officers on March 5, 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 WO had cause to investigate the Complainant for a traffic infraction when she came across him inside a vehicle without proper licence plates. When the Complainant fled in the Corolla and refused to stop, the WO and the SO were also within their rights in pursuing the vehicle in order to arrest the Complainant for flight from police contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force used by the officers in aid of the Complainant’s arrest, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that any unwarranted force was brought to bear. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant did not resist arrest when confronted by the SO and the WO, but was nevertheless struck repeatedly in the rib cage. This evidence must be approached with caution as it is belied to an extent by the Complainant’s preceding and protracted effort at escape. It is also at odds with the WO’s rendition of events. The officer participated in the arrest and said that the Complainant fought his arrest by flailing his limbs. As for the SO, in an account that suggests only proportionate and necessary force was used, he concedes having delivered multiple knee strikes to the Complainant’s torso, but says he did so to overcome his physical struggle. The parties were in the dark and the SO, concerned the Complainant might have a weapon, was focused on restraining him as quickly as possible. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the account of undue force is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the SO’s, and some reason to doubt it, there are no reasonable and probable grounds to believe the force used was unlawful.

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

Date: June 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit