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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 17, 2025, at 3:40 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 17, 2025, the HRPS were conducting a human trafficking investigation and had obtained a warrant for the Complainant for sexual assault and firearm offences. At 6:00 a.m., the HRPS Tactical Rescue Unit and the Human Trafficking Unit arrived at a residence in the area of Woodward Avenue and Brampton Street, Hamilton, and called out to the Complainant to surrender. The Complainant fled out the rear door. Subject Official (SO) #1, SO #2, Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #2 tackled and arrested the Complainant in the backyard. The Complainant was transported to HRPS Central Lock-Up (CLU) where he initially declined medical attention. However, at 7:22 a.m., he complained of an injury from his arrest. An ambulance was called and, at 8:31 a.m., he was transported to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital (OTMH). At 2:20 p.m., the Complainant was diagnosed with four broken ribs and a punctured lung.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/17 at 4:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/22 at 11:31 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

21-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 23, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the rear yard of a residence in the area of Woodward Avenue and Brampton Street, Hamilton.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

HRPS Communications Recordings

At 3:45 p.m., April 14, 2025, a woman phoned the HRPS to report that the Complainant had posted her nude photos online and was extorting her. She agreed to meet with officers at the police station.

On April 17, 2025, SO #1 advised he could see the Complainant at a computer wearing headphones. WO #2 said, “He’s running towards the back.” Another male officer said, “Contact.”

At 6:10 a.m., April 17, 2025, the Complainant was turned over to HRPS investigators.

HRPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The Complainant was placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. His hands were handcuffed behind his back, and he was panting. Officer #1advised the Complainant of the 16 offences for which he had been arrested, and explained his rights. The Complainant mentioned he was in pain and grunted as he spoke with officers. Officer #1 asked if his handcuffs were too tight, and the Complainant said his pain was from the arrest and “getting his ass kicked”.

The Complainant was transported to HRPS CLU by Officer #2 and Officer #3. He asked if he could have his handcuffs off, and was told they could be removed when they got to the station. The Complainant said he thought he had a broken rib but, given he could talk, it might just be bruised. An officer told him to see how it felt when the handcuffs came off. The Complainant said, “That officer is a good fighter.” The Complainant asked the officers if they had anything for his pain and said he thought he could have internal bleeding. On arrival at the CLU, the Complainant was moaning and talking to himself. He again mentioned the other officer was a good fighter. As the Complainant exited the cruiser, he was hunched over in what appeared to be pain.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between April 23, 2025, and July 24, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Occurrence Report
• Search warrant
• ICC footage
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, and SO #1
• Polices - Arrest and Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On May 8, 2025, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from OTMH.

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 their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of April 17, 2025, the Complainant was in the basement of his home – a residence in the area of Woodward Avenue and Brampton Street, Hamilton – when he was alerted to the presence of police outside. He exited through a door onto the rear patio and was confronted by SO #1, armed with a C8 rifle. A dog handler – WO #1 – and her dog were also in the rear yard. The Complainant was pulled to the ground by SO #1 and subsequently handcuffed behind the back with the assistance of SO #2.

SO #1 and SO #2 were part of a team of officers that had convened at the scene to execute a search warrant and take the Complainant into custody on a number of criminal offences, including human trafficking, child pornography and sexual assault. In a briefing earlier that morning, the team learned that the Complainant’s alleged victim had previously seen him with two guns in the residence.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with four fractured left-sided ribs and a punctured left lung.

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 HRPS officers on April 17, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 on very serious criminal offences and was subject to arrest by the subject officials.

With respect to the force used by the subject officials during the Complainant’s arrest, I am unable to reasonably conclude that it was unwarranted. There is evidence that the Complainant did not immediately lower himself to the ground at the direction of SO #1, which would have concerned the officer given the information the police had about firearms in his possession. In the circumstances, SO #1’s takedown seems a reasonable tactic as it would quickly detract from the Complainant’s ability to bring a weapon into play. There is a body of evidence that once on the ground, the Complainant was at the receiving end of about 20 kicks and punches, all delivered while he offered no resistance. However, that account is at odds with the force described by SO #1 in his notes. According to the officer, he pressed down with his knee on the Complainant’s back and punched him once in the head to overcome his resistance when he flailed his arms and refused to surrender them for handcuffing – a not unreasonable use of force. The nature and extent of the force used by SO #2 is unclear, albeit it seems he struck the Complainant as well. That alone cannot reasonably establish excessive force in light of the evidence of the Complainant’s resistance. On this record, there being no reason to believe that one rendition of events is any likelier to be closer to the truth than the countervailing narrative, there are no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Complainant was the victim of unjustified force.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s injuries were incurred in the physical engagement 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