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 WO #3s 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 WO #3s 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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 18, 2025, at 2:15 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 18, 2025, the NRPS Emergency Task Unit (ETU) assisted the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) with a warrant to search the Complainant’s residence in Ancaster. At 5:00 a.m., NRPS officers entered the residence. The Complainant resisted but was taken into custody. After the arrest, the Complainant was taken to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH) and, at 12:29 p.m., diagnosed with a broken nose and broken orbital bone.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/18 at 3:46 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/20 at 6:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 20, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 27, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 27, 2025, and March 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the living room of the main-floor of a residence situated in the area of Wilson Street West and Trinity Road South, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

There were two video cameras at the residence. When examined, it was found that their Secure Digital (SD) cards had been removed and no footage was available.[3]

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS and HPS between March 19, 2025, and April 3, 2025:

• HPS Occurrence Report
• Copy of Search Warrant
• HPS Operations/Incident Plan
• The Complainant - Prohibition Order
• The CW - Undertaking to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)
• HPS Detention Report – the Complainant
• Notes - the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the HGH on April 1, 2025.

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

In the early morning of March 18, 2025, members of the NRPS ETU gathered at the St. Catharines station for a briefing in relation to a search warrant execution at a residence in the area of Wilson Street West and Trinity Road South, Hamilton. A joint forces operation involving the NRPS, the HPS and the OPP had identified the resident of the house – the Complainant – and his girlfriend – the CW – as being involved in the trafficking of drugs. A warrant naming the Complainant had been secured to search the home for drugs and other illicit material.

The ETU, including the SO, made their way to the address, arriving at about 4:30 a.m. With information in their possession of possible firearms in the house, the plan was to conduct a dynamic entry into the residence. A dynamic entry entails a team of heavily-armed tactical officers storming a scene, using the elements of speed and surprise, to disorient subjects and take them quickly into custody.

At about 5:00 a.m., the ETU made entry through the front door using a battering ram. One or more distraction devices were deployed into the residence. The SO, armed with an Anti-Riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN), entered behind several other officers, and made his way to the living room where he encountered the Complainant on a sofa. The officer physically engaged the Complainant before taking him to the floor. Following a further physical interaction on the floor, the Complainant was secured in ties.

Custody of the Complainant and the CW, who had also been arrested in a bedroom, was transferred to waiting HPS officers. The scene was searched by the HPS, and a quantity of drugs and a firearm were located.

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

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 NRPS officers on March 18, 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 named in a search warrant intended to gather evidence of illicit drug trafficking. In the circumstances, the SO and the ETU had lawful grounds to arrest him.

With respect to the force brought to bear by the SO, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably establish it was unlawful. There is a version of events proffered in the evidence in which the Complainant at no point resisted arrest, but was nonetheless thrown to the ground by an officer before being repeatedly struck. In contrast, the SO, in the notes he provided the SIU, says that the Complainant struggled against the officer’s efforts to ground him, and that he reacted by punching him twice to the left side of the face. Though neither WO #1 nor WO #2, the other officers who assisted in the Complainant’s arrest, saw the SO deliver two punches (they each observed one punch), both officers agree that the Complainant was at the time attempting to pull away from the SO on the sofa. Aside from WO #1, who says he delivered an additional punch to the ribs of a still struggling Complainant on the floor, none of the three officers describe any further strikes. Assuming the officers’ accounts to be true, it would appear the takedown and strikes were necessary to quickly overcome a resistant subject whom they had cause to be concerned had access to firearms. On this record, there being no reason to believe that the version of events depicting undue force is any likelier to be closer to the truth than that proffered by the officers, the evidence in its totality does not give rise to a reasonable belief that the force used by the officers was unwarranted.

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

Date: July 16, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit