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 54-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 31, 2025, at 1:07 p.m., the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 5, 2025, at 12:02 p.m., the Complainant filed a LECA complaint about an interaction she had with police officers from the Brantford Police Service (BPS). The Complainant indicated she broke her knee during her arrest on February 19, 2025, at her residence in the area of West Street and Henry Street. She was released the next morning after being charged with causing a disturbance. After her release she attended the Brantford General Hospital (BGH) and was diagnosed with a right displaced transverse patella fracture.

The SIU contacted the Complainant on March 31, 2025, to confirm the injury. On April 9, 2025, the Complainant provided copies of medical records confirming a fractured patella (knee).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/10 at 11:57 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/10 at 12:08 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

54-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 12, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 12, 2025, and May 11, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on April 17, 2025.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on April 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the hallway of an apartment complex in the area of West Street and Henry Street, Brantford.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Booking Video

On February 19, 2025, the Complainant appeared on camera in the booking area. She was limping. The conversation at that time was unintelligible. WO #2 and the SEW were present. The Complainant told WO #2 her shin had been kicked and demanded photographs be taken. WO #2 explained to the Complainant that she had been arrested for causing a disturbance and she would be held in custody until she was sober. Both WO #2 and the SEW were involved in the Complainant’s booking intake. At 12:42 a.m., February 20, 2025, WO #1 could be seen walking with the Complainant as she complained of pain to her knee and asking that pictures be taken. The SEW searched the Complainant. The video showed her favouring her right leg and limping, and saying her knee, “Really, really hurts.” Throughout her intake and time in a cell, the Complainant repeated she was kicked by WO #1 and she complained her knee hurt several times.

Communications Recordings / Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 8:28 p.m., on February 19, 2024, CW #2 called the BPS and requested police attend his location at an address in the area of West Street and Henry Street, Brantford. A man, Witness #1, had threatened to assault and kill him.

At 8:30 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were dispatched to investigate, arriving at 8:34 p.m. The police officers indicated they were having an issue gaining entry and asked for a keyholder.

At 8:39 p.m., the SO reported she had one person in custody [now known to be the Complainant].

At 8:54 p.m., the SO requested an additional police officer attend to assist, at which time WO #3 was dispatched to attend.

At 8:55 p.m., WO #1 told the dispatcher he was transporting the Complainant to the BPS.

In-car Camera (ICC) Recording – WO #1

On February 19, 2024, at 8:43 p.m., the ICC from WO #1’s police vehicle captured the Complainant being escorted by WO #1 to his vehicle. The Complainant was handcuffed with her hands behind her back, shoeless, and favouring her right leg. The Complainant repeated her knee was in pain and requested to go to the hospital. The SO told her she would not be brought to hospital.

Once she was placed in the rear seat and transported to the BPS station for lodging, the Complainant began a belligerent rant at WO #1. She would not listen to her caution or her rights to counsel. She threatened to sue the police and made threats against the witnesses who were present. She stated she only had three beers.

WO #1 tried again to read her the caution and rights to counsel, but the Complainant said she was deaf. After going back and forth, WO #1 read her caution and rights to counsel as the Complainant yelled over him. At one point, the Complainant kicked the door of the police vehicle with her injured leg.

At 9:01 p.m., the Complainant reached the BPS station, cell area.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between April 15, 2025, and May 12, 2025:

• Booking and sally port video recordings
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Arrest Report
• ICC footage - WO #1
• Notes of the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, and the SEW
• General Occurrence Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Medical records from the BGH were received from the Complainant on April 9, 2025.

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

In the evening of February 19, 2025, officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of West Street and Henry Street. CW #2 had contacted police to report that he had been threatened by Witness #1.

The SO arrived on scene with WO #1 at about 8:30 p.m. They had made their way to the residence to investigate the threat when their attention was drawn to a quarreling couple by a fire escape door – the Complainant and Witness #1. The SO dealt with the Complainant and attempted to calm her. The Complainant remained boisterous and was told by the officer she was under arrest for causing a disturbance. When the Complainant did not willingly give up her hands to be handcuffed, the officer forcibly took her down. The Complainant broke her right knee on impact with the floor.

The Complainant was handcuffed, lifted to her feet and escorted outside for transport to the station. She repeatedly noted that her knee had been injured - to the arresting officers and the intake staff at the police station - but no arrangements were made for medical attention.

The following day, on release from police custody, the Complainant attended hospital where her injury was diagnosed.

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 175(1), Criminal Code – Causing a Disturbance

175(1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

- - -

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of her arrest by BPS officers on February 19, 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.

There is evidence that the Complainant behaved in an unruly and disruptive manner just prior to her arrest in the hallway of the apartment complex - yelling and screaming, and catching the attention of other tenants, who peeked out their doors to see what was transpiring. In the circumstances, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO was without lawful grounds when she decided to arrest the Complainant for causing a disturbance contrary to section 175(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

It would also appear that the force used by the SO in aid of the Complainant’s arrest was not without warrant. A claim that the Complainant was compliant with her arrest is belied by her belligerent behaviour towards the SO just before the officer attempted to handcuff her, and the weight of the witness evidence, which describes the Complainant physically resisting arrest just before the takedown. If the Complainant did struggle against the SO’s efforts to take her into custody, as the evidence suggests was likely the case, then a takedown made sense as it would position the officers to better manage her resistance while effecting their purpose.

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

Date: July 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit