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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On the April 5, 2025, at 2:25 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 5, 2025, at 12:31 a.m., PRP received a call from a citizen regarding a possible impaired driver. At 1:11 a.m., the Complainant was operating a motor vehicle in the McDonald’s Restaurant parking lot at 2450 Queen Street East, Brampton. Officers stopped his vehicle and, at 1:15 a.m., formed grounds to believe that the Complainant was impaired by drugs. Officers attempted to arrest and remove the Complainant from the vehicle. There was a minor struggle, during which the Complainant warned officers that his hand was already broken. Officers transported the Complainant to the Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) to have blood taken in relation to a criminal charge of drunk driving. At hospital, the Complainant was examined because of his complaint of hand pain and diagnosed with a fracture to his left ring finger.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/07 at 7:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/07 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 13, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on May 13, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Tesla stopped on the west side of the McDonald’s parking lot at 2450 Queen Street East, Brampton.

Figure 1 – Aerial image of the McDonald’s car park with orange arrow added to depict where officers located the Complainant’s vehicle [Source: Google Maps]

Forensic Evidence

PRP Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data - WO #2

On April 5, 2025, at 1:14:32 a.m.,[2] the CEW was armed.

At 1:14:33 a.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged.

At 1:14:34 a.m., the right arc button was pressed again, and electricity was discharged.

There were no cartridge deployments.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) and In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On April 5, 2025, starting at about 1:11:08 a.m., the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 had a Tesla vehicle blocked-in with their cruisers. The SO and WO #1 approached the driver’s door. The Complainant was captured slumped over in the driver’s seat. The SO knocked on the window. The Complainant did not move or respond. The SO opened the door and the Complainant remained slumped over. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s left arm, and the Complainant woke up. The SO and WO #1 told him they were police and ordered the Complainant to exit. The Complainant pressed his right foot on the accelerator. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm and his jacket near the neck and tried to pull him out of the vehicle. He ordered the Complainant out and the Complainant refused. The Complainant said, “No,” and appeared to attempt to put the vehicle in motion. A struggle ensued. The SO and WO #1 pulled and tugged on the Complainant’s arm while telling him to get out of the vehicle. The Complainant repeated, “Wait,” and pulled away from the officers.

Starting at about 1:13:53 a.m., the Complainant gave the officers a push and was able to close the driver’s door. WO #4 re-opened the driver’s door, and he, WO #3 and the SO pulled at the Complainant’s left arm and jacket collar, attempting to pull him out of the vehicle. The Complainant had a grip of the steering wheel and was trying to reach for the control panel on the dashboard.

Starting at about 1:14:17 a.m., the SO delivered four baton strikes to the Complainant’s left forearm and left hand, as the Complainant continued to grip the steering wheel.

Starting at about 1:14:30 a.m., WO #2 deployed his CEW to the Complainant’s right abdomen area. WO #3 and WO #4 pulled the Complainant out of the vehicle and placed him on the ground onto his stomach. The SO had a hold of the Complainant’s left arm and held the Complainant’s left hand to the ground. The SO moved the Complainant’s left hand to behind his back, and then he and WO #3 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back.

PRP Phone and Radio Communications

On April 5, 2025, starting at about 12:29:26 a.m., a person phoned 911 to report an unconscious man in a Tesla vehicle with loud music playing. He was at the intersection of Queen Street East and Chrysler Drive.[4]

Starting at about 1:11:02 a.m., PRP officers advised the dispatcher they had a Tesla boxed-in. The driver [the Complainant] was slumped in the driver’s seat and appeared to be unconscious. The officers requested an ambulance.

Starting at about 1:14:44 a.m., officers advised they were fighting with the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:15:39 a.m., officers advised all was in order.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between April 7, 2025, and April 16, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• BWC footage –
• ICC footage – Officer #2
• CEW deployment data – WO #2
• Notebook entries – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, and WO #5
• Training records – the SO
• Policies – Arrest & Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between April 9, 2025, and April 30, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH
• Video footage from McDonald’s

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of April 5, 2025, following a call to police from a citizen about a suspected impaired driver operating a Tesla at the intersection of Queen Street East and Chrysler Drive, Brampton, PRP officers located the vehicle stopped nearby in the parking lot of the McDonald’s at 2450 Queen Street East. The officers – the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 – surrounded the Tesla with their cruisers, exited, and observed the driver slumped in the driver’s seat. They announced their presence and opened the driver’s door when the driver failed to respond. It was only when WO #1 grabbed hold of the driver’s left arm that he awoke.

The driver was the Complainant. Upon being roused, the Complainant refused to exit the Tesla at the officers’ request and physically resisted their efforts to pull him from the car. He held onto the steering wheel tightly and attempted to put the Tesla in motion. The SO and WO #1 punched him in the head, and the latter re-opened the driver’s door after the Complainant had managed to temporarily close it.

Additional officers – WO #3 and WO #4 – arrived on scene and joined in the effort to extricate the Complainant. The SO unholstered his baton and used it to strike the Complainant’s left forearm and left hand four times. WO #2, from the back seat of the Tesla, deployed his CEW in drive-stun mode against the Complainant’s right side, after which the Complainant was removed from the vehicle onto the ground and handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left finger.

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 PRP officers on April 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 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.

I am satisfied that the SO and his colleagues were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant. The information they had received via the 911 call and their personal observations at the scene – a non-responsive driver slumped over in his vehicle with burnt tin foil at his feet – gave rise to a reasonable belief that the Complainant was an impaired driver.

I am also satisfied that the force used to take the Complainant into custody was legally justified. When verbal direction and manual force had not worked to remove the Complainant from the Tesla so he could be handcuffed, the officers were entitled to escalate their use of force to effect a prompt arrest. The officers had good reason to believe that the Complainant was impaired by drugs, and they could not afford to let him put the Tesla in motion given the attendant risks to public safety. On this record, the sharp but discrete use of the baton by the SO seems a proportionate response.[6] The Complainant’s takedown once out of the vehicle would also appear commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. The Complainant had resisted arrest to that point, and there was reason to believe he would continue to do so. Placing him on the ground would assist the officers to better manage any further resistance on the Complainant’s part.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s broken left finger was incurred in the altercation that marked his arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude the injury was attributable to criminal conduct on the part of the officers who had a hand in the incident. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit