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 April 17, 2025, at 3:19 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 1:40 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) conducted a traffic stop of a disqualified driver in the parking lot of a building in the area of Main Street East and Jasperson Line, Kingsville. The driver, the Complainant, resisted arrest and a struggle ensued involving a possible weapon. The Complainant had the SO in a headlock. The Complainant subsequently fled and the SO tackled him to effect the arrest. During the struggle, the Complainant’s leg was broken just above the ankle. He was taken to Windsor Regional Hospital – Ouellette Campus (WRHOC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/17 at 8:01 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/17 at 8:27 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 22, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness 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 14, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between April 24, 2025, and May 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a parking lot in front of a building in the area of Main Street East and Jasperson Line, Kingsville.

Physical Evidence

A SIU forensic investigator attended the scene at 10:45 a.m., April 17, 2025, photographed it, and collected various pieces of clothing from the Complainant that remained on the ground.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Video Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

On April 17, 2025, at about 1:35 a.m., the SO was in his police cruiser parked outside a building in the area of Main Street East and Jasperson Line, when a white Lincoln turned into the parking lot. Shortly after, the SO entered the parking lot and positioned his cruiser facing the driver’s side of the white Lincoln.

At about 1:36 a.m., the SO broadcast he was going to approach the white Lincoln, and he activated his emergency lighting. The SO approached the driver’s door of the white Lincoln and shone his flashlight into the driver’s compartment. The Complainant exited the Lincoln, but the camera view was blocked by another vehicle.

At about 1:37 a.m., there appeared to be a struggle, which began at the driver’s side of the Lincoln and continued to the back and then to the passenger side. The SO and the Complainant were fighting and, periodically, their heads rose above the Lincoln. About 30 seconds later, the Lincoln could be seen moving from the impact of the two men fighting. About 15 seconds later, the two appeared in front of the Lincoln. The SO had his arm around the waist of the Complainant. They fell to the ground in front of the white Lincoln. The Complainant was on the ground with the SO on top of him. The Complainant broke free and stood up. The SO grabbed the Complainant, who again broke free of the grip. As the Complainant was standing, his right foot could be seen as severely broken and hanging to the side. The Complainant, standing on what was later determined to be his tibia, continued to fight the SO. The SO pushed the Complainant against the white Lincoln but it had little effect as the two continued to wrestle.

At about 1:38 a.m., the two men went to the ground in front of the Lincoln. The Complainant was again on his knees with the SO on top of him. The Complainant’s ankle was flopping around as the struggle continued. About 30 seconds later, the SO disengaged and stood up quickly. Blood could be seen on the Complainant’s right ankle area. The SO issued commands for the Complainant to stay on the ground. He drew his CEW and pointed it at the Complainant, who was sitting up and raised his hands. The SO kicked something out of the Complainant’s hand [now known to be a cellular telephone] and the Complainant crawled towards it. The Complainant yelled at the SO, who told him to stay on the ground.

At about 1:40 a.m., WO #3 arrived and searched the Complainant.

Other police officers arrived and, at about 1:50 a.m., an ambulance appeared.

Communications Recordings – Radio

On April 17, 2025, at about 1:36 a.m., the SO broadcast he was with a vehicle at a building in the area of Main Street East and Jasperson Line, Kingsville, and provided a vehicle licence plate. There was a broadcast that the male in question was the Complainant. OPP dispatch asked how close another unit (WO #3) was, as the SO was attempting to transmit but nothing was coming through. WO #3 advised he was en route from Highway 3, and he was about three minutes away.

About a minute later, the SO transmitted, breathing heavily, “Don’t move,” and, “He is on the ground, we are going to need EMS, his leg is mangled.”

WO #3 advised he had arrived. Dispatch asked WO #3 to check if the SO was injured. WO #3 broadcast the SO was fine but indicated that EMS were required urgently.

At about 1:42 a.m., WO #3 advised a tourniquet had been applied and the male’s leg was severely injured. About three minutes later, the ambulance arrived. A second ambulance was requested for the SO.

Communications Recordings – 911

On April 17, 2025, at about 1:39 a.m., a male caller spoke with an OPP dispatcher to advise that an officer [now known to be the SO] needed assistance. The caller indicated the SO and another man [now known to be the Complainant] were in an altercation. The caller noted the SO was trying to get the Complainant to lie on the ground but the Complainant refused. OPP dispatch advised multiple police units were en route. The caller believed the Complainant was having a mental breakdown as he was not following the SO’s commands. The caller then indicated that other police officers had arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between April 23, 2025, and May 1, 2025:

• Arrest Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General Report
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Notes - WO #3
• ICC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 23 and 29, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from WRHOC
• Civilian video footage from 911 caller
• Video footage from Kingsville Car Wash

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

In the early morning of April 17, 2025, the Complainant, while operating a white Lincoln, brought the vehicle to a stop in the parking lot of a building in the area of Main Street East and Jasperson Line, Kingsville. He was a prohibited driver. A marked cruiser came to a stop in front of the Lincoln, its emergency lights activated, and an officer emerged. The officer approached the driver’s seat and asked the Complainant to step out. The Complainant exited, turned to face the Lincoln, and placed his hands on top of the vehicle.

The officer was the SO. Aware that the Complainant was a prohibited driver, the SO had observed him entering the parking lot driving the Lincoln and decided to arrest him. The SO was attempting to bring the Complainant’s arms behind the back outside the driver’s seat of the Lincoln when the Complainant broke free of the officer’s hold.

There followed a struggle in which the parties wrestled vigorously with one another around the back of the Lincoln to the passenger side and then out in front of the vehicle. The Complainant was taken down by the officer on multiple occasions but managed to right himself. He exhibited incredible strength, lifting himself with the officer on his back despite having suffered a severely fractured right ankle earlier in the altercation. The struggle lasted about a minute-and-a-half and ended after the SO rose from the ground and pointed his CEW at the Complainant. Additional officers arrived on scene and assisted in taking the Complainant into custody.

The Complainant was transported to hospital after his arrest.

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 320.18(1), Criminal Code - Operation While Prohibited

320.18 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance while prohibited from doing so

(a) by an order made under this Act; or

(b) by any other form of legal restriction imposed under any other Act of Parliament or under provincial law in respect of a conviction under this Act or a discharge under section 730.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by an OPP officer on April 17, 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.

The SO had observed the Complainant operating a vehicle while a prohibited driver. In the circumstances, the officer was within his rights in seeking to arrest him under section 320.18(1) of the Criminal Code.

It is also apparent that the SO used only reasonable force in taking the Complainant into custody. The video footage makes clear that the Complainant fought with all his strength to keep the SO at bay. Despite the officer weighing about 260 pounds with his equipment on, the Complainant was able to buck the officer off his back on several occasions and get to his feet. There is evidence that he also placed the officer in a headlock for a period of time. On this record, the SO was entitled to meet the Complainant’s resistance with like force, and did so, eventually subduing him when it seems the Complainant was no longer able to bear weight on his broken ankle.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injury was incurred in the fight that marked his arrest, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: August 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit